The Instigator
adamsmith1984
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ProNoob
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Faith is Dangerous to the Individual and His/Her Society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,288 times Debate No: 30102
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

adamsmith1984

Pro

Faith, which is the belief in a person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary, needs to be challenged because that faith can be very dangerous for the individual or the society which shares the same faith-based idea set. Once faith is adopted, the individual or groups of individuals faithfully believing in the proposed idea or concept (regardless of how ridiculous or absurd their faith is) are more apt to commit atrocities in the name of their faith. That point has been proven over and over again when an individual decides to carry out the ultimate act of faith (dying in the name of their faith). Please understand that when I am speaking of faith, I am speaking of religious faith and not faith in your doctor, faith in your pilot etc. Other usages, such as faith in your doctor, or faith in the police, have quite different explanations and are not relevant here.
ProNoob

Con

Is it dangerous to have faith in the idea of faith being dangerous? The answer is no.

While pro appears to advocate that believing in something regardless of proof would be dangerous they fail to understand that if one is fortunate enough to blindly have faith in the concept of faith being stupid they'd actually be no danger to anyone at all.

Having faith in pacifism, faith in logic, faith in scientific reasoning is , although blind and irrational, not DANGEROUS to anyone at all.

Let use observe the justification pro attempts to give for it being dangerous.

"Once faith is adopted, the individual or groups of individuals faithfully believing in the proposed idea or concept (regardless of how ridiculous or absurd their faith is) are more apt to commit atrocities in the name of their faith." How can one fight for pacifism? If one has faith in the lack of any violence or causing of harm can they truly ever be dangerous at all? The answer is a clear and solid no.

In fact because they would believe in pacifism regardless of any proof whatsoever, they'd inevitably never be able to be converted to doing harm as their faith is define as being "belief in a person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary"

If anything a person with no faith whatsoever is the easiest to convince to do atrocities as one need only supply them with 'proof' of the benefits and they'd do it. Such as the Kamikaze pilots of Japan who were not killing in the name of God but merely out of the willingness to serve a country regardless of their Taoist/Buddhist faith. Faith is not dangerous if one has faith in something that isn't dangerous.

To claim any and all faith to be dangerous to an individual and his/her society is to say that one who has faith in a harmonious self and society is dangerous to it (clearly the irony is too blatant).

I conclude that faith is not dangerous to an individual and his/her society unless the concept one has faith in happens to coincidentally be a dangerous one.
Debate Round No. 1
adamsmith1984

Pro

That was all very entertaining. However, my opponent has clearly misunderstood the definition of faith as well as pacifism. Pacifism is not a faith driven concept or idea; in any way shape or form. Pacifism is, by definition, "The refusal to participate in war or military service because of such a belief." There is no faith required to simply not act. At the same time, pacifism might be the result, or end state of a faithfully driven idea, religion or concept that advocates pacifism, but in no way is faith actually required to practice pacifism itself.

I digress simply because I feel it would be completely superfluous to argue a logic that has no place in a debate that is dealing with the dangers of faith.

From Islam to Christianity, they all share the same belief, which is, "anyone that holds a different belief than us will burn in hell." This belief or idea has been responsible for some of history"s greatest atrocities. It is very similar to racism, "everyone who does not have the same skin color or comes from a different ethnic background is sub-human." Here is how the faithfully religious folks reason:

1. Our beliefs are the truth and anyone else that believes differently is wrong.
2. If you do not accept our beliefs, you will burn in hell.
3. The people who proclaim differently are putting people"s souls in grave danger.
4. If necessary, we will stop people from proclaiming differently by force.
5. It then follows that the use of force in the name of our faith and in the name of our religion is justified.

Because of this, many atrocities have been committed in the name of faith. The Buddhists were still committing human sacrifices until the mid 19th century. Muslim Jihads as authorized in the Koran, killed millions over the span of TWELVE centuries. Suicide bombers and murder in the name of god are all examples of atrocious acts stemming from faith. Faith permits people to believe what they want to believe without any evidence to the contrary.
ProNoob

Con

My opponent in round one never stated this 5 point bullsh*t system of reasoning which he/she assigns to be 'faith reasoning'.

In fact my opponent's five point system is refuted by the fact that they defined faith as " the belief in a person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary" and yet has failed to realise that not all faiths even have a hell to begin with and additionally faith in Buddhism entails faith in pacifism for this is part of the religion.

It is thus a false assumption to link faith to violence if the faith is in a religion that advocates pacifism.

All my contentions remain.
Debate Round No. 2
adamsmith1984

Pro

I quote, "and yet has failed to realise that not all faiths even have a hell to begin with and additionally faith in Buddhism entails faith in pacifism for this is part of the religion." First, I will remind my opponent that even Buddhism has killed in the name of it"s faith. Moreover, simply because certain faiths are not on the extreme ends of it, does not take away from the fact that faith, in and of itself it is ALWAYS the root cause of an atrocious act being carried out when it is in the name of religion.

My opponent seems to be speaking of religious moderates. We must understand that some faiths are committed to permissiveness and diverseness while others would destroy the earth in it"s entirety if heresy could be ended. Moderates often attempt to take the "righteous" high road by recognizing the equality of ALL faiths (Buddhism). However, as long as religions such as Islam believe that only it"s practitioners will be saved on the day of judgment, then he cannot possibly have respect for other faiths; and violence follows as I"ve already pointed out.

In closing, faith is not necessary; in fact, it is harmful. A faith-based idea set is harmful because it intentionally constrains the efficacy of the individual. Faith can enable an individual or group to believe what they want, regardless of how ridiculous or crazy that belief may be. For example, at the core of Islam, there is a belief in Jihad and martyrdom and faith is the only motivator. Faith explains why a man can blow himself up in a crowded area and think of it as a win for his religion. People who faithfully believe they have god"s permission, enable actions that an average, faithless person would not think of. The torturing women, mutilating children"s genitalia, who would do such things without first employing faith? THIS is faith and this is why it"s dangerous.
ProNoob

Con

ProNoob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by adamsmith1984 4 years ago
adamsmith1984
Hi Flip...Faith IS dangerous; absolutely.
Posted by Flip 4 years ago
Flip
Faith is dangerous...or faith can be dangerous?
Posted by adamsmith1984 4 years ago
adamsmith1984
Not at all...I'm using ONE of the dictionary provided definitions. "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." So, what you've done is took the other definition and said that the one that is being used, for the purpose of this debate is invalid...which is simply not so.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
You're using a faulty definition of faith. Faith in God is no different than faith in your doctor, etc. Faith is not "blind faith," but a faith based on reason and evidence.
No votes have been placed for this debate.