The Instigator
Chase200mph
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Beginner
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Faith is an irrational belief

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,482 times Debate No: 30333
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (73)
Votes (1)

 

Chase200mph

Pro

The ‘Opening Argument’, ‘Original Post’ or ‘Proposition’ is this…..While there are many intellectual, logical, and educated people out there that still believe in a Christian (god?) Jesus Christ. These same people have no intellectual, logical or educated reason for doing so.

Intellectual: for the purpose of this debate depicts: “having a highly developed ability to think, reason, and understand, especially in combination with wide knowledge based in logic”

Logic: based on facts, clear rational thought, and sensible reasoning.

Educated: for the purpose of this debate depicts: “having the benefit of experience or knowledge gained through fully accredited sources that demonstrate rational thought and sensible reasoning”. Yes accredited sources can be rebutted with other fully accredited sources.

Faith: for the purposes of this debate is to put ‘trust’ in a person's promises without previously assenting to, or believing in that person's claim to such confidence’ (Catholic dictionary). In short, Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support.

X: Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support.

Y: There is no evidence of Jesus Christ (the foundation of the Christian religion), therefore the Christian religion, belief in Jesus Christ is based in only in faith…. and faith is an irrational belief in something that offers no support in order to have been believed in in the first place.

Z = Conclusion, Christian are irrational concerning beliefs about Jesus Christ. While there are many intellectual, logical, and educated people out there that still believe in a Christian (god?) Jesus Christ. These same people have no intellectual, logical or educated reason for doing so.

X + Y = Z

The way I see it, to defeat the opening Atheist argument, all one has to do is invalidate the support and prove the premise is wrong about faith, or prove the inference wrong about the existence of evidence for Jesus Christ, or prove the conclusion is unsupported or invalid because of the premise or inference. Nevertheless, the default position is ‘STILL’ the Christian position that there is a Jesus Christ and the burden of proof is with the con.
Have I missed anything, this is my first debate here….. : )
Beginner

Con

Sounds interesting, let's do this. :)
Underlying the resolution is the claim that intellectual, educated and logical reasons for faith, specifically for Jesus Christ, are nonexistent (the former two are somewhat redundant). Unfortunately, these reasons do, actually, exist.
I will now go straight to the heart of this debate and directly propose intellectual, educated and logical reasons for faith.

When we, as human beings, take several steps back and look at life, we will begin to ponder its purpose. What are we here for? The generic conclusion is that man is just another life form and should push the thought of purpose into the background and, instead, live life to the fullest. Hence terms such as, YOLO or Carpe Diem and other such nonsense. Others conclude life to be meaningless that there is no purpose for our lives. We just are. Reflection on life leads ultimately to the thought of death. We live for such a fleeting instant that it seems almost unfair. Our existence is so irrationally short that some are driven insane by this thought. Others are tortured by time. The habits of life, as Beckett adquately put it, are the great deadeners. Time itself is something we love and hate. Time s man's ultimate possession. Our lives are set under the confines of time that none of us have yet to escape. How does our society dole out punishments? A child has its time taken away (timeouts). In the adult world, a criminal has his time cut short (prison) or completely taken away (capital punishment) depending on the degree of crime. There is nothing we cherish more than time. Our times with our loved ones, our childhood times, times of happiness, nothing we do escapes time. The more an intellectual tries to delve into this concept; to truly comprehend our inane existence, the more he/she is given toward irrationality.
An excerpt on the brilliant Geoffrey Pyke:
"Pyke was given a commission to look into the problems of the National Health Service and, characteristically, made his contribution as a part of a minority report.[64] He remained eager to convey his unconventional ideas, he wrote and broadcast. He campaigned against the death penalty,[65] and for government support of UNICEF[66] But the more he thought about trying to achieve a better world, the more pessimistic he became –." [1]

The ephemereal nature of life is, in most cases, counterbalanced by religion. In fact, the worst of living conditions usually have the highest count in the religious: In order to better control & pacify the African American slaves under the pretext of white supremacy (the burden of 'educating' the uneducated), many slave owners push the spread of Christianity among the African American masses. It no surprise that the idea that suffering had a purpose was eagerly accepted. Slaves were henceforth better able to bear their otherwise unbearable situation. It was with logic, that of suppression, that gave rise to faith.

Intellectual
The intellectual is prone to practicality as this is what makes the it categorically intellectual. It is practical toward the appeasement of the intellectual/rational mind to assume faith, especially one similar to that of Christianity. By taking up faith, one is able to relieve many of the tortures of mankind which non-faith fails to theoretically solve. The theory of a supreme being, of purpose, mollifies the mind and gives it a greater capacity toward directing thoughts in other directions. The extremely controversial issue of life no longer acts as a potential factor in limiting one's intellectual capabilities toward meaningless contemplation. Hence, the intellectual decision of chosing faith.

Logical
Let us take Christianity for example. Objectively, it is prudent, logical to have backups. When a Photoshop artist edits an image, he/she usually makes a duplicate copy of the image in order to preserve the ordinary copy in case of irrevocable errors. This copy, which may not be necessary, is good to have as it would save the artist proportionally less effort than if the copy was never made.
Similarly, it is good to have a religion (Christianity in this case) as a safeguard against the possibilities of eternal torment. While the photoshop artist saves 2-5minutes of undoing/reobtaining an original copy of a ruined image, the religious saves an eternity by giving practice to a religion. A peaceful mind gives rise to greater productivity. It is established fact that an agitated/nervous mind is less capable than a more placid/sharp mind.

Conclusion: There are intellectual/educated and logical reasons for faith. Resolution anulled.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...


P.S. "There is no evidence of Jesus Christ.." Really now? What about the bible, the scriptures, all the documents and testaments written in support of his physical existence as a historical figure? Did thousands of people suddenly decide to make up a person and a religion out of nowhere? Hahahahahaha
*Please ignore the postscript as it is only a commentary to the opposition to a statement CON finds absolutely amusing*
Debate Round No. 1
Chase200mph

Pro

The argument is not a philosophical debate on whether there are possibilities that exist as interactions between faith and intellectual/education and logical. The default position and burden of proof that you accepted and rebuke is against this"

X: Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. (NOTE: you have provided no evidence, quotes, or otherwise that it is not true)

Faith: for the purposes of this debate is to put "trust" in a person's promises without previously assenting to, or believing in that person's claim to such confidence" (Catholic dictionary). In short, Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. (You have suggested without support, quotes, or evidence that the bible meets and disables the argument and thus make this inference an omission of reason, it does not and you fail to cite why it even should)

Beginner: (You state) P.S. "There is no evidence of Jesus Christ.." Really now? What about the bible, the scriptures, all the documents and testaments written in support of his physical existence as a historical figure? Did thousands of people suddenly decide to make up a person and a religion out of nowhere? Hahahahahaha

The bible is NOT a fully accredited or academically acceptable source, having demonstrated absolutely no historical relevance as noted by every fully accredited discipline in every fully accredited institution of Higher Learning in this Country. Bible renderings are hearsay, non-contemporary and anonymous renditions, and nothing more. The Vatican (foundation for all Christianity) doesn"t even dispute this fact. This should be common knowledge to anyone having read the bible unless you wish to argue that the English names assigned to the anonymous apostles are somehow Arabic? They sound more like missing names for a Beatles rock group"why is that I wonder? It"s because you are confusing the Epistles who wrote about accounts they heard from others about the supposed encounters with the anonymous (and invisible) apostles who never wrote anything about Jesus themselves.

There are no historical accounts of Jesus who was alleged to have been crucified in the year 33 CE: Here are your sources".Self Proclaimed historians that render NON first party accounts of Jesus who could NOT have directly known him because of the years that separate them from the mythical event as demonstrated by listing there birth and deaths. Yet these individuals offer the only accounts of Jesus and none of them are contemporary witnesses.
Josephus (37 CE " c. 100 CE)

Tacitus (56 CE " 117 CE)

Pliny the Younger (61 CE " c. 112 CE)

Lucian of Samosata (125 CE " after 180 CE)

Here are some writers who "would have been contemporaries" of Jesus and interestingly enough they never mentioned him at all, and despite the Gospel folklore claims that he was known far and wide:

"
Philo Judaeus (20 BCE - 50 CE)

Seneca (4? BCE - 65 CE)

Pliny the Elder (23? CE - 79 CE)

Beginner: ("Did thousands of people suddenly decide to make up a person and a religion out of nowhere? Hahahahahaha")
Your round one PS response, the only issue I really need to address, because until you return to my OP (argument), it all comes down to what you skimmed across in your PS and missed completely in your opening Statement"..as all the terms are defined and already agreed upon.
Your PS in part is little more than a fallacy argumentum ad populum. In other words an "Appeal to the people or gallery". This is where you attempted to win acceptance of an assertion (the bible is historical) by appealing to a large group of people believing in the unsupported dogma of popular doctrine about Jesus. This form of fallacy is "often" characterized by emotive language. Example: Hahahahahaha

Nevertheless, to answer your question and in an attempt to get things rolling I offer this".. YES, Jews started worshipping Jesus generations AFTER the empty claim of his existence was made. I further this claim and state despite the existence of over 40 Active Historians and the scribes of the Emperor no account was ever given for the existence of Jesus Christ during his supposed lifetime.
The bible is not a valid source, and you have yet to offer a validation for the bible or for wikipedia.org as neither are holding to such esteem as you believe them to be. This is your duty, you need to provide validation the bible (and not just refer to it) as the bible and its god"s are the default position and therefore your burden as Clarified from the beginning. Until then, I will add as an example of its invalidity".while the bible can be studied in any public school, the bible cannot be studied FROM in public school as it is NOT a valid historical reference*".again, common knowledge.

* Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University and whose findings are listed at http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com...
And she states".

"It is undeniable in my opinion that Judaism and Christianity before Nicaea were not monotheistic religions (as we define it today). In fact, one can question whether Christianity ever really became monotheistic - all depends on how convinced you are that the doctrine of the Trinity actually resolves the polytheism of a Father and Son being worshiped.
The first Christians were Jews. They had no problem worshiping Jesus alongside the father god almost from the start. I think that this worship was pre-Pauline, and centered in Antioch, although I do not rule out Jerusalem (see my paper in the book Israel's God and Rebecca's Children, "How we talk about Christology Matters"). They thought that Jesus was God's great angel who came to earth as a human being and was exalted to the angelic status of the NAME angel at his resurrection.
I could go on and on. My point is this. Early Judaism and Christianity were not monotheistic religions, but were at best monalotrous (=worshiped one god but allowed for the existence of other gods). It was because of this that Christianity was able to be born out of Judaism as a Jewish expression of a new form of Yahwehism, and Gnosticism could become the fancy of Jewish intellectuals living in first-century Alexandria. This must mean that the program of some of the post-exilic priests to make Judaism a monotheistic religion DID NOT WORK, as in fact the wisdom literature and Sophia traditions prove in my opinion. This had to wait until the rabbis came along and created what many consider the basis for modern Judaism, and insisted that all forms of worship other than YAHWEH be banned. Whether or not the bishops and church theologians ever really made Christianity monotheistic depends on how well one thinks that the Nicaea decision and later the doctrine of the Trinity really worked."

In short, if there is no one true God exists until the yokes of Jewish polytheism was subdued and IF only god"s plural are mentioned in the Jewish bible (&O/T), then no son of the one true god exists and thus any history or interaction with only one true God would be false as any one true God having a son, and there are many sources that deal with this issue in detail.

Resolution annulled"..I don"t think so, because you failed to address the OP completely for one thing. If you wish to readdress the bible in the next round where we can both cite sources or lack thereof".then by all means let"s do so. Until then, faith remains the irrational belief that feeds the belief in Jesus Christ"..and it does so without intellectual, educated and logical reasons as there has been no evidence presented to the contrary. If this were not true, you would have already posted this evidence.

Looking forward to your response".
Beginner

Con

Obviously my opponent has experience debating the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure. In fact, I remember reading this very debate last year (was that you? :))
Apologies for the digression.

My opponent seems to think I haven't addressed the issue presented, but my contentions were very relevant. My opponent's proposition states that the belief in Christianity, a form of faith, is irrational. This opening argument functions as an explanatory setup of the resolution and its parameters, effectively telling CON what CON's position is.
If we are to enter the semantic arena and conduct a debate in which both sides enforce a pedantic adherence to the resolution, then I believe CON's argument's in round 1 are still in the green.
PRO proposed Christianity as a representative of faith, CON takes Christianity and applies it widely to all religion. Since Christianity, as a religion, is, as my opponent states, a 'belief in something without benefit of evidence or support', other religions fall under the same category. My opponent does not deny this.
Consequently, my use of faith in religion as a rational backup to the potential events of an eternal afterlife proves that a belief in something without the benefit of evidence of support (this something being religion in this case) clearly has logical foundations.
PRO completely ignored this form of correlation and digresses into a tangential argument which is, I believe, much more 'offtopic' than CON's premises. A substantial portion of this round's refutal by PRO is against PRO's digressive comment which, one, has nothing to do with the resolution and, two, should have been ignored (per CON's request). Jesus Christ's existence is completely irrelevant as CON's contentions center around faith in any religion, not solely Christianity.
My assertions are based on Jesus' (God's, Buddha's, etc.) potential existence. I think it would be prudent to attempt an assault through this medium.

Direct Refutation
"The argument is not a philosophical debate on whether there are possibilities that exist as interactions between faith and intellectual/education and logical. The default position and burden of proof that you accepted and rebuke is against this"
The first sentence is slightly unintelligible, but here I address my audience: Have I not directly contended within the resolution's boundaries? Consider the resolution: Faith is an irrational belief. My opponent proposed Christianity as a subset of faith to represent faith, but faith ultimately should not be limited to Christianity, but religion. The case CON elicits by assigning logical reasoning to the very specific faith of Christianity, while relevant, could also be diversified within debate parameters. I simply am not able to see how I am debating on an irrelevant tangent. PRO has no burden of proof and argues CON to be guilty of complete digression when, in reality, PRO has been digressing his refutations on a should've-been-ignored postscript commentary. I would like to ask PRO to create solid relevancy between the postscript & its subsequent refutations to the resolution at hand.

"X: Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. (NOTE: you have provided no evidence, quotes, or otherwise that it is not true)"
True, I did not deny this definition, but I do not have to. In fact, I embrace this definition with all its constraints. If you haven't caught on, my premise claims faith, the unevidenced, unsupported belief in something, is rational. Round 1 establishes several cases for this premise. Take the word irrational out of the resolution (Faith is an irrational belief) would leave: 'Faith is a belief" which is redundant since faith is, by definition a belief. Basically: a belief is an irrational belief. I'm becoming lost in your redundancies.

It is obvious that CON did not establish his premises the way PRO had expected, but that does not debase CON's very relevant contentions into the area of irrelevancy. Every point CON has established has been, thus far, relevant while PRO's round 2 refutation has argued completely insubstantial points toward CON's premises.
Nice try, but I don't see: "Jesus Christ most probably never existed as an/the actual, physical historical figure" so I see no reason to base my debate on the probable existence of Christ.
I extend everything I didn't reiterate from round 1.

*Just for fun (don't reply to this unless you have extra space, seriously. >.>)*
" fallacy argumentum ad populum. In other words an "Appeal to the people or gallery". This is where you attempted to win acceptance of an assertion (the bible is historical) by appealing to a large group of people believing in the unsupported dogma of popular doctrine about Jesus"
Isn't that what all facts are? THe masses assert something is true, then it is true. How is it not true? Let's look at it this way: Language is an agreement by the people to categorize certain things into a conceived sound. So milk is only milk because people agree it's milk. If 99% of the world claim that the thing you are typing on, that which we currently call a keyboard, is milk, wouldn't you, not the masses, be wrong in saying otherwise?

"In short, if there is no one true God exists until the yokes of Jewish polytheism was subdued and IF only god"s plural are mentioned in the Jewish bible (&O/T), then no son of the one true god exists and thus any history or interaction with.."
What are you trying to say? God =/= Jesus. God is a supreme entity that, granted, exists only in the human mind thus far. Jesus is a physical being who was actually 'alive'. Or so they say. Nothing is sure. It is impossible to be sure of anything. Surety is based on probability. If there is a 99.99999999999999% chance that your computer is really just that, a computer, then you would be sure it's a computer. However, there is a 1x10^x% (put any number on x) probability that your computer is a super cyber-robot hamster ninja transformer who is sent to earth to spy on you everyday, when you're at home, asleep, awake.. when you're eating.. kind of like Santa Claus, but I digress. This infinitesmally small possibility, since probability is based on possibility, creates the chance that your computer is, indeed a super cyber-robot hamster ninja transformer. You can't know 100% that it is not. It is possible is it not?
It's very unlikely and very improbable, but the possibility exists, thereby creating an alternate condition to your computer that may or may not be true.
What I'm trying to say is that, although there is no absolute evidence Jesus existed, there is evidence nonetheless, and the evidence exists. The evidence exists in more than one place, it exists in many MANY places: the probability of Jesus' existence is thereby increased manyfold over the probability of a computer being a super cyber-robot hamster ninja transformer. Everyone's existence, even yours, is based on claims.
Let's say you claim.. Napolean exists. I claim he does not since there are no real historical records. You claim he does since people have recorded his many actions into documents. Testimony to his existence exist in which people say they saw him. I reassert his nonexistence since these are other people's words. Since they are other people, their claims aren't proven to be true. People have actually seen him you say. SO the saying goes, but that's not proof enough, since they're only saying. You are denying Jesus' existence based on lack of absolute evidence, but absolute evidence is impossible since nothing has absolute evidence. 100% authenticity does not exist. You can claim it exists, but that doesn't make it any more true.
*blergh* vomit of words.
*remember {who you are and what you have become}, don't respond to this unless you feel you've adequately addressed the issue at hand and have extra space.*
Debate Round No. 2
Chase200mph

Pro

A debate is a discussion or structured contest about an issue or a resolution. A formal debate involves two sides: one supports a resolution and one opposing it, (in the cause of this debate, X+Y=Z). Such a debate is bound by rules previously agreed upon. Source: http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca...
Con does not negotiate or question the formal formula, or its formalities, and accepts the challenge and conditions of the challenge without reserve even if he did not understand them at first.
A formal debate is the examination of tangible, imperial evidence which requires citations to examine the credibility of the evidence supporting the claim being made. Without cited evidence to address the alternatives of both sides, one is left with little more than disagreement based in emotions and void of Logic. If I walk away from a debate having lost it is of little consequence, if I walk away without learning something new (in this case Christianity and or the bible), I have failed. This is why the parameters for this debate were set up in the opening statement as they were, once the debate system in this forum was engaged, I (we) had little choice but to carry on"..losing both time and precious publishing space because the clock was now ticking even though it took up two rounds to get on topic.
The Challenge was based in values set in the noted in the values assign to X plus Y equals Z (a formal formula). Con"s opening results in a lengthy collation of a redirect aimed at RE-defining the semantics that were already agreed upon, and then redefining criteria and derailing the topic matter, and this is clearly a breach of the rules and the default position assigned to the con.
Con then recants and accepts and confirms the value of X and I quote,
"Chase/Pro, X: Faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support. (NOTE: you have provided no evidence, quotes, or otherwise that (this) is not true)"
Beginner/ Con: Recants, "True, I did not deny this definition" but I do not have to. In fact, I embrace this definition with all its constraints.

My closing argument for X. Con recants and concedes that the value X is correct, faith is belief without the benefit of evidence which is irrational UNLESS for the purpose of this debate valid evidence (constraints) of Jesus can be presented the argument remains intact and valid.

The formal value for Y. Con"s only challenge to the properties of Y is twofold,. Con reputes the requirement to address the value of Y and run off to an unrelated tangent into oblivion, and the PS, at the bottom of the page in round two of which I"ve quoted below.
Con states don"t respond to this, "What about the bible, the scriptures, all the documents and testaments written in support of his physical existence as a historical figure? Did thousands of people suddenly decide to make up a person and a religion out of nowhere? Hahahahahaha" *Please ignore the postscript as it is only a commentary to the opposition to a statement CON finds absolutely amusing
Con"s emotional position is the collective works of the bible, the trouble is there are many bibles and over 38000 Christian denominations with conflicting and varying interpretations and Con fails to post which text , which book, and which bible and what Christian view he believes makes the bible a valid source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. Not all Christians believe the bible is a historical source; I listed one source and quoted her and she states even the Old Testament fails as a historical source. Con fails to list which Christian position he feels counters the argument AND satisfy the conditions of this debate.
I cited a common knowledge source. This source is found in our public school system which allows for the bible to be studied, but not studied from because the bible is not considered a historical document. On the other hand, Con"s submission does not pass the test of evidence to have been even considered, nor was this supposed evidence ever identified let alone validated as Con makes no attempt to do so. Con asks Pro not respond to the unspecified retort he has given, unfortunately for the Con, this is the only time he addresses the conditions of the debate. Con"s notes the Pro"s effective "Historical Knowledge" of the bible and asks if I have debated this already (or if I was the same person he was thinking of), in short, Con validates my knowledge and accidently validates my claim as to what is and is not historical according to the bible regardless if I were right or wrong in my renderings.
Con fails the test of the burden of proof in the second round which was clearly spelled out in Pro"s challenge". I repeat, the value and properties of Y remains undefeated and unchallenged. I addressed the issues of the bible as evidence and sourced my assertion even though I would normally NOT be required to. I did so just in case Con attempts another foul and tries to add new argumentations, material, references in the closing round.

The formal value Z: There is no evidence of Jesus Christ (the foundation of the Christian religion), therefore the Christian religion, belief in Jesus Christ is based in only in faith". and faith is an irrational belief in something that offers no support in order to have been believed in in the first place. Remember now, X was unchallenged, Y was undefeated and not addressed by Con own admission because he believe falsely he didn"t have to, so X plus Y equals Z if and if Z is supported/validated, then there is but one choice"Pro"s argument stands.

Since I have some extra room here".
Con states several times he does not need to address this issue of Jesus as it is irrelevant. I fail to see how a conclusion that my FORMAL argument can be held in contempt as he claims. Con inserts his own ideas and beliefs and then attempts to Straw Mans my argument by trying to diminish the importance of Jesus Christ as it applies to Christianity. I have to admit, this is the very first time I felt like I needed to drop the Pro"s position just to defend Christianity, Jesus Christ, and the bible from further blasphemy. Con plays at appeasing the audience by making an attempt to amalgamate his beliefs based in the value of the bible. Yet Con"s disingenuous attempt fails him, because as the audience already knows, if he really believed in the bibles historical relevance, he would be a Christian striving for salvation instead of praising only the atheistic views of Buddhism.
I truthfully wish that the Christian side of this debate could have been defended or at the very addressed. I would hope that our Judges (the audience, not the Christian god) will take serious consideration in enforcing the rules of debate just as much as I hope (hope a form of faith) that the Pro"s side will not be discriminated against for having the burden of an atheistic position, even though this position was truly never "exorcised""..< a little Christian joke/pun. : )

PS, Con, most Christians know the bible was NOT written by God, I guess this is because God didn"t want his signature forged on a credit card any more than he wanted atheists ( Buddhists) claiming it came from one solitary book/works. In short, in this debate Con brings a well written football to a basketball court and attempts to validate the football and re-write the game.
I hope this posts correctly this time....... : S
Beginner

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his reply. Now then..
Since my opponent is so keen for CON to adhere to X, Y and Z to explain CON's premises, CON will gladly do so:
CON's argument, based on the resolution, accepts X (faith: the belief in something without benefit of evidence or support) as the formal definition of a key word within the resolution. CON then accepts PRO's argumentation using Y (there is no evidence of Jesus Christ --> therefore belief in Jesus Christ is form of faith) as a subset X. Notice PRO's attempt at redefining X, creating a new definition of X within Y. This is, in essence, an unending definitional loop CON chose to ignore; CON therefore holds that X, as the primary definer, supersedes the sub-definition within Y. PRO then adds X + Y to create Z (Christians are irrational in holding faith in Christianity/Christ. CON denies Z and all its wider implications toward the resolution which covers all faith in general, essentially touting a form of relevancy within X (faith). and attributes rationality to X while denying Y's relevancy.
If PRO intended X, Y & Z to be part of the debate parameters, he did not make that clear. Surely the reader agrees with CON that Z, the conclusion drawn from X & Y, are introductory contentions.
PRO obviously had misconstrued the debate he wished to have in setting up a completely irrelevant resolution, that is, if his denying of CON's arguments' relevancy were true.
It's like setting up a resolution claiming marijuana a health-inducing agent and then proceed to set up entirely different contentions about marijuana's economic benefits. Close, but not quite..
Let me reiterate my premise with X, Y & Z: X, a factor within the X + Y = Z equation, is a rational belief and has, contrary to PRO's claims, logical & intellectual supports. These were further elaborated in round 1.

Let me quote round 1: "The ‘Opening Argument’, ‘Original Post’ or ‘Proposition’ is this…..While there are many intellectual, logical, and educated people out there that still believe in a Christian (god?) Jesus Christ. These same people have no intellectual, logical or educated reason for doing so."
By creating this opening argument & its subsequent definitions, my opponent implies these an elaboration on the resolution, effectively creating debate parameters. CON assumes Christianity to be the subset of the main component within the resolution: faith. Unless my opponent intended the resolution to be: Christian faith is an irrational belief, I feel no need to constrain my arguments within the confines of Christianity. My opponent then proposes X+Y=Z. CON immediately sees this as a premise,not a parameter.

KEY: "The way I see it, to defeat the opening Atheist argument..."
These opening lines to the last paragraph of round 1 only serve to deepen the fact that CON's side of the resolution is to defeat the opening arguments, which claim that those who believe in Jesus Christ have no intellectual, logical or educated reasons for doing so. CON does not have to argue through these proposed paths. CON provides intellectual/educated and logical reasons, effectively defeating the opening argument. The rest of this last paragraph within round 1 attempts to place a restraint upon CON's potential areas to which he can turn to attempt an argument. These are based on 'the way I see it'. Basically, it is PRO's opinion that CON can only negate the resolution through the methods provided. WRONG!
CON negates PRO's resolution through alternate and viable means outside of 'the way I see it"
Just because I did not set up my premises your way, doesn't mean they are the wrong way. You might as well create all my arguments for me too.

The result: CON's relevant contentions that provide intellectual/educated & logical reasons for faith are completely unrefuted. CON basically wins.

"imperial evidence which requires citations to examine the credibility of the evidence supporting the claim being made"
I've made my case within the philosophical area of debate, meaning sources for statistics are unnecessary. What do you want me to do? Source my brain? PRO fails to provide reason against CON's applying philosophical logic toward negating the resolution.

"I fail to see how a conclusion that my FORMAL argument can be held in contempt as he claims."
I fail to see how it can not be. As you mentioned in your final paragraph, X+Y=Z are supporting premises to a resolution that provide a possible route by which CON can take to negate the resolution. I created an alternate argumentative position which eliminated the need for me to address premises that ultimately lose potency. Once again, they are potential positions that I could have chosen as media through which I could conduct side of the debate, but not iron parameters. As I've Your FORMAL arguments are only claims and can all be refuted. I only chose to refute the legitimacy of Y and the veracity of Z. X, I accepted. I am allowed to refute these since they do not fall under the untouchable category of debate parameters. If they were part of those, I can't deny them.

CON's constant repetition of the legitimacy of his premises can't get any clearer.


By not addressing any of CON's relevant contentions and by claiming CON's concessions to several irrelevant or componential contentions (such as Y & Z), by elaborating a refutation down one of the three paths toward negating the resolution which CON is not limited to (The way I see it..), by ignoring CON's requests and continuing down these tangents, PRO concedes CON's philosophical logic presented in round 1. CON wins.

Debate Round No. 3
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
Sorry it took so long to see your post here, this debate forum site format makes all kinds of problems for me that never seem to end. My posts are chopped up when I cut and paste, when I try and write with in the sites parameters it freezes up and all my securities bells and whistles go off. My smart phone isn"t so smart and my grammar goes off reservation trying to fight it. My commas turn into quotation marks and so on".LOL, okay enough of my whining. : )
Faith is what it is and nothing more, while all faith is still irrational, you make it sound as if everything needs to BE rational in order to be good. This isn"t necessarily true, love is always irrational: nevertheless, love is even an evolutionary necessity. Man makes more out of love than it really is, but this too is normal. Animals express what could be considered love, some mate for life, some mourn the dead, and it is sometimes a necessity for social structure (and survival) to love or mourn. It can also be socially destructive as well, empires were lost over love, grieving and so on. Point is this, all use of faith doesn"t have to be rational which is good because it can"t. What has to be rational is our actions, if our actions are somehow excused by faith, then our actions are excused by the irrationality of the act.
Posted by jp1999 4 years ago
jp1999
Hi Chase, nice to see you commenting here again.

Above all of your logical, and very intellectual arguments I see only one thing I fail to completely understand:

"all faith is irrational and religious faith is not any different."

I understand your concept here, but I cannot see how you believe that even non-religious faith is irrational. By definition, I must agree with your decision about all faith. But this is only by definition, I agree with a word having a general meaning - why? its easy to generally understand by a larger mean of people - but I have to protest for the margins either side of a definition.

Everyday, paradoxes are being investigate. But a paradox is something that is currently unexplained by Science. We dont make a scientific assumption, I agree, though as it would be too irrational. But lets take a different type of paradox, one where we can simultaneously prove the existence of a divine power, and prove that not all Scientific judgments are as rational as we think.

That argument is of course, the big bang theory.

I dont want to discuss this through the power of this comment thread/debate, which very few people read now. Im wondering wether you would be interested in a debate?
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
: )

Just an FYI, I am still having trouble posting...it takes so many tries. I've now had complete paragraphs disappear.....it is really *issing me off...LOL!
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
R13; Richard Dawkins
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
jp1999 1 month ago

jp1999
I hate to be rude Chase, but lets put it in this perspective.

Lets say my son has been diagnosed with Cancer. The doctors say they will do their best to cure him, even though he could well die. I hope that my son doesn't die and I hope that the doctors will cure him, I have faith that my son won't die and faith in the doctor's skill that he will cure him.

Answer: Okay".

That faith is not irrational! Besides the religious arguments over rationality and belief; everyday, common faith, is more often than not, rational. Your statement: "All faith is all irrational all the time..... : )" says that a mum hoping their son pulls through cancer is irrational?

Answer: This is a really good question, is hope irrational, the answer is yes it is. But is your hope without otherwise rational thought in this situation, the answer of course is no. Not everyone that is diagnosed with and incurable cancer dies. If everybody with cancer dies, if death/cancer is imposable to be misdiagnosed, then the answer changes back again.
Let me change this up a bit, is it irrational for you to hope that your son will never dies, the answer is yes it is completely irrational as everybody dies.

I would love to hear your (or anyones) thoughts. But let's keep this purely common and away from religious faith, as that is a different kind of rationality to this.
Answer: Faith is faith and nothing more, all faith is irrational and religious faith is not any different.
Posted by jp1999 4 years ago
jp1999
I hate to be rude Chase, but lets put it in this perspective.

Lets say my son has been diagnosed with Cancer. The doctors say they will do their best to cure him, even though he could well die. I hope that my son doesn't die and I hope that the doctors will cure him, I have faith that my son won't die and faith in the doctor's skill that he will cure him.

That faith is not irrational! Besides the religious arguments over rationality and belief; everyday, common faith, is more often than not, rational. Your statement: "All faith is all irrational all the time..... : )" says that a mum hoping their son pulls through cancer is irrational?

I would love to hear your (or anyones) thoughts. But let's keep this purely common and away from religious faith, as that is a different kind of rationality to this.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
You claim all faith is irrational, but you use it all the time. Everyone does.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
Rationality is purely subjective... neither of us can make an absolute case for or against.
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
All faith is all irrational all the time..... : )
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
No, it is the same. Both kinds all believing something without evidence. The only difference is people think religion faith is wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Chase200mphBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I can not vote as I can not get through the cross arguments of the debate......I will re-tract my vote and leave a tie.