The Instigator
beefcurtians
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ALPHAHAWK116
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Faith is pointless

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...
beefcurtians
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 238 times Debate No: 105945
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

beefcurtians

Pro

Faith is the willful suspension of logic. It demeans the hard work of science to explain the complexity of the universe by simply believing illogical nonsense without the burden of proof (religion). It has no place in a society of advanced science.
ALPHAHAWK116

Con

Faith is good in small doses like "my cat will survive the hurricane" faith is bad when its " i will live to see far in the future " but your argue ment make sense
Debate Round No. 1
beefcurtians

Pro

I see your point, but im arguing more along the blind belief of religion opposed to hoping my cat with survive. It also really blows my mind to think about scientists who are religious. One moment they are logical and criticizing of all information, then they go home and turn to bronze age stories about talking snakes.
ALPHAHAWK116

Con

it seems u think well i give this debate to you cuz u speak wise and smart. ur word sound right so i give up and u win.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by I_just_plant_the_seed 1 month ago
I_just_plant_the_seed
@beefcurtains

Faith literally translates as firm persuasion, or a complete trust in something. And whether you like it or not, when you make claims such as "science is supposed to work that way", you have exercised faith. Now faith does not mean "believing without evidence, or in spite of evidence", but is actually complimentary to evidence; in fact, the more evidence a person has, the stronger their faith will be.

So you are clearly talking about blind faith here. But what is important here is that blind faith is also not "believing in spite of evidence", but rather "believing when there is no empirical evidence available".

To summarize, you have regular faith as a firm persuasion of something which is strengthened by evidence, and then you have blind faith, which is a firm persuasion even when there is no evidence readily available. Neither mean "belief in spite of evidence."

The first type of faith is used by every person every day, and thus, is not useless. On the other hand, the second is only useless if you are viewing life through a naturalistic lens. Obviously if you are going to argue that blind faith is useless, you can not merely do so as it relates to a materialistic worldview, but instead look at how it benefits the people who actually do use it.
Posted by beefcurtians 1 month ago
beefcurtians
@i_just_plant_the_seed - The beautiful thing about science is that it can change if better information comes to light. If a scientist is lying in their report, they will be found out when the next person tries to recreate their results. And science is supposed to work that way, theories are tested and retested until we have some certainty in the results.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 month ago
FollowerofChrist1955
STILL cannot present a living creature created by a SINGLE evolutionary experiment. That proves ... Origin of Life," DID NOT" crawl out of the primordial ooze!

So science has FAILED to explain how humanity got here? We could not have evolved ? Because Science Has not gotten a single specimen to crawl out of the microscopic World, into the Real World of Men.

God did it, and Hell is where you naive rear ends are going! Remember, your the ones that can"t prove Gods real, because YOU haven"t looked!

As to "FAITH", you jokers are waaaay off. Mans idea of faith, and the Faith God speaks of are completely different! You"d kniw that IF you were a Christian. But I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you, and am content that you HAVE been warned of your consignment to Hell solely based on YOUR refusal to accept God!

Ezekiel 3 says you will die IN your SIN, and after that hell and judgement! Your bloods on your own head now!
Posted by I_just_plant_the_seed 1 month ago
I_just_plant_the_seed
How do you know that scientists are honest in their reports?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 month ago
PowerPikachu21
beefcurtiansALPHAHAWK116Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "it seems u think well i give this debate to you cuz u speak wise and smart. ur word sound right so i give up and u win." - Con, round 2. Since this is a clear concession, the win goes to Pro. Pro's argument that religious faith ignores the need for evidence also isn't refuted, so more points to that. Neither side used sources, insulted, or spoke gibberish, so those points are tied.