Faith is virtuous.
Debate Rounds (3)
Faith is virtuous.
The spirit--an ironic word choice--of the debate
To have people demonstrate why believing things without proof rather than beliving things with proof is virtuous.
Definitions (changeable in comments as long as Pro and Con consent)
Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Virtuous - having or showing high moral standards, generally good.
Pro has the Burden of Proof and 30,000 characters to demonstrate that faith is virtuous, and rebuttal anything from Con.
Con is Rejecting The Resolution and only has 20,000 characters with which to rebuttal.
Buena suerte! Except I reject the claim that suerte even exists...may your good fortunes be deserved.
I accept the terms of this debate and side that Christain Faith is Virtuous as which faith was not defined.
The definition of Virtuous is Christain faith is as so "Virtue is more than just doing the right thing when it is convenient. It means having the fortitude to make right decisions in every area of life, regardless of opposition from outside influences" (What is the Biblical Value of Virtue?).
The Bible's commandments
You might also find it helpful to remember:
I will argue these are virtueous
Also, Pro could have used the rest of their characters for round 1 to actually make claims about whether or not these virtues are demonstrably virtuous, but didn't, so the debate is slightly limited.
Let's look at the commandments, which Pro noted in his demonstration of faith being virtuous. In Judaeo-Christian belief, god is making sure that his people are not committing these acts, so he always knows if they are sinning or not. Don't work on the Sabbath, don't kill, don't cheat on your spouse, don't steal are all actual behaviors you have to act on to commit, so god can judge you accordingly.
The 10th commandment however, no wanting another's possessions, doesn't even need to be acted on, it is a crime of thought. Punishing people for thought crimes as an ultimate authority is immoral and were it a law in a government, North Korea's people would have more civil rights. Seriously, we have governments with laws of murder, robbery, and perjury, but could you imagine if a government could punish you for thinking something? Even if you were silent about your thoughts...simply your neurons fire and you are punished for your sins. To me, it does not show high moral standard to punish people for thought crimes. Disgusting totalitarianism does not a virtue make.
I'm not super religious, but I assume Capital virtues are the counterparts to their sins, but why is chastity a virtue?
Not having sex leads to fewer people and more sexual frustration. Couldn't the virtue just as easily have been "sexual moderation" rather than telling people they can only have sex within marriage or not at all? This virtuosity of this virtue needs to be demonstrated.
Also the capital virtue of Liberality seems to contradict the cardinal virtue of Prudence...it's like saying "Spend freely and use caution." In which case I would ask Pro which one of those is a virtue? Being careful, or spending freely? If spending freely is a virtue then why should I exercise caution while I'm doing it? Conversely, if I'm consistently exercising caution, why should I spend freely?
Is Temperance (self-moderation/sober living) a Cardinal Virtue or a Capital Virtue? If it is the case that temperance is both, Pro should explain why there is a distinction between Cardinal and Capital. If it is the case that it was a typo, no biggy.
All of the virtues do not require beliefs based on spiritual apprehension, except for faith. Being optimistic, giving to the needy, being careful, being fair, being sober, being resilient, being humble, spending freely, being submissive, being abstinent, and working persistently all are devoid of any spirituality. But faith requires that you completely and unconditionally trust the authority of these virtues, that you use spiritual apprehension rather than proof to affirm your beliefs, and that doing this is of high moral standard.
If unconditionally trusting something based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof is a virtue, then one of Christianity's theological virtues should be Gullibility, or being gullible. Faith removes your brain's filter for false information, because faith requires no evidence and celebrates the lack of it. With faith, you're instructed by your authority to unconditionally trust him without any proof, and this lack of proof is a virtue that you should use to substantiate your beliefs. Substantiating beliefs with lack of proof is immoral, because it is purposefully dishonest.
I reject the claim that faith is virtuous, because being gullible is indistinguishable from faith, and being gullible is not virtuous because it recklessly allows for false beliefs. Also, I reject Pro's claim that all of Christianity's virtues are virtuous, because Chastity limits the creation of human lives, and the inability to exercise Liberality and Prudence because of their contradictory nature leaves one unable to fulfill all virtues making one immoral in the eyes of Christianity's virtues.
Pro should now explain how Christian virtues are virtuous.
CON: "Why should I consider anything the bible says to be authoritative on matters of high moral standards?"
Why? becouse I am also aloud to set the standards of the debate as 1rst round is Acceptance and you forfeit the match if you refuse my request, thats a reason.
regarding the 10th commandment: "Punishing people for thought crimes as an ultimate authority is immoral" (CON).
First of all the 10th commandment is not a thought crime as God is not Big Brother or a goverment... It would be a sin at heart,
and punishment for it would not be immoral, as immoral is defined as followed and the Christain God is the highest judge; as
“For He comes to judgethe earth: He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth” (Psa.
96:13) and not only is he the judge of what is good and moral he is the most perfect judge;
“Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works” (Psa. 145:17). David also declared, “Your judgments
are true and righteous altogether” (Psa. 19:9).
and he does not judge by somebody simply thinking something he judges by your obsession of it...
For example: Your neighbor has a car you like, and you want a car just like it is not coveting
but perhaps your neighbor has an awesome boombox in the back of his car and you want just his car in particular it is coveting becouse you are practicing idoltry or the act of worshipping something.
not conforming to accepted standards of morality
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
beside the fact you are debating with emotion rather than looking at the situation and using opinion rather than an actual arguement that would be acceptable "To me, it does not show high moral standard to punish people for thought crimes" (CON).
Chastity is a virtue becouse again lust is a sin and having sex out of marriage is considered having sex with anouther man's future/current wife and in all reality is having sex with anouther mans wife right? How would you like it if anouther man slept with your wife when you wern't there?
*actually yes it was a typo as I was only trying to copy the commandments to the theological values as I am not Catholic
so it would actually look like this
"All of the virtues do not require beliefs based on spiritual apprehension, except for faith. Being optimistic, giving to the needy, being careful, being fair, being sober, being resilient, being humble, spending freely, being submissive, being abstinent, and working persistently all are devoid of any spirituality" (CON). Yes, congradulations you understand that be each of those can be practiced without spiritulaity but that is a Red Herring debate as that is not the arguement presented... Now back on topic
You are using the definition of faith as;
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
but my Faith is a
complete trust or confidence in someone or something, as I feel doctrine does not contradict fact at all. So no it is not in anyway or definition 'purposefully dishonest' and sience I have already rebuttled your previous claims you lack any substancial evidence beside opinion to back this arguement and therfor have consented to my arguement as I have one more round I will explain Christain faiths virtue's next round... So CON has the 'burden of proof' to say without a doubt Christain values are not virtueous
Rounds were not mentioned in the agreed rules, only characters. Therefore you cannot claim any round is an acceptance round as there are no rounds per the rules of the debate, only characters. This was an attempt to eliminate the "forfeiting a round gesture" to get conduct points, and inspire more convincing arguments.
Also, shouldn't you just set the standards in the comments section so you can get more space to argue your points in the actual debate?
Ironically the person arguing for faith has forgotten the "spirit" of this debate. Great.
Oh and logically, your permission to set standards of the debate that may lead to my forfeit isn't a reason to consider anything the bible says to be authoritative on matters of high moral standards. So nice dodge.
Pro then says " the 10th commandment is not a thought crime as God is not Big Brother or a goverment... It would be a sin at heart,"
So you really believe that when you are envious of someone or something your heart is the culprit? If that were true, people who have had the emotional side of their brain damaged by stroke or trauma could still exhibit feelings of envy; due to their brain damage, they lack envy and other emotions.
Conversely, a person with a damaged heart could still envy another person's healthy heart.
Thus envy is not a construct of the heart, but the brain.
The brain uses thoughts to construct envy.
Envy is a crime in the eyes of Christianity.
Envy is a thought crime, recognized by god.
God punishes you for said crime.
This is why the tenth commandment is not virtuous, because even if god isn't Big Brother, he still punishes people for thought crimes. The very idea of a thought crime should send an immoral signal to any human's brain.
Pro adds "and [god] does not judge by somebody simply thinking something he judges by your obsession of it..."
Obsessions are still just ideas and thoughts that preoccupy people's minds.
So to examine the deep structure of Pro's quote, god does not judge by somebody simply thinking something, he judges them by their preoccupying thoughts and ideas of it. Contradiction.
Does god judge our thoughts or our actions? Given the ten commandments, the answer is both, because envy is a thought crime and commandments 1-9 require your actions to commit.
Pro goes on to proselytize with scripture, to which I feel no need to respond, because Pro never addressed my question of Why should I consider anything the bible says to be authoritative on matters of high moral standards? Also the scripture is just a bunch of claims of god judging things, and saying it's righteous or true without demonstrating why or how these things are righteous or true. God is the perfect judge, and that's it, no PROOF necessary. Believing any proposition because there is no proof is gullible and not virtuous.
Pro states "Your neighbor has a car you like, and you want a car just like it is not coveting"
That's exactly what coveting is. Let's use your analogy. Suppose you never saw your neighbor's car. Would you still want a car just like it? You couldn't, because you never saw the car to be able to want a car like it. So it was your neighbor's possession that made you long for something like it. Sounds like coveting.
Then Pro tries to convert a particular preference into an idol by saying "perhaps your neighbor has an awesome boombox in the back of his car and you want just his car in particular it is coveting becouse you are practicing idoltry or the act of worshipping something."
So I am worshiping the car, because I prefer it over the boombox? Preferences need not be idols. I prefer water over soda, but I don't make an idol out of water.
Pros says "beside the fact you are debating with emotion rather than looking at the situation and using opinion rather than an actual arguement that would be acceptable "
Pro's demonstration of Con debating with emotion is that I said punishing people for thought crimes does not show high moral standard. So here's an analogy.
You're the principal of a school and two students misbehaving in class are brought to you for their punishment. One of the kids had been stealing other students' pencils, and one of the kids simply wanted other students' pencils because they looked fun to play with.
If not wanting others' possessions is a commandment then this principal should surely punish both students equally. Right? Doesn't just thinking about someone's possessions warrant a punishment? Does the principal show high moral standard by punishing the student for thinking about pencils? To me this is devoid of emotion, and should serve as an analogy for why punishing people for thought crimes--a christian virtue--is not of high moral standard.
Then Pro creates a false excluded middle "Chastity is a virtue becouse again lust is a sin"
This is saying that Chastity is virtuous because its negation is sinful. Pro needs to demonstrate that Chastity, irrespective of its negation, is virtuous. The problem is that Pro never provides reasons for why Chastity has high moral standards or why lust does not have high moral standards.
Nice conduct Pro "How would you like it if anouther man slept with your wife when you wern't there?"
Hahah. The implication of your question is that if I were there I might like it...
I would personally not like that, so for it to happen would be against my and my wife's consent, and therefore not of high moral standard.
Pro continues "lust is a sin and having sex out of marriage is considered having sex with anouther man's future/current wife and in all reality is having sex with anouther mans wife"
But suppose I were a man who actually enjoys another man having sex with my wife, and my wife also enjoys having sex with another man. How is this sinful? Just because people want to have sex? If wanting to have sex is sinful then god sure picked an awful mechanism for procreation.
Thanks for congradulating (purposefully misspelled) me condescendingly when you said "Yes, congradulations you understand that be each of [virtues] can be practiced without spiritulaity but that is a Red Herring debate as that is not the arguement presented."
The argument presented is whether or not faith is virtuous. Faith was defined in the rules as belief with spiritual apprehension. Being that faith is one of the christian virtues and the topic of the resolution, it follows that faith's use of spiritual apprehension in contrast to the other christian virtues is related to this resolution and certainly not a red herring.
Pro admits "but my Faith is a complete trust or confidence in someone or something, as I feel doctrine does not contradict fact at all."
Complete trust/confidence in someone or something isn't faith, because that definition lacks the "trust without proof" clause or the "trust with spiritual apprehension rather than proof" clause. Whether or not doctrine contradicts fact isn't dependent on whether or not you feel it.
Pro claims "sience I have already rebuttled your previous claims you lack any substancial evidence beside opinion to back this arguement and therfor have consented to my arguement as I have one more round I will explain Christain faiths virtue's next round."
Merely rebutting claims does not make evidence unsubstantial. Though I am not admitting to using opinions for my arguments...using opinions as backing for an argument is not consenting to your opponent's argument.
Lastly Pro concludes "So CON has the 'burden of proof' to say without a doubt Christain values are not virtueous"
Wrong. You are the Pro of a positive claim and by definition have BoP. I am the con, I simply reject your positive claim and you either meet your burden of proof or you do not. But I will conclude my 10,000 characters with the following:
*Pro is attempting to dodge the question "Why should I consider the bible authoritative on matters of high moral standard?" with an appeal to authority that he sets the standards in round 1, which is non existent per the rules, so I must then consent to the bible being authoritative.
*Pro attempts to change "no coveting" from a thought crime to a "sin of the heart" to make it seem like god doesn't punish us for thought crimes. Coveting is a construct of the brain, created by thoughts that are punished by god...punishment for thought crimes is not of high moral standard as evidenced by the student/pencil analogy.
*Pro's analogy attempted to show a non example of coveting by having you want a car similar to the one your neighbor has. However, this was an example of coveting.
*Pro's analogy also attempted to make an idol out of a preference by having you prefer the car over the boombox, and just saying that is worshiping something or idolatry.
*Pro attempted an ad hominem by asking if I would want a man sleeping with my wife, to demonstrate his point that lust was sinful.
*Pro provided a false excluded middle claiming that chastity is virtuous because its negation (lust) is sinful.
*Pro never responded to Con's question about Liberality's and Prudence's contradiction with each other. Again, if spending freely is a virtue, then why should I be careful while spending? or If being careful is a virtue, why should I spend freely?
*Pro has yet to demonstrate why belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof is of high moral standard.
Given the agreed upon definitions, the resolution, and currently Pro's failure to meet their BoP, I continue to reject the claim that faith is virtuous.
You have missed my entire point; if virtue cannot be judged by what is right and wrong (morality) then virtue is nonexistent as it is directly linked to morality. If virtue in nonexistent than it cannot apply to faith, which is something I am guessing CON is debating on purpose because if that is true it would make my argument invalid but as morality and virtue are directly linked to each other he cannot argue such a ridiculous claim!
The sins in the Bible are the counterparts of the commandments if the commandments are moral because sins are bad, then the commandments are in fact moral, and therefor if the Bible which accepted as the word of God endorses such commandments than those who believe in it are virtuous and therefor as a rule the subject of 'Faith' is virtuous! Especially if faith is believing something that is moral.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Purple_Potato 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's grammar and spelling was atrocious; Con's was acceptable. Points to Con. Con argued clearly and effectively by providing valid points and rebutting. Pro dodged questions and made false claims/statements. Points to Con. Con used sources and Pro did not. Points to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.