The Instigator
ChristianPunk
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
dawndawndawndawn
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Is Belief In A God Unreasonable?

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 4 votes the winner is...
ChristianPunk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 988 times Debate No: 44188
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

ChristianPunk

Con

Rules are usual.

round 1 is opening

rest is rebuttals and closing statements.

Now I would like to point out that the God I am going to mention in this debate is that of the Christian and Jewish God. Mainly because I believe in him.

People such as Richard Dawkins and other atheists like him, believe that the belief in a God, is a means of being a slave to no more knowledge or will to gain more knowledge. My goal in this debate is to do the following

A. Convince you that having faith in God doesn't automatically mean God wants you to believe the Bible is the only way to know how the Earth was created as well as the universe.

B. Not all religious people believe in the same thing, such as me believing in Anarchy and Radical politics.

C. How the belief in God, actually leads to another level of reason.

Richard Dawkins believes science and faith are not able to co exist, but Issac Newton believed in God and we know that he was a very important figure in science. He wasn't as public with his view and actually would be considered a heretic by today's Christian society since he thought if you believed Christ was God, then you just committed idoltry. I don't agree with him, but every Christian is entitled to their opinion. Just not to the practices that can be hypocritical. I don't find a verse telling me to kill doctors or hate gays. Also, Galileo was a devout catholic who was even rejected by the catholic society. So if these great scientific minds were voices of reason, my question is this. Was their faith in God telling them to reject reason? The answer is no because they created many of today's greatest discoveries. Some are the scientific reasons that atheists even believe in.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.biography.com...

I believe that as a Christian, a son of God, that I am to explore the world and learn. I am also to serve for peace and equality among all human beings. I also look into a couple of films by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins always confronts the religious who I disagree with. I saw the interview he did with Ted Haggard and I began to become horrified. Especially when Ted wanted to have Dawkins arrested for calling his children animals, which was Dawkins discussing evolution. Ted is arrogant and is another leader of what I consider, the cult of brain washed sheep.

The Brain Washed Sheep Cults of America are in the videos I am presenting

While many of these people exist, there exist, the Rational and Reasonable. The last four videos are the videos of the rationals and radicals.

So take note that these people should cover point A and B as well as Newton and Galileo should have done so too.

Now point C may have also been with Newton and Galileo, but that is really depending on who we look to. People believe if your Christian, you must believe Jesus is the truth and everything he says is truth, but everything else is a lie. Take it to a literal level, and you have people like bornofgod on here who claim delusional conspiracies. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien have been criticized by Christians as writing satanic fiction. My church told me not to go see Narnia or I was going to fall for the devil. Boy were they wrong. :)

C.S. Lewis meant for Narnia to be a story using Christian allegory. Such as Aslan was supposed to be like Jesus. The first book was an allegory of Genesis.

J.R.R. Tolkien has three different Christ figures you can find in the Lord of the Rings. Gandalf shows the prophet and resurrection of Christ. Frodo is the priest. Aragorn is the heir king and son of Isildur.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And I will end this post with a video showing a debate between both of these minds when they were in college. Lewis, being a former atheist, wanted to convince people that God was a myth, but Tolkien had a surprise for Lewis' plan. Thus, I end my statement.
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

If you were born in India, you would ( most likely ) be Hindi.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be Muslim.
If you were born in Mexico you would be Catholic.

There is no "reason" involved.
You follow where you are lead and you're lead
when you are too young to ask "reasonable" questions.
Debate Round No. 1
ChristianPunk

Con

True, you follow because your too young to understand. But there are many atheists, especially some on here, who grew up religious and then questioned things to become atheist. Richard Dawkins is one of them. Grew up in a religious household, was inducted into the church, but gave up faith later.

Michael Muhammad Knight, author of Muslim youth novels was born in a family where his dad was a protestant and a white supremacist, while the mom was a roman catholic from an Irish family. Michael however, decided after listening to Malcom X and Public Enemy, that he wanted to be a muslim. He was responsible for creating the Taqwacore scene. The Muslim punk rock scene. He said there is a cool Islam. You just gotta find it.

Ravi Zacharias, was born in India and became an atheist who was later converted into Christianity after a failed suicide.

There are also atheists and agnostics in America.

So the Genetic Fallacy that you presented is quite useless. Reason is looking into the faith. It should ask

Why should I believe in this?

Why should I believe it's true?

Can science explain it's beliefs?

You must question it and let the faith answer. I'm not looking for short answers btw, I want details.
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

Atheism requires reason.

Faith does not.

Faith requires that no questions are asked.

" Reason is looking into the faith."
It could be but the vast majority of religious people, simply,
follow what they were taught as children
Perhaps, if you had a better command of the English language,
you might have worded your sentence like this:
"It is reasonable to question one's faith"
It is reasonable to question faith but, it
is well-documented that religious arguments are circular
and, mostly, end up with "You just have to believe" which proves nothing.
If you have all the faith in the whole wide galaxy, you , still, have a pile of nothing.

Many people who question their faith end up not having faith
Debate Round No. 2
ChristianPunk

Con

Atheism doesn't require reason. Atheism is in fact a neutrality. You don't take sides in any belief system, therefore, you don't need to explain why you think it's the truth. You can easily say, "I don't believe in fictional stories" and you would win a debate. Unfortunately, Faith provides grounds for questions to be asked. Why are there other religions? Where can I find historical proof of these incidents in the bible? Is being gay a sin or a social clique? Apologists and other rational thinkers of the Christian faith look into where they can defend the big question, Why do you believe in this? And theists don't have it easy.

You know I don't think being gay is a sin based off the Gay Christian Network video I put in round 1. They questioned Christianity and read the bible on their own. It was merely society who made the assumption. Not the God I worship. And the part where they say you just gotta believe is because to me, Testimony is one of the strong key evidences to solving any question. You'd have to do tests first to determine if the person was psychotic and delusional though, but even things like a video surveillance footage of a robbery is testimony.
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

"Faith provides grounds for questions to be asked. SO, FLAT-EARTH IDEAS PROVIDE THE GROUNDS FOR ASKING IF EARTH IS ROUND? WHEN WE START WITH WRONG, IT IS GOOD TO UNDERSTAND THAT WRONG IS WRONG. FIATH = PRETENDING WITHOUT CHECKING. Why are there other religions? HUMANS ARE STUPID. THAT IS WHY. Where can I find historical proof of these incidents in the bible? ONLY THOSE WHO ARE DESPERATE WANT TO. Is being gay a sin or a social clique? NEITHER. Apologists and other rational thinkers of the Christian faith look into where they can defend the big question, Why do you believe in this? FAITH IS NOT RATIONAL. IT IS PRETENDING. And theists don't have it easy. BECAUSE PRETENDING IS CHILDISH

They questioned Christianity and read the bible on their own. WHICH TRANSLATION? WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW? Not the God I worship. IF "GOD" IS "GOD", YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE ANYTHING ABOUT "GOD" And the part where they say you just gotta believe is because to me, PRETENDING. Testimony is one of the strong key evidences to solving any question. NO. IT IS NOT. IF YOU STUDY LAW AND MEMORY YOU WILL SEE THAT TESTIMONY IS CALLED "ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE" AND IS NOT ADMISSIBLE You'd have to do tests first to determine if the person was psychotic and delusional though, but even things like a video surveillance footage of a robbery is testimony. IF THERE IS VIDEO FOOTAGE, IT IS NOT DEPENDANT ON MEMORY OR MOOD"
Debate Round No. 3
ChristianPunk

Con

Isaiah 40:22

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

So the bible never made any claims of flat earth from what I have seen. Just close minded arrogant people in history who assumed what we were walking on was not turning into a sphere. These people who were religious and said it was flat, didn't read the bible.

Honestly, I'm detecting a little arrogance and hostility in the debate as if you are like Bill O Reilly. Instead of saying people are stupid, you might as well say Pinhead.

My religion is merely a set of my beliefs. Some say my God is a homophobe. I looked in the bible to determine that it's a lie. Being gay is not a sin, nor a social clique. It's natural. Human. Some people are born that way, some aren't.

And those who are desperate to search for answers by the way, are those who actually would like to do research. To this day, I still crave knowledge on apologetics, history, psychology, sociology, all that stuff. So if you think being desperate for answers is a bad thing, then I'm the baddest of em all to commit the thirst for knowledge.

The camera that holds footage has memory data that must be required for holding certain amounts of footage it can remember. What does mood have to do with it, I have no idea. Would you want somebody to tell you how they got raped in a specific mood? Mood is the least concern. And I can study law, but as an anarchist, law doesn't mean anything to me.
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
WHAT DOES THIS SAY IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND HOW MANY TIMES HAS IT BEEN TRANSLATED, PLEASE?

So the bible never made any claims of flat earth from what I have seen. Just close minded arrogant people in history who assumed what we were walking on was not turning into a sphere. These people who were religious and said it was flat, didn't read the bible.

"FLAT-EARTH-THINKING" = OLD-FASHIONED IDEAS BASED ON WHAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME...MOST HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE PRIMITIVE

My religion is merely a set of my beliefs.
...NOT REASON. FAITH, THE HOLDING OF IDEAS WITHOUT PROOF IS WHAT YOU ARE MEANING.
THEREFORE, REASON WAS/IS NOT USED. THEREFORE, NOT REASONABLE

Some say my God is a homophobe. I looked in the bible to determine that it's a lie. Being gay is not a sin, nor a social clique. It's natural. Human. Some people are born that way, some aren't.
THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF MANY TIMES.

And those who are desperate to search for answers by the way, are those who actually would like to do research.
MANY PEOPLE SEARCH VERY HARD TO TRY TO MAKE THE BIBLE REAL.
THE INTENSITY OF THE EFFORT DOES NOT MAKE THE REALITY HAPPEN.
THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF SO MUCH THAT, UNDER CLOSE, CAREFUL EXAMINATION IT JUST ENDS UP BEING SILLY,
NOT REASONABLE

The camera that holds footage has memory data that must be required for holding certain amounts of footage it can remember. THE HUMAN BRAIN'S MEMORY IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A CAMERA

What does mood have to do with it, I have no idea. THE HUMAN BRAIN IS SUBJECT TO MOODS. THE HUMAN MEMORY IS VERY FALLIBLE. HUMAN MOODS MAKE THE HUMAN MEMORY WORSE. SO DOES LACK-OF-SLEEP WHICH MANY PEOPLE DESCRIBE AS A MOOD BECAUSE THEY DO NOT STUDY THE BRAIN.

Mood is the least concern. And I can study law, but as an anarchist, law doesn't mean anything to me. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO STOP AT RED LIGHTS OR DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.
IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS.
IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE IN GOD.
IT IS COMFORTING TO BELIEVE IN GOD
BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE GOD REAL.
Debate Round No. 4
ChristianPunk

Con

Call me delusional, but God is real as He gets to me. Don't expect those magical things you'd expect from the bible or any other stories. He works in much better works. To me, music is what I was called for.

Conclusion: My opponent has provided me with some things to think about, but as one person commented, he didn't make valid arguments earlier in the debate. Round 3 was when he slowly started to get more involved with reasons why he thought Reason was something that wasn't associated with belief in God.

Now I challenge everybody to do something. I have seen people who think religion is harmful to society or the mind while I met people who don't care what you belief in. The ones who don't care can usually see the reason, but if you can't find reason, then think about it. Listen to an apologist in a debate or speech and note why he believes the things he believes. It is more than just the idea of feeling love or feeling great about life. It's about the ideology and why you believe something like that can be true. I ask that you step in my shoes and act like a skeptic about being a Christian by questioning atheism or agnosticism and being more involved into Christianity for a solid 2 weeks. Richard Dawkins has mentioned once this quote based off John Lennon's Imagine.

Imagine a world without religion. A world without 9/11, the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, Army of God, and all of the other sorts.

Here is what I say. Imagine a world without atheism. Not agnosticism, but atheism. No Marxism that would lead to communism and Stalin. No Pol Pot. No Mao Zedong. No angry atheists who have nothing better to do than to degrade religious people for carrying the brand of Christ or whatever they believe, instead of the actions. You should know that there is usually a runt in the litter. One who is different. An outcast. I believe that there are Christians like me out there who are outcasts of the mainstream view. Anarchists, punks, gay Christians, apologists, non denominational Christians, and reasonable scientist Christians. Those who feel that if they are Christian, they are outcasts by both Christians and their other affiliations. Anarchists and punks think I'm a joke and a walking contradiction. Well I am so Christian, I can look at them and say "Forget you all, because I am my own Christian the way God intended. I am wanting to be myself and I feel like Christianity is my religion to do so with fun and reason. Thank you all. :)
dawndawndawndawn

Pro

You started by asking if a belief in god is reasonable and you ended with this:
"Call me delusional, but God is real as He gets to me. "

You have not met god. You do not know if god have a penis or not.

You have decided ideas to hold between your ears.
You would not have decided to hold those things between your ears if
you were not told them as a child.

Your pretending is not reasonable.
Society allows you to feel superior due to holding these ideas between your ears
but that does not make them any more reasonable than believing that
Santa Claus is real.

I didn't not call believing that god is real, "a delusion".
You walked there, all by yourself.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FluffyCactus 3 years ago
FluffyCactus
Pro makes no valid arguments. He also vastly misunderstands the idea of Theology and Biblical Hermeneutics.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
ChristianPunkdawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better points. Pro was stereotyping to much which was offensive, especially in his argument in round 1. Pro displayed sources. Grammar as usual is equal
Vote Placed by bman77 3 years ago
bman77
ChristianPunkdawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better etiquette
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
ChristianPunkdawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had some good points to say about how people who believe in god are not unreasonable, but did nothing to show a belief in god is based in logic and reason. Pro did much to undermine the position that a biblical interpretation of god is illogical. Con never effectively defeated the question of geographical prevalence of religion.
Vote Placed by cbcullen84 3 years ago
cbcullen84
ChristianPunkdawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was intended to provide grounds on which to argue the level (If any) of reason in regards to the belief in God. On multiple accounts, Pro slandered theists and the like for their belief and went as far as to assign derogatory names for people who believe in God, Con maintained composure throughout the debate despite it and despite Pro's condescending approach. Conduct to Con. Pro initially used acceptable format until R3 when he unleashed the fury with the caps-lock, unnecessary and a Grammar nightmare, S&G to to Con. Pro did not begin to provide anything that resembles a convincing argument until R5, until then Pro's arguments simply questioned portions of Con's arguments, additionally, Pro's arguments are void of logical reasoning to explain his arrival at each statement. Convincing argument to Con. Pro offered no sources, Con offered supporting sources and references to his argument. Sources to Con.