The Instigator
HandsOff
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
ComradeJon1
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

It is noble to believe in God without requiring proof of his existence.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,832 times Debate No: 2792
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (19)

 

HandsOff

Pro

Why are so many religious people so bent on trying to prove there is a god? Believers are sacrificing nothing if they have to secure proof of God before they are willing to believe. If one believes he has solid proof of God's existence, he has avoided suspending his reasoning in order to believe. He is therefore taking no risk, no leap of faith, and is making no intellectual sacrifice whatsoever. Regardless of whether he is correct, he is nestled in the comfort of his logic.

Why is that noble? Believers should not use logic to try to take the easy way out. They should embrace the fact that they believe in magic, miracles and the supernatural. They should cite faith as their motivation and take pride in the fact that they are willing to suspend their need to make decisions based solely on logic. This is true sacrifice. Belief based on faith alone demonstrates humility, courage, and unwavering loyalty. It is noble and commendable in that regard.
ComradeJon1

Con

It isnt noble becaus it isnt logical. youre proposing that blind ignorance is a noble cause.

you call logic "the wasy way out", but truly, the easy way out is to believe what ever your parents, grand-parents, society tells you. Asking questions and using logic is the necesity of freedom.

To prove this, i ask you to put yourself in a hypothetical situation:

I am a very powerful leader, you are one of my many subjects. My subjects are getting unruly so i decide the best way to handle this is say "do what i say or god will punish you w/ eternal damnation". Logically, you may ask why i am speaking with god or why my connection to god is any stronger than your own. valid questions. But under your sight, you, along with everyone should believe everything i say. Now im not accusing christianity, or any other specific religion for that matter, of doing this. but theoretically, youre asking people to disband logic for the purpose of the person who imposes an illogical assumption.

Religion is not lacking nobility. I do admire those who can contribute there life becuase of true belief. But belief and assuming something that has no evidence are two different things.
Debate Round No. 1
HandsOff

Pro

You implied that belief based on faith alone is the equivalent to blind ignorance and said it "isn't noble because it isn't logical." Since there is no logical certainty of God's existence, faith is the only plausible reason for believing in God. That being said, you are in effect saying that those who believe in God based on faith cannot be noble. You made no mention of remainder of those who believe in God-- those who do not rely on faith but on faulty logic. Are you saying they are the more noble? Are you saying the misuse of logic is more noble than an true understanding that earthbound sciences are useless in proving or disproving the unearthly?

Whether one should follow someone who makes claims to have a stronger connection with God (as in your example) is not for me to say. Millions of Catholics believe the Pope has just that connection, and they follow him without demanding real proof of that connection. But can Catholics be noble in their faith? I think you would agree that that many can.

You closed by stating that "religion is not lacking nobility." Now you are trying to have it both ways. Which is noble: belief by faith because you rightly realize there is no proof, or belief by flawed logic because you wrongly think there is proof? If you believe for former is noble, you agree with my topic of debate. If you believe the latter is noble, you commend faulty reasoning. If you believe neither of these causes for belief to be noble you have effectively disqualified about 99% of humans from being noble. That would certainly contradict you statement that "religion is not lacking nobility." Pick your poison.
ComradeJon1

Con

Youre twisting my words and missing the point.

I am not saying you cannot be noble if you base youre beliefs on faith, im only saying the act on not asking for proof itself is not noble.

secondly, you assume that there is no way to prove the existence of god. i have heard many compelling arguments in support of religion (in all sects). I am saying that a baseless assumption that god exists or that your religion is the correct way to follow god is not noble.

My example is only to ask why it is not plausible to believe your nations leader is a prophet under your assumption that its good to not ask for proof. If we consider it universily noble to disband logic for blind faith, why cant that assumption control all of our decisions? think of how dangerous it is to say that logic is not a necesity and it is in fact more 'noble' to just believe as your told.

My position is, simply, that not asking questions or seeking logic is not noble in and of itself. People convert becuase they believe one religion is more logical than their former. Many religious types strive their entire lives to find the answers about their place in life and the universe. Religion and blind faith are not always combined entities.
Debate Round No. 2
HandsOff

Pro

"im only saying the act on not asking for proof itself is not noble"

I only said one need not "require proof" of God to be noble in his belief. I have nothing against those who ask questions or look for supporting evidence to back their religious views. But these people too may find that they believe only based on faith. For example, a very logical person may (after thorough examination) find there is little or no convincing evidence that God exists. Yet he may decide to believe in God based purely on faith-- if only to hedge his bets in case there is a God. In this case we have someone using faith even though he has decided the existence of God is not likely. One might even argue this to be the purest form of faith, because it is in opposition to one's own logic. A person like this might believe there is simply no useful relationship between logic and the supernatural. This is a perfectly acceptable (and noble) reason to believe in God, if not the most reasonable. In this manner his scientific examiniation need not be compromised to justify his faith.
ComradeJon1

Con

I will resubmit: it is not, in itself, noble to follow illogical assumptions. Those who search, find no evidence, but still believe in something are a dangerious entity. I say this because its spreading the idea that logic doesnt have to play a role in importnat decissions about life that makes that person suseptable to other methods of control. Today, religion, tomarrow, politics. Weve seen MANY times throughout history that religion and politics have been intertwined. The faithful are asked to not question, or do question and find no evidence but still have faith, and are taken advantage of. This happens from the grand scale of religious establishments to the small scale of cults or gangs. Religion is far too important a part of life to be left up to illogical conclusions.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by HCPwns95 9 years ago
HCPwns95
Jeez, we have something called the freedom of religion.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO, THERE IS NO PROBLEM IN IT.

but really, PLEASE, just believe in the theory of evolution. THERE IS SO MUCH EVIDENCE! YOU THINK WE JUST POPPED OUT OF NOWHERE?!?!
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
I personally worship the Greek Pantheon. I find their notion of an all loving, all caring, all knowing, all powerful god to be a little inconsistent with the nature of life.

Silly Monotheists. Be realistic.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
There are two types of believers: those who believe because they are wrong, and those who believe despite they are right.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Kleptin,
Comrade argues it is more noble to come to, and act on, incorrect logical assumptions (an oxymoron for sure) than to come to proper conclusions, and believe despite them. This would require the use of faith (belief in the absense of evidence). It is the the method all truly logical people eventually use to believe in God. The balance of truly logical people are probably athiests. I contend that the least honorable group are those religious people who claim know there is a God based on their logic. These are the ones I believe Comrade considers most noble.

You're fatal flaw in anylising this debate is that you fell for Comrade's distration that I was defending belief without the use of any logic whatsoever. I just said that one need not REQUIRE proof in order to be noble in his belief. If so, proof would have to exist before noble belief could exist. Comrade's arguments disqualify all religious people from being noble.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
This debate is very incomplete, it's too bad it was only 3 rounds.

Pro understands what he is saying and I agree with him, but this stance is very difficult to explain to someone else, especially because our generation is made up strictly of cynical, pure-logic types and sheep-like followers of religion.

To understand that logic is not the be-all-end-all for existence is a monumental step in understanding everything else.

However, as it stands, Con's arguments were the stronger and I will have to vote for Con despite agreeing heavily with Pro.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by simmyjaye 9 years ago
simmyjaye
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Handout 9 years ago
Handout
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 
Vote Placed by HCPwns95 9 years ago
HCPwns95
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Kmille11014 9 years ago
Kmille11014
HandsOffComradeJon1Tied
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