The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

It is unreasonable to believe in something that has no reason to exist.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Sensorfire has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 451 times Debate No: 100867
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Fun little debate purely focused on logical conclusions.
I want to argue that it is absolutely Illogical for someone to believe in something which has not demonstrated any objective existence.

By that I mean that anyone who experiences something they can not explain through their current understanding and fills it in with god, aliens, big foot, ghosts, etc. is committing intellectual suicide. Basically just giving up on reaching a real conclusion based on what is ACTUALLY happening in our universe.

The real question I pose is what mechanism other than those that we observe daily can we actually use to deduce that something exists? Since only a basic scientific understanding is enough to explain that our minds can trick on us every once in a while, the only TRUTH is that which applies to everyone and can be predicted in at least some practical way. SCIENCE BABY

If you can't hear, smell, touch, see, etc. something and it can't in any measurable way affect your life, then why does it need to "exist"?

If you can't use your belief (in whatever) to actually make predictions about objective (not subjective) effects, then you CAN NOT claim that it exists. Further you MUST accept that your belief is yours only and has no real world application, therefore does not actually exist.

That is my opening argument.
I'm easy about rules.
1. Basically just be respectable.
2. STAY ON TOPIC. I won't humor too many arguments outside of the premise unless it supports your argument, in which case clearly make the logical connection simultaneously
3. I've limited characters at 2000 because you shouldn't need a novel to explain your argument, if you do, then you're probably stretching a bit too far.
4. NO NEW ARGUEMENTS IN FINAL ROUND only response and conclusion

Lastly, I understand I left the (CON) position a little vague, that's because you can argue it if you believe in any "supernatural" existence.

and I'm leaving this open to basically anyone. March boldly into battle


I'll take this on. Funny thing, I don't actually believe in anything supernatural, but I will debate the premise of my opponent's argument.

I will concede the first thing my opponent says- that "filling in the blanks" with the supernatural and such is unreasonable. However, my opponent does not take into consideration a very powerful point- emotional reasons.

It is very comforting for some people to believe that there is something after the pale of death. It allows for lost loved ones to feel less "gone" and more like someone in a better place who will be met again. It allows people to go peacefully into their own deaths. Such beliefs, so long as they do not cause anyone harm, cannot be considered "unreasonable".

Furthermore, a belief in the supernatural can be psychologically helpful. Going to church, for example, can be part of a structure or order in one's life, which is important to many people, especially people having problems in their life. This could even prevent someone from taking their own life.

Finally, these beliefs can create a sense of justice. Morals can be ascribed to a supreme being, and people can feel rewarded for doing good and can be consoled about problems in the world with the assurance that those who do evil will ultimately be punished.

Perhaps scientifically, such beliefs cannot be considered useful or reasonable. However, on a personal level, this is very much not true.
Debate Round No. 1


Id Like to welcome sensorfire to this discussion.

This is a common stance taken by non "hardcore" religionists (because on some level these people are still logical) that don't want to seem crazy to believe in something which they can not prove. So they back-peddle into "well it helps in these emotional ways for me, and you can't disprove it, therefore religion is reasonable".

There are a few problems with this line of thinking.
Religion doesn't come free. Nice things after death are promised, which is nice to think about, but it comes with its own emotional cost. Without getting into all the extra stress that comes along with being involved in organized religion. There is the addition of demons, hell, prophecy, etc. to the psyche of the believers.

This brings me to my next point. There have been NUMEROUS studies on whether or not death anxiety occurs higher in atheists vs. theists. In general these studies are largely inconclusive, but with a small inclination towards non-religious actually having less anxiety. And with Muslims frequently coming in with the highest amount of fear toward death (never atheists). I will link one study from 2011 posted in the journal "Mental health, culture, and religion"
(Atheism does seem to correlate with suicide, but we cant prove cause and effect)

Belief in god does not explain any real life effects, and only really adds contempt for "this" world. When really this existence has so much to offer. So many concepts to unravel, anomalies to study. So much of the natural world is overlooked when one believes in supernatural. It's kind of sad to think of how many people miss out on really cool understandings because "oh, it must be god".

And what for aliens and bigfoot?
Do they also in some way benefit the emotions of believers?
why do we frown upon belief in Santa at some age?
It's because we expect kids' logic to outgrow imaginary beings.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
Wait, wait, are so insinuating Aliens have no reason to exist? *triggered*
Posted by Sensorfire 1 year ago
I'm not sure. I've seen this happen a lot lately. You might want to repost the debate.
Posted by Skeptologist 1 year ago
Still says that message, is there anythin i can do to make the debate continue?
Posted by Sensorfire 1 year ago
Thank you. As a side note- I'm not religious. I actually defended atheism in a recent debate.
Posted by Skeptologist 1 year ago
"Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options."

as soon as this message goes away and I am able to, I will pass it back to you so you can respond.
Posted by Sensorfire 1 year ago
Oh, man! I'm sorry for forfeiting, I've been really busy. I actually had a lot to say. I guess I'll wait for next round.
Posted by Skeptologist 1 year ago
both of which do actually have a reason to exist, because they are "missing mass" in mathematical calculations. Furthermore dark energy and matter aren't necessarily things we've never seen before. dark matter is just a name we gave to the "missing mass" but it could very well just be rocks or celestial objects that are too "dark" to see. (I'll add the caveat that I'm not up to date on dark matter and we may have already found out more about it at this point)
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
Dark matter and dark energy.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.