The Instigator
Ssunlimited
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJK
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

It's rational to believe in religion and/or God or just have faith

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 3 votes the winner is...
MrJK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,333 times Debate No: 39635
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (87)
Votes (3)

 

Ssunlimited

Con

Atheists may claim that it isn't. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. So is it reasonable to believe in these kinds of things?

Do not use:
Scripture as arguments
Philosophical arguments
Personal revelations as arguments

Argue only why it's reasonable to be having faith in these kind of things.
MrJK

Pro

I accept the debate as it has been presented, I can't imagine how philosophy of any form or degree can be avoided but I will await Con's opening arguments and try to respond accordingly.
Debate Round No. 1
Ssunlimited

Con

Is it reasonable to believe in such things without evidence? Or are these things only made for comfort or to explain the unexplainable?
MrJK

Pro

Well, I suppose I had hoped for a little more to get my teeth into, but, I will try to respond accordingly.

To answer the first question, I would submit that the question answers itself. A belief is a precarious acceptance of a proposition in the absence of conclusive evidence. You could, for example, believe that there probably are intelligent extraterrestrials somewhere in the universe, I would argue that this is a reasonable belief.
I would suggest that in order for a belief to be rightfully deemed unreasonable, you would have to provide some compelling argument which conflicts with the belief.

"Are these things only made for comfort..."

I'm not sure how this suggestion might negate the premise -my pants are made for comfort, it does not negate the fact that they are pants.
However, if what you intend by this statement (don't let me speak for you) is to imply that the concept of a creator can be reduced to a fraction of Freudian thought on the matter, that the concept is emotionaly satisfying, I would say that this represented a very narrow perspective on the general history of human progression. Note that the concept of a god satisfied the overwhelming majority (including among them the greatest) of minds throughout our history.

You must also consider that if a comforting conclusion negates the validity of the belief then so must a distressing Conclusion.

"Explain the unexplainable"

What is and isn't explainable is very difficult to establish. I'd suggest that it is known to be more productive to attempt simply to explain the unexplained, disagreeing with this means disagreeing with every intellectual and scientific pursuit.
Debate Round No. 2
Ssunlimited

Con

Still, how is it rational to believe in these kinds of things. Explain.
MrJK

Pro

I feel that this is sliding into a Q & A session, which is... unexpected, considering we haven't had the debate yet. By initiating the debate it is assumed that you have an argument against the title you gave it: "It's rational to believe in religion and/or God or just have faith"

This will be my third request to hear your arguments.

Debate Round No. 3
Ssunlimited

Con

Okay I'll try to make it into an argument. This is why people shouldn't believe in spiritual/religious things:

- there is no empirical evidence for such things
- many if such phenomena were either debunked or are just anecdotal in nature
- some people believe in these things for comfort
- people create such beliefs about what things are unknown to them
- religion indoctrinated people and perhaps brainwashes them
- many people who become knowledgeable cease to believe in such things

So there seems no reason to believe in such things
MrJK

Pro

I appreciate you trying to add some body to your proposition, however I am still guessing as to which god, religion or faith you are referring to. I assumed in accepting this debate and the regulations you proposed for it that you would either have a strong position against gods, religions and faiths of all types or that you had a convincing (non-philosophical, of course!) argument against the possibility of a creator. I was curious as to how you might achieve this, given the extent of the subject.

- there is no empirical evidence for such things

There certainly is empirical evidence for the existence of religions and strong and numerous testaments to faith. There is of course no empirical evidence for the existence of a god, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is precisely the same amount of empirical evidence for an intelligent creator as there is for intelligent extraterrestrials, this does nothing to condemn the belief that either exist.

- many if such phenomena were either debunked or are just anecdotal in nature

If a particular phenomena is scientifically 'debunked' or does not adhere to the laws of logic and reason, then yes, it would be fair to put this particular belief, regarding this singular subject into the category of 'irrational' belief.
However, you have not described such phenomena, and 'god, religions and faiths' do not rest upon the validity of a singular claim of 'phenomena'.

- some people believe in these things for comfortt

I believe I responded to this without rebuttal in round 2.


- people create such beliefs about what things are unknown to them

This seems to be a true statement, about all humans in all circumstances. Again, I discussed this in round 2 and have not yet been challenged on this discussion.


- religion indoctrinated people and perhaps brainwashes them

A belief can only be considered irrational or unreasonable if it fails critically to exist within the boundaries of reason and rationalism, a person who has been indoctrinated has, by definition, not had this implanted belief held to any reasonable or rational account. This does not make the belief irrational or unreasonable, it makes it pre-rational and pre-reasoned.

The fact that some religions (the most successful ones, you'll note!) can/have/do indoctrinate, does not make their belief any more or less valid. (unless their belief is that it is impossible to indoctrinate, I suppose).



- many people who become knowledgeable cease to believe in such things


Many people who become religious cease to believe other such things.

Again, people hold beliefs based on the evidence (or lack of) to hand, scientists held the belief for a very, very long time that the earth was the center of the universe, was this irrational? No. It was perfectly, perfectly rational based on the evidence available.
Debate Round No. 4
Ssunlimited

Con

Good responses so far. I am talking about all the religions, gods and faiths. At least he major ones: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism.

As for this you wrote:

"There certainly is empirical evidence for the existence of religions and strong and numerous testaments to faith. There is of course no empirical evidence for the existence of a god, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is precisely the same amount of empirical evidence for an intelligent creator as there is for intelligent extraterrestrials, this does nothing to condemn the belief that either exist."

Show those empirical evidences for religions and faiths. Show the evidence for an intelligent creator and extra-terrestrials.
MrJK

Pro

I'll allow (influential empiricist) David Hume to provide support for the existence of religions:

http://oll.libertyfund.org...


I think I may not have been clear enough for my opponent regarding the amount of evidence of extraterrestrials and deities; as with god (as I'd mentioned) there is precisely none.



It is impossible for me (or anyone) to provide support for the idea that all religions, faiths and gods are collectively a rational belief, because it is, in itself an unreasonable proposition. It is equivalent to "all scientific hypothesis are true".

My opponent has made very little attempt to specify or undermine the rationalism in any religion, faith or god hypothesis despite repeated encouragement from his challenger.

I had hoped that Con would test any ability I have as a devil's advocate, unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to advocate as I would have liked.

I attempted to lead my opponent to challenge me to justify a particular belief (virgin birth, omnipotent god, resurrection etc) however he chose not to do so.







Debate Round No. 5
87 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
@crabby

I'm not sure why you think bible quotes will sway my beliefs in any way. If I recall correctly, you said only those chosen by God are capable of interpreting scripture, in which case it is pointless for me to read. Of course, I don't believe scripture is a true representation of existence anyways, so I don't really care how it's interpreted. In any case, such posts of scripture are a complete waste of time.

My points have all been quite clear, and if you disagree with them, so be it. But you have done nothing in the way of refuting them, so I'm left to assume that you can't. However, if you can, I encourage you to do so. Otherwise, I am convinced this conversation has become nothing more than a waste of my time.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
@crabby:

If you want to preach, go to the church of whatever backward cult you beling to, quoting the silly religious texts won't get you very far in a conversation with normal people.

I think I've been pretty up front previously, I don't have mutiple opinions on subjects, I have my position. However, unlike many people I meet, I encourage my positions to be challenged. I don't suffer from Christian cowardice.
I am an agnostic, an atheist and an antitheist. I work full time, and I haven't lived with family since my mid teens.
Sometimes in debates I play devil's advocate. Most often though, you will find me debating fellow atheists, challenging them on their thoughts. You should try it, try fighting against Christianity, you might just learn something...just need to get past that cowardice...
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@mrsatan
Revelations continued....
13 his cloak was soaked in blood. He is known by the name, The Word of God.
14 Behind him, dressed in linen of dazzling white, rode the armies of heaven on white horses.
15 From his mouth came a sharp sword with which to strike the unbelievers; he is the one who will rule them with an iron sceptre, and tread out the wine of Almighty God's fierce retribution.
16 On his cloak and on his thigh a name was written: King of kings and Lord of lords.
17 I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he shouted aloud to all the birds that were flying high overhead in the sky, 'Come here. Gather together at God's great feast.
18 You will eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of great generals and heroes, the flesh of horses and their riders and of all kinds of people, citizens and slaves, small and great alike.'
19 Then I saw the beast, with all the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered together to fight the Rider and his army.
20 But the beast was taken prisoner, together with the false prophet who had worked miracles on the beast's behalf and by them had deceived those who had accepted branding with the mark of the beast and those who had worshipped his statue. These two were hurled alive into the fiery lake of burning sulphur.
21 All the rest were killed by the sword of the Rider, which came out of his mouth, and all the birds glutted themselves with their flesh.

That's pretty much what will happen. Still confused?
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@mrsatan
You want to know what God intends for those who reject him completely and absolutely?

I think this is clear enough as well....
revelations..
1 After this I heard what seemed to be the great sound of a huge crowd in heaven, singing, 'Alleluia! Salvation and glory and power to our God!
2 He judges fairly, he punishes justly, and he has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her prostitution; he has avenged the blood of his servants which she shed.'
3 And again they sang, 'Alleluia! The smoke of her will rise for ever and ever.'
4 Then the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures threw themselves down and worshipped God seated on his throne, and they cried, 'Amen, Alleluia.'
5 Then a voice came from the throne; it said, 'Praise our God, you servants of his and those who fear him, small and great alike.'
6 And I heard what seemed to be the voices of a huge crowd, like the sound of the ocean or the great roar of thunder, answering, 'Alleluia! The reign of the Lord our God Almighty has begun;
7 let us be glad and joyful and give glory to God, because this is the time for the marriage of the Lamb.
8 His bride is ready, and she has been able to dress herself in dazzling white linen, because her linen image of the good deeds of the saints.'
9 The angel said, 'Write this, "Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb," ' and he added, 'These words of God are true.'
10 Then I knelt at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, 'Never do that: I am your fellow-servant and the fellow-servant of all your brothers who have in themselves the witness of Jesus. God alone you must worship.' The witness of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
11 And now I saw heaven open, and a white horse appear; its rider was called Trustworthy and True; in uprightness he judges and makes war.
12 His eyes were flames of fire, and he was crowned with many coronets; the name written on him was known only to himself,
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@ mrsatan

But saying it's God's fault is illogical. And how would you know that anyways? That's an unsubstantiated claim.
Ask those in the Catholic church, they seem to know what God wants from us. Ask any priest or Bishop, any Christian theologian, Ask the 30% of Catholics who actually attend mass every week and they can give you a pretty clear picture of what God is all about and what he wants and expects from us. This notion that God has not communicated things clearly enough certainly does not seem to hold water with everyone. Although there are many mysteries no doubt, it is only your claim the God has not communicated clearly enough.

Well it is true, much of the world lives in darkness and heresy. But Jesus has shown us the way through his teachings. And the church continues with this endeavor. If you choose to ignore or reject what God has given to us, Christianity, then you remain in that darkness and heresy.
There are many passages in the bible that deal with those who do not and refuse to believe.

"Proverbs 3:5-7
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil."
That seems clear enough to me. Either you believe in Jesus higher authority or you do not. If you do not then you did chose your own path, even if it is in error.
Pope Francis has said that even an atheist has a chance of being saved if he lived a good life, helped the poor and so on. What other religions say that? Zero. If you do not believe in their teachings your doomed period end of story. The church says yes, if you believe you are in better standing and a much better position with God, but if you do not(and sometimes at no fault of your own), but live a good decent life. You to have a chance of salvation too. I thinks that's very telling.
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@Mrjk

I do know enough about argumentum ad populum means to know you continually use limp version of it.

The reason why I will not debate you mrjk is you are one of those guys who takes both sides of any issue or topic just to see if you can win the debate. I have no idea what your position is on Christianity, faith or God as you have been on every side of the issue. If I honestly thought you were a non believer it might be fun. But who knows what you are. You're just one of those guys looking for a debate on anything...everything. To debate for the sake of debating. Which is all fine for you. But I would rather debate someone who honestly feels and believes a certain way. Not one that's intellectually corrupted. Not one that is all over the map on any given subject or issue. You like to debate that's fine. I simply do not feel like wasting my time debating someone who's finds any stance a good stance. And any position defensible. What a terrible bore.

@Dudestop
What did you want to debate me on??? You were in a debate in which you had the arduous task of proving the bible is a fable. In my opinion you failed at showing that and the debate was falsely awarded to you.
What? You want to debate that you falsely won the debate?? Well we pretty much went over that and you lost argument too.

@Mrjk and @Dudestop

You both need to top acting like little cry baby girls cause you don't get your way with me.

Go practice up. But 1st move out of your mom and dad's basement and get a job. Feel what it's like to work, be tired, hungry, and sore, and not have so much time on your hands to piddle away on Debate.org

Happy new year!
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
@Mrjk: So did I. I have asked him to debate me before.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
@Crabby:

I made no assertions regarding my intellect, I made statements regarding yours.

You do not seem to know what 'argumentum ad populum' means.

I have challenged you to debates to offer you the chance to defend your words. You have declined because you can not.
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@MRJK

Why do you continually use this limp version of argumentum ad populum? You continually suggest or assert that you are some kind of "intellectual". And that any true intellectual would recognize how superior you are and thus would surely agree with your claims and assertions. What ever those assertions or claims happen to be that particular day or time of day. You do it all the time and it's hilarious because it is so darn fallacious.
If I do not pose any kind of intellectual challenge then stop begging me to debate you.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
@Crabby:

Desperation? lol...debating with people like yourself is effortless, your ignorance can be frustrating, but for you to think that you pose any kind of intellectual challenge, well it just makes me feel a little sad for you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
SsunlimitedMrJKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually debated for a first point. Con made some assertions then asked the pro to respond, which pro did very well at. Pro used several sources, and con made a few spelling and grammar errors. The reason I say pro had better conduct is because con didn't really respect this as a debate. Pro gets all of my votes fore those reasons.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
SsunlimitedMrJKTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was very unprepared for this debate. I recommend that he start by reading some of the other atheist vs. theist debates on offer so that he can better understand the subject and make a proper case.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
SsunlimitedMrJKTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Not worth a proper RFD, but Pro made several contentions that went unresponded two by Con in two rounds, in which Con provided less than one paragraph of statement. Additionally, Con used no sources, while Pro did.