The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JimShady
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

No god would require the use of faith

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,235 times Debate No: 103362
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Faith is the number one thing preached in the bible. Now why is this so when one would expect it to be love, kindness, care for each other etc. Its not. In fact it doesn't even come close. Its that ridiculous snot meat chew rag "faith" in which no supreme deity would ever ever ever ever ever ever have the want, the need or desire for, well that is of he is perfect. So this SCREAMS of imperfection. So what idiot would bow down to, worship or idolize imperfection? So it also proves that this god of the bible is indeed no god.
And since this god, well he's really just an immoral bully but for lingo purposes I have no problem calling this "character" a "god" as what the bible has been representing him for centuries or who knows how long, I mean there's hundreds of thousands of others of entitlements that are titled god or gods... anyway back to the script... guy has that need, that feeding frenzy for your faith, in which you give to him with extra special gullibility, because you have absolutely---no---proof---whatsoever that this god of yours even exists, it ultimately proves that your god has a superior "ego" complex. And an ego is a human quality. But then again god also has MORE human qualities such as anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, jealousy all in which he has freely admitted to and again proving that he is imperfect and this god is thus no god but is as frail and is as weak as you and me.

For this debate we will be talking explicitly and specifically about the god according to the bible. And if god is god (tee hee), he would NOT use faith. So it is us to you to prove that he would absolutely be required, out of necessity and need to use faith.

Please argue intelligently and use an education. If there is the slightest hint of you not knowing something and you try to run and excuse by me and or lying, because I am very educated on this topic especially, I will pulverize you with a barrage of well deserved insults. And hey, I would like nothing better than a GREAT INTELLIGENT EDUCATED DEBATE!!!!
JimShady

Con

I accept your debate and will attempt to show you that faith is necessary for salvation, and that without the need for faith, we would all have meaningless lives. Since you did not set specific rules, I'll assume this is the acceptance round.

I'll also fulfill your requirements of intelligence and education. And it seems by your tone that ad hominem is perfectly acceptable in this debate, so let's get it on.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Oh whoopppsss I made a typo that word "us" needs to be removed and needs to be restated as "up"... so the statement goes with my apoligies... stupid me. "So it is up to you to prove that he would absolutely be required, out of necessity and need to use faith." And I also posted and stated "For this debate we will be talking explicitly and specifically about the god according to the bible." So that's another specific rule. Now we are not talking about you needing salvation of any kind. We are talking about god requiring the want, the need, the necessity for the use of faith in which he would not depend. Well that's of course only true if he is a god. So once again my stupid error.
JimShady

Con

First I will present my arguments for the necessity of faith, then move on to refutation.

Imagine a world where everyone knew that the God of the Bible existed. There would be no need for faith in the existence of God because everyone knows he is truly extant. The problem with this scenario is that we are not able to prove ourselves worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no "test" for us to take to show that we love God even in the face of doubt and scorn. Everything would already be revealed to us, we'd be granted automatic tickets to heaven, and the so much of what Christianity does would be obsolete. You might argue, "Well yes, it'd be good if stuff Christianity does was done away with and we could get into Heaven for free." Not quite; God wants to see if we truly love him, if we will stand by his side just by our faith. Without faith, life would be meaningless.

Now, imagine a world where everyone knew that the God of the Bible DIDN'T exist. I'm not an atheist, so I do not have a full understanding of how atheists feel about life. But my assumption is that that they believe you just try to get as much happiness out of it, and in the end it is meaningless. There is nothing afterwards. This seems very bleak, giving us nothing to hope for or believe in. Without faith in a God, life again would be meaningless.

God created us each with an intellect that can pick and choose whether to have faith in his existence or not. He did not create us as pre-programmed robots that believe in him no matter what. To have faith in him is to show you truly love him. To be a robot that's going to believe in him no matter what is not love (a robot cannot love).

I'll give an example: say you have two options- to get a real-life puppy, or to get one of those furReal, robotic dogs. If you get the furReal Friend, it will "love" you because it can do that and nothing else. It has no choice. But if you get a puppy, it can choose to love or hate you, and when it CHOOSES to love you, than it is actually meaningful. I hope you can see how this relates to people's faith in God.

OK, your turn.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

“Imagine a world where everyone knew that the God of the Bible existed.” Who would want to? After all this god character in which there’s absolutely no proof whatsoever that he even exists is based solely on evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, jealousy in all of those emotions in which he has freely admitted to which is imperfection. What moron wants to worship that bile? And even worse is this supposed god sent all of those emotions down to man so man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going man for worshiping this supposed god. Even worse… jealousy? What? From a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear.

“There would be no need for faith in the existence of God because everyone knows he is truly extant.” Well that’s um no. That’s not what I’m getting at. Who really cares what people think about god? Its god who cares what people think. And god would have no need whatsoever for people's faith, that is IF and only IF he is a true god in which he is clearly not. That’s what this debate is about. So everything you’ve stated is to be ignored and has nothing to do with the subject matter.
So the subject matter is if you are willing… “No god would require the use of faith!” Its not “people require faith from god” as per that's nearly what everything you’ve stated in your round 2 was.

JimShady

Con

To begin with, faith is not the number one thing preached in the Bible. The number one thing, if there is even a focus, is arguably love. My opponent claims it is faith though, but does not explain how. All I gotta say on this matter is James 2:17, "Faith without works is dead." Works can be understood as works of love.

You claim that "no supreme deity would ever ever ever ever ever ever have the want, the need or desire for [faith]..." I have explained in my opening points why God desires, wants, and needs the faith of his people (because otherwise their love of him is meaningless.) You have ignored my argument completely by calling it off topic even though it directly applies to the topic.

My opponent says "well that is of he is perfect." This makes no since, but he later says it is proof of God not existing. Unless he clarifies, he has proved nothing.

In the opening argument for Pro and his 3rd debate round, he keeps on offering reasons that God does not exist or why he is imperfect because of his "evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil [again], jealousy". That is not the point of the debate. The debate is about whether a God needs/desires faith, not if he exists. So I cannot be counted against for not answering these off topic arguments.

You cherry picked one statement from my argument, "There would be no need for faith in the existence of God because everyone knows he is truly extant." and made it sound like that was my final point on the matter. You say "Its god who cares what people think," and if you continue to read my R2 argument you will see that I answer to this. I will say it again, God cares what people think about him, and he gives them the gift of faith to better appreciate/love him and grow stronger. Without faith there would be no opportunity for people to truly love God.

On the contrary, most of what you've said deserves to be ignored... we are not talking about if God exists or not, but if God requires faith. Also, you ignored my robot pet/real puppy analogy in R2, counter it if you can.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Oh absolutely not. The entire bible is about god and his frail fragile ego. So that right there SCREAMS to the proof that the number one thing preached in the bible is faith. If god were genuine in any way, he couldn’t care less about his ego and love would be the number one thing preached in the bible.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror.” - Richard Dawkins - I don’t mean to be snide here but Richard Dawkins does happen to know a lot more about religion, god and the bible than you. So that leaves the NT. Now JC is a false prophet to begin with because he broke many of god’s laws, rules and regulations without god’s consent such as working on the sabbath which was a requirement to be stoned to death, so JC couldn’t have gotten far by breaking god’s laws, rules and regulations. So christianity is false, JC is false and the NT is false. Btw, there’s a whole lot more faith given unto JC than love given back by JC and god to the people in the NT. Again I’m not trying to be snide, but try reading the bible just to see how bloated these characters ego’s truly are and what crybaby’s they are when they don’t get their ways. If god doesn’t get his way, things of violence, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, especially killing/ murder happens. Boo hoo.
You are right I did not explain how its faith that is preached more in the bible than any other thing because I wanted you to set yourself up for utter failure. That’s what a good debate is. You did that marvelously by guessing and thus inventing an excuse because I knew that you didn’t know. But now you know because I proved it.
Also most of the bible cannot be proved, especially god. So it takes faith to believe in god as YOU previously proved. Are you kidding me? Ab-so-lu-te-ly the number one thing preached in the bible is faith.

Now let’s move on…
No supreme deity would ---ever--- have the want the need, the desire for faith. After all what supreme deity would use faith instead of evidence? What supreme deity would use faith when they can simply talk to us? So all of your reasonings go flying out the window.
The bible is NOT evidence.
“We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that’s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn’t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?” Matt Dillahunty

“If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors… how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can’t distinguish between the law of Israel and god’s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take figuratively. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter how its translated. It doesn’t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well.” Amon Ra
Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty

“Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn’t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can’t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, judaism, any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth your’re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence?” Matt Dillahunty

“IIf you care about something is true, faith has no place. Your faith is indistinguishable from the faith of the people’s of those who disagree with you. Its not a path to truth. Faith is accepting something. Faith is gullibility. Faith is the reason, the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason. I’m talking about how do we find a good reason. And if your only answer is ‘well the bible says so, or you just have to have faith’, then you’ve demonstrated that you are not actually concerned whether its true.” Matt Dillahunty

“I’m sorry. The age of your claims nor the number of people who believe them nor the strength of their convictions has any bearing at all on whether or not those claims are likely to be true. And there are claims that are OLDER than the book you are pointing to by the way and you disregard those as the matter of fact, and you disregard EVERY OTHER CLAIM BY EVERY OTHER RELIGION AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS FOR DOING SO. You make a special case for the religion you believe and you only want to justify it by appealing to faith. That’s not somebody who’s interested in something that’s true.” Matt Dillahunty

The opening of my 3rd round was merely countering a statement you made. Nothing more or less. But you are correct it has nothing to do with the debate which is something I accused you of so that’s my bad in which I should slit my wrists with a sharpened piece of yodeling grunge yeast infection and I need to make sure that it gets right in there nice and deep. But your point is taken.

“God cares what people think about him,” Yeah he does especially if its bad. But then again I hate god, and its the ONLY thing I truly hate because of how he truly hates children. But I’m still here.
“and he gives them the gift of faith…” nope… no god would do as such without a trace of evidence. And this god could simply talk to us. If he talked to his prophets and freely admitted to deceiving them, then he can talk to us. But since he freely admitted to deceiving his prophets, how are we as man supposed to know what is true coming from this god and what is false?
Ezekiel 20:25-26 “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.”
And what about children? After all EVERYBODY, no exceptions, is born an atheist. So how does someone gain belief in an unproved god?

“On the contrary, most of what you've said deserves to be ignored” then why didn’t you? “but if God requires faith” ah yes the feeding frenzy. If you don't feed god your faith, he dies.
JimShady

Con

Okay, so, you claim that "The entire bible is about god and his frail fragile ego." You then say this screams proof that the number one thing preached in the Bible is faith. That is a self-justifying statement and thus a logical fallacy. You throw around the word proof without actually proving anything. I MIGHT be persuaded by you if you actually offered up a solid argument and not just an crazy tirade. Here's more reasons why LOVE is the number one thing in the Bible...

1. Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."
2. Mark 12: 31 "The second is this: "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these. [the primary one was love God]"

And the big one...
3. 1 Corinthians 13:13 13 "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

There may be a few verses about faith, but the verses I have provided, especially the 3rd one, shut your claim down.

"Richard Dawkins does happen to know a lot more about religion, god and the bible than you." How would you know that? First of all, he starts off that quote with arguably, so it's not set in stone. And secondly, I have not at all delved deep into my knowledge of religion and the Bible because there is no need for that in this debate... it would be off topic. I have offered the verses which explain my argument, while you have offered only your opinion (and usually on an off topic issue, such as God being an "unpleasant character.") So yes, perhaps Dawkins knows more than me, but judging your "proof" and explanation of the Bible, I know more than you.

You say "Now JC is a false prophet to begin with because he broke many of god"s laws." Wrong, Jesus Christ IS God, and he can break his own laws if he wants. I wouldn't say he broke them either... reform is a better word. Just another example of how you don't even know what you are attacking.

Later you say "But try reading the bible just to see how bloated these characters ego"s truly are..." You arguing on assumption. The fact is I do read the Bible, and I never said I agree with it all the way. There are some things in it I question, and I try to find an answer to it. Yes, God sometimes is merciless in his ways, I get it and I'm trying to understand why. (To voters: yes this is a concession, but on a completely unrelated matter to the topic. I did not bring it up.)

You go on with "You are right I did not explain how its faith that is preached more in the bible than any other thing because I wanted you to set yourself up for utter failure. That"s what a good debate is. You did that marvelously by guessing and thus inventing an excuse because I knew that you didn"t know. But now you know because I proved it." Please point out in the comments where I set my self up for failure. My "excuses" are actual Bible verses, which you have offered none of so far. And once again, that somehow proves it. If anything, you have set yourself up for utter failure.

"So it takes faith to believe in god as YOU previously proved." This shows how loosely you use the word prove, I mean you even use it in relation with MY arguments. Well, if that's the case, than thank you for that concession. You go on by saying "Ab-so-lu-te-ly the number one thing preached in the bible is faith." Again, 1 Corinthians 13:13.

Continuing, you say "No supreme deity would ---ever--- have the want the need, the desire for faith. After all what supreme deity would use faith instead of evidence? What supreme deity would use faith when they can simply talk to us? So all of your reasonings go flying out the window. " I have already stated why in my opening round why God desires our faith. To refute my claim, you simply restate your position without any examples or evidence (and what makes it annoying is your confidence that you won the argument.) No.

I will now debunk your next paragraph. The authors of the Bible were not anonymous, with the exception of the 1st five books I believe. There were anecdotes and people who actually witnesses that saw Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead. God doesn't just rely on the Bible, he reveals himself in other ways like miracles/visions, and I will admit some of these supernatural happenings are questionable. Again, I have explained why we need faith, not just pure evidence alone. You have just restated your position over and over again and proved nothing.

Your next two quotes are not related to the topic, much like your whole argument. I am getting tired of you really quick. maybe in another debate we can talk about the legitimacy of the Bible. So not think I am surrendering on these topics, I just see them as irrelevant for now.

Your quote from Matt Dillahunty says more then your entire rambling through these debate rounds. Arguably faith can be a pathway to truth. It can be a pathway to falsity as well, but you can't rule out truth. I have faith that I won't die tomorrow... if I don't, then my faith turned out to be true. We Christians use reasoning throughout our other endeavors, and we also try to prove with reason that God exists. We have not succeeded in proving this in my opinion, so we use a mixture of faith and reason, not just faith as your quote claims, that God exists. Atheists have not and cannot prove the non-existence of God, and so they must also rely on reason/faith that he doesn't exist.

Faith might be gullible as your next quote claims, and it also might be risky. However, I'd say the gambling odds are in our favor (Pascal's Wager).

You have a lot of quotes... I see you are incapable of explaining yourself and thus require someone else to do it for you. Christians have a way of regarding their claims as fact and other religious claims as falsity. For example, miracles that involve Jesus/saints that have no scientific explanation.

You say you are still here even though you hate God. Well good for you, and I know you won't believe my answer, but according to my religion you will go to Hell for hating God. Again, I know you don't have to believe this because I am offering no proof of this. It is off topic and can be done in another debate.

"And this god could simply talk to us. If he talked to his prophets and freely admitted to deceiving them, then he can talk to us." God din't reveal himself to EVERYBODY back in the Old Testament, he chose prophets. The same way that not everyone has a vision or experiences a miracle today. If you acknowledge that the prophets talked with God, you must also acknowledge miracles.

You go on to say "But your point is taken," in regard to being off topic. Obviously my point was not taken, because you do it even more prominently in Round 4.

Everyone is not born an atheist. You have no knowledge at birth, therefore you are neither theist nor atheist. Your beliefs are instilled when you grow up.

In conclusion, I answered your points that deserve to be ignored because I just couldn't let you get away with that. It was off topic yes, but your attitude suggests that you would feel like I have no answer on those issues and that you won. I will not allow that. Most of what my opponent has said has not relation to the debate, he has ignored my round 2 arguments and just restated his claims in response. sorry for the ad hominem, but you use your enemies' weapons against them. Thanks for reading the debate and thanks to my opponent for hosting it.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shannon83 11 months ago
shannon83
@JimShady " I believe the analogy with a teacher seems to be a bit misleading. Teachers testing a student is to confirm they retained knowledge. I am objecting not to the knowledge though the concept of teaching. If it was possible to be born with knowledge of how things worked and you did not need to learn something it would be much more efficient. Plus if God was the teacher in the analogy then we would need to specify a teacher that is not known to everyone and has never been seen by anyone living and only way to even have an idea of this teacher is to read a book at this based on the Jewish mythology.

Then you have the problem that this teacher will punish you for failing the test and you did not opt to take. You have no choice but to be forced to take a test willing or not. So yes I would find this diabolical as it is not something you learn and if you fail according to Christians you are punished. When we say punished it is not a slap on the wrist but eternal torment. Then you must ask what the punishment was for? Well for not believing in something that does no have direct verifiable evidence. I think it is fully justified to be called diabolical when a punishment for simply not believing something is that high on a test that you are being forced to take without you knowing.
Posted by JimShady 11 months ago
JimShady
@shannon83

I disagree that it's diabolical. After all, are teachers diabolical for giving a test to their students? No, they are just trying to make them learn something. If you create already-worthy followers, are they really worthy? Giving them a chance to prove themselves would be meaningful and give them an opportunity to show their love for God. Maybe the supreme being didn't want to create worthy followers, too. I admit your second point discredits my claim, but it's not the thesis of my argument so it's ok. So far you have only shone one way to discredit me, not a lot.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
And I admit I can't but at least I have actually "reasonable" insults in store.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Bye. (Psst, hes giving up)
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
backwardseden
@NDECD1441 Now you are just plain *yawn* boring. You couldn't get get a dried up yeast infection a resurrection. Bye bye.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
@backwardseden yep, totally uneducational. The more you try to insult me the more you prrove my point. Just hope you knew that. Knew=education. I only dont want to insult you. Dont make me mad.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 11 months ago
ChurnedCreamery
"Awe does the flying pregnant fetus vomit screw squared for a runny egg breakfast not get his Pee Wee Herman sing-a-long pie charts in the mail yet? I bet that's what's holding you back from your cabbage batbrain school this semester? Ahhhhhh I knew it."
What does this mean?
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
backwardseden
@shannon83 Yeah and if man had Free Will under god's misery of his thumb nail rule wouldn't faith come along head first? But then again this god likes to play his games and deceive his prophets, so how is it that he can even govern wee lil us with any kind of truth on Pluto or wherever? Oh yeah we are expected to believe whatever blurts from this god's maw even if its hypocritical and contradictory.
Posted by shannon83 11 months ago
shannon83
I think there is a lot of missed actions that could be discussed. An example is with the first part of the debate where con states, "Imagine a world where everyone knew that the God of the Bible existed." He then states reasons he believes we need faith and left in a state of unknowing. Well first I think it would be prudent to state that a being that would require uncertainty to force others into a test to be a bit diabolical. Think about it, it is suggesting we are mice in a lab being forced to perform an experiment "test" weather we are worthy. Why would a supreme being do this why not just create worthy followers if that is what it wanted. Second the concept we must be left in the dark is a direct contradiction to free will. Example in the Satan story does Satan not choose to go against God? Well that suggests that Satan had free will and choose to go against God. So this discredits Cons claim that people must be left guessing if god is real to follow God. I do agree that if we did know God was real then faith would not be required, though because of different reasons. Faith is the belief in something without evidence if we knew God was real then we would have evidence of God and not need faith. So there seems to be a lot of ways to discredit con that seems to be forgone.
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
backwardseden
@NDECD1441 Awe does the flying pregnant fetus vomit screw squared for a runny egg breakfast not get his Pee Wee Herman sing-a-long pie charts in the mail yet? I bet that's what's holding you back from your cabbage batbrain school this semester? Ahhhhhh I knew it.
Now if you are not a christ-ian then why does St. Nick still burp you as he bends you across his wooden kneecaps?
I'm triggered? Where's your shotgun so I can blow my head off?
Yep my first argument isn't very good. They almost never are. But neither are most from anybody. They should be designed to sucker people in which is what good debating is, which is exactly what mine do most of the time and in this case did. And in my round IV, there's 0 my opponent can state to recover. No god, and I am referring to the christian god (as stated) would have the requirement for faith. Period. If you don't like it, well golly gosh gee gosh darned it all, I---don't---care. Toodles.
No votes have been placed for this debate.