The Instigator
ChiaLia14
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
twighlighttrees
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Not believing in god is not a sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 2/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,234 times Debate No: 45540
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (0)

 

ChiaLia14

Con

Not believing in god is not sin, because god loves who we are, he doesn't care what belief you are along you try to notice he's there. According to the bible, the Christian god promotes free amongst humans, this is why he doesn't prove his existences. However, not believing in god is not a sin. For example, those different culture out there if there not Christian does that mean it's a sin and god goanna punish them ? No god does not punish people, he know how to show love and care about them. According to the bible, those we believe in god and have good hearted of god and anyone, will be given heaven, not just those people who believe in god. So doesn't matter if you believe in him along as you are kind, do the right thing and be honest with what you do, what you think you would still be going to heaven. Believing in god is not a sin at all. People can believe what they want, do what the want, think what they want. Along, they have good hearted of people then they'll be making god happy and be going to heaven .
twighlighttrees

Pro

I will counter my opponents' argument not believing in God is not a sin. I will do so by providing fundamental theological evidence that you cannot worship other gods and not sin against the Christian god. I also will be attacking his definition of sin. I would also like to define and clarify a critical flaw in the debate before we begin.
My opponent by what it appears has taken the pro of the argument. As represented in his initial argument this is contrary to his official standpoint on the website however. For this debate I will ask viewers and voters to keep in mind that my opponent is indeed pro argument and not con as it appears while I however will be the con aggressor when in fact my label says pro.
Definition of terms.
1. God- A transcendent, Immanent, omnipotent, immutable, omniscient being and creator of the world according to the Christian viewpoint.
2. Sin- 1. A violation of Gods' will or anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God. (2. A willful act that goes against Gods, will.

To begin my argument I chose to define those two terms. One being God so we can see his attributes that may take place later in the debate. The other term I chose to define is sin in Abrahamic context. The argument that not believing in god is not a sin is an evident theological fallacy. Looking at the supposed words of God we can learn that one of the greatest sins is to turn unto "man made or false gods." This is represented by the very first rule God tells us in his commandments he gave unto Moses
"I am the lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other god before me."
Here this obviously contrary to what my opponent argues. If the definition of sin is, what separates a relationship between God and is what goes against Gods' will, then there is no possibility that worshiping another god is not sin.
Further elaborating, we see two problems. One being if I worship the god Thor and the god of the Christians I willingly go against gods command and thus according to the definition of sin not be sinning. Also if I being a person worship willfully Thor and not the Christian god I am placing Thor over precedence over God and thus hindering the relationship between me and the Christian god. according to our definition once again this is sin.
Therefore I claim I have won the argument based on I have disproven theologically my opponents argument. I have also eliminated through a basic fundamental law in Christianity it is not possible for my opponent to be correct.
Debate Round No. 1
ChiaLia14

Con

From what I see, where I grab information from, that's where I got all my information to write what I wrote "Not believing in god is not a sin" because it's actually not. Why would not believing in god is a sin ? what would happen to you? if someone can answer this question to me the right way with the proper manner maybe just maybe I'll change my thinking.
According debate.org, there's other agrue about is "is not believing in a god a sin or not?' I read other people comments and they say its not, others say it is. People that actually study the bible and the goespel they would actually know the truth.
Before saying something very childish maybe you guys really need check the books and read it and write back to me.
twighlighttrees

Pro

Again I extend my arguments. My opponent states he gets his information from a different way but does not list how. He has failed to challenge my argument. He even states that other who post comments do not believe not believing in god is a sin. However that doesn't change the known fact that it is sin. In my argument I've listed a basic FACT according to Christian theology of what exactly sin is. (Give it a Google search anyone can see it to be true) My opponent provides no example as to why this is not true. Simply not believing it's not a sin does not in any way change the theology of a belief. To also answer my opponents question as seen in the bible "the wages of sin are death" (Romans 6:23) this is yet again another easily to find statement concluding that if you do sin you will surely be punished in whatever way the christian god wills. (Again according to Christian theology. I strongly encourage my opponent to do a simple search on Christian theology basics, look up the nicene creed, and closely study exactly what sin is. All other points are extended by my previous argument.
Debate Round No. 2
ChiaLia14

Con

ChiaLia14 forfeited this round.
twighlighttrees

Pro

Extended arguments. Thank you to my opponent for providing the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
agreed
Posted by slothmcfabulous 3 years ago
slothmcfabulous
Your proposition gives food for thought, but ask yourself, is it realistic? Is it really? Think about how this theory of yours came to you, did you create this yourself or did it come from what you have heard or read from other sources/other minds? You simply cannot say that something "might" exist simply because we haven't discovered everything/know everything there is in existence. It's just not realistic, and realism is what fuels science. Of course it's all about evidence, probability and predictability. so if science ever provides evidence of such possibility then sure, I will agree. I will keep my mind open for such an occasion, but for now the vast knowledge we have of the understanding of the universe points away from such a theory. I know I can't say anything to change your mind, and I'm not saying that mine is 100% absolute truth because the human mind is a weird and wonderful place, agreed?
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
sloth: Allah, Christian God, Vishnu, Zeus, Thor..etc: All created by man. That does not mean that absolutely No God exists! Just because there is a pattern of humans creating Gods does not mean that some form of God doesn't exist, even if only as existence itself ! Just because people keep making up God's (poorly I might add) Does not mean that they are not real. Especially since people think that their imagination IS REALITY. Zeus, Thor, and God actually existed in their quasi reality. I propose to you that we ALL live in our own quasi reality where very little has to do with our natural reality. If people were more concerned about natural reality. This world would be a much better place. Basically I'm just saying that theists are not the only misguided souls. I am Agnostic so people telling me that they know one way or another is a red flag in my quasi reality!
Posted by slothmcfabulous 3 years ago
slothmcfabulous
Your statement that it isn't impossible just improbable might make sense in your head, it certainly does in mine, but it just isn't true. Are you claiming that anything we could possibly imagine (like brian the flying toast killer) can't be disproved simply because you believe there is a possibility of other realms where the laws of physics do not apply? Because God was created by man, you cannot deny that. You cannot prove the existence of this other realm either, so let's stick to what we know in our own please.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Just to give you some perspective: You saying God does not exist. Is just as ridiculous as me claiming that he does! Theism and atheism are nothing more than two different sides to a conflict. I am trying to explain that you are both wrong when assuming that you KNOW!
Posted by twighlighttrees 3 years ago
twighlighttrees
Well I don't believe that there is just one god. And we base the possibility of logic I.e. The university won't explode in 5 seconds because for the past billions of years it hasnt. which is why I agree but to no amount can we measure possibility that's unknowable in my opinion I may be wrong
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Anything is possible. Just not probable. If you have unlimited amount of time to flip a coin and catch it.. there is no law that dictates that the coin will not pass through your hand. You cannot test this theory but you cannot prove its wrong unless you could test it. So either way claiming that the coin could fall through your hand is not impossible. Just extremely improbable!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
@sloth: It takes arrogance and hubris to claim that you "Know" God doesn't exist. Same goes when claiming a God does exist. Whether or not God exists in a form we have imagined is not debatable. But if you do assume that God exists.. You have to assume that is could be a Hindu God, Greek God, or even the flying spaghetti monster. I realize I'm using circular logic.. but so are you my friend!
Posted by twighlighttrees 3 years ago
twighlighttrees
I disagree and agree with points of your statement. .You seem to confuse "being tricked" into thoughts or it is natural for people to worship something that is sympathetic to how they feel is what determines some ones belief. If that was true then nobody would question or be skeptical of anything they are taught. A master apprentice relationship with what is seen as "truth" is what develops into a genuine faith its not because I want to feel good or that sounds about right therefore I will believe in X. If science can prove something we previously thought to be true as untrue then the belief indeed must change ( I agree with it being small minded not to question what we believe). I disagree with your point that just because something cannot be proven or disproven therefor its a small possibility to happen because if that's true there's no way of recording how much of a possibility that is. If I have 1% of knowledge in the universe I cannot accurately judge how possible it is for something else in the other 99% to be true. I can infer sure, but I cannot in any way accurately measure possibility, therefore there is a good chance that there may be a large possibility of this to be true, but there also may not. we will never find out. ( so it may be bread or fairies but then again we will never know and you cant say that's wrong because you don't know either nor can you figure it out just as I cant. So we can infer that its a basis of viewpoint that determines if people are religious or not. ( I am expecting you to disagree with me on that and look forward to a counter argument)
Posted by slothmcfabulous 3 years ago
slothmcfabulous
What will it take for you to realize? In order to understand the reason that god is a product of human imagination, you must first completely understand the way in which the human brain works. It's natural for us to want to believe in something that is comforting, such as an afterlife. there are people who genuinely believe the earth is flat, why do you think that is? If someone is tricked into believing something enough they will then see their belief as the ultimate truth, simply because when they see things or are told things that make sense in their head, they automatically think that it must be true because these pockets of information link together so they get the feeling of "it all makes sense now". as anyone with a belief has proven, it is extremely hard to change the viewpoint of someone who is such a strong believer, no matter how much evidence/proof/logical ideas you throw at them. If you want to believe it is possible that some form of ultimate consciousness "created" the universe with magic that would go against the laws of physics then fine. Just know that it is small minded to believe in anything of the sort without giving it some thought first. Also, I have thought about all of the philosophical views that people have on the topic (e.g. It cannot be proven, yet it cannot be dis-proven, therefor there is a small change it can be true) I know that these types of ideas can seem logical but it's not realistic and does not prove to be viable. Anyone could say the same about fairies existing, or a flying loaf of bread called brian that kills millions of chickens, but do you think these things are a possibility? If so then please stop yourself right there and don't bother replying.
No votes have been placed for this debate.