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

Resolution: Faith should not be considered a virtue.

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: 10/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 236 times Debate No: 80839
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




If not all then many theistic religions elevate faith as a virtue. However, far from praise worthy, faith is belief in a proposition without evidence and can therefore can be used to justify anything. This is not conducive to building a moral society. A virtue is a behavior which exhibits high moral standards. This is my case.


"A virtue is a behavior which exhibits high moral standards." Doesn't faith already give a high moral standard? Faith is not the belief in God so much as it is the belief in the values which that "God" has engrained into our society. With every different religion comes a different general culture. Islam is the religion that has been created by the Arab World, thanks to Islam Arabic is a known language throughout all of the Muslim world. You can hear Arabic in almost every part from Nigeria all the way to Afghanistan. Prayers are all in Arabic and Arabic Culture is present in every part of it.

As for Islam, Christianity is the religion for the general European culture that we see in the United States. While protestant languages are German,English,Swedish,Finnish and Norwegian, Catholicism presents more romantic languages such as Spanish,Italian,French and Portuguese. What faith does is proves to the predominant culture of the USA, Christianity, that he or she believes in the same values as most people. Without faith how can we believe that they are truly in sync with our traditions such as Christmas and Easter. Most countries in the world understand this which is why they tend to invest their trust in the leader who is the most faithful. Israel will always have a Jewish Prime Minister while the Saudi King shall always be a sunni muslim. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, is himself a self proclaimed believer in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Though what needs to be looked at is when a country loses it's faith and begins to elect secular leaders.Look at the country with the second highest rate of Suicide, North Korea, ( which is an Atheist state and every leader since Kim Il Sung has been an Atheist. Clearly you can say that they have no faith in any religion and yet the whole country believes the Leader of North Korea does not defecate.(

Clearly this shows that without faith in a theistic ideology, the people will just find something else to believe in, something even more ridiculous. People in general have a herd like mentality and sometimes a theistic belief is probably a lot better then turning a human into a God.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello! You are well phrased and concise. It's very nice to read your argument and I think this will be fun!

First point of disagreement may be, more accurately, a point of clarity.
"Faith is not the belief in God so much as it is the belief in the values which that "God" has (i)ngrained into our society."
Belief that God has engrained beliefs into our society either presupposes a belief in God, or presupposes the presupposition by many that God or gods exists. Furthermore, I am not asserting that religious faith alone is not in itself a virtue, rather I assert that Faith is not virtuous because one can use it to justify anything. Religious faith merely tends to be a particularly strong branch of faith.
If we would like to use Belief in God as an example, then let me make an example of an argument from faith as charitably as I can(Feel free to make another one yourself if you feel that you can demonstrate this well):

1. I believe that Value X is justified because God has ingrained this value in society.
2. God, If God exists, Justifies X by Gods nature, goodness, will etc.
3. (from 1&2) If God exists then X is justified.
4. I have Faith God exists
5. Therefore I believe Value X is justified

Put any value in for X and we see that this argument justifies it. Let us look at a non religious example:
1. I believe that Value X is justified because the good king says so.
2. By faith, The Good king is as such, Good.
3. I believe that the king's word justifies Value X

Clearly this requires further examination. We must establish that the King is good, real, competent and much more before we can use His word to justify values. Indeed what if value X is Racial superiority or a tradition of child sacrifice? In any case, Faith has cut short the chain of reason long before one ought to be justified in believing a moral proposition. Therefore faith is not conducive to forming a well reasoned moral picture and is not a virtue.

Secondly, In response to the North Korean straw man. If one goes looking for the Highest rates of suicide, and points out that the second highest rate is in a secular country, then one ought note that in your same list, One finds Guyana, a vastly more religious state (interestingly largely a Hindu population despite being located on the east coast of South America) To be number one. So do not point to a one off correlation in an inconstant list to imply causality. Also, Isn't it more likely that living in a totalitarian society, where your leader is himself considered a God of sorts, where the words civil rights are meaningless, would cause greater anguish than secularism?
Here is a list of the happiest countries by one scale. Notice the source is a mainstream publication.
Top 2 countries on this list are Norway and Denmark, two of the most Atheistic societies. This puts a nail in the coffin for any point resting on the assertion that Religious faith is REQUIRED to yield a thriving society. The question that remains is, does Faith help in creating a Moral society? I believe I have thus far shown that faith does not.

In response to the assertion that societies tend to lend their trust to faithful leaders. The example given was as follows:
"Israel will always have a Jewish Prime Minister while the Saudi King shall always be a sunni muslim. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, is himself a self proclaimed believer in the Russian Orthodox Church."
I assume that we are not in disagreement when I say that Vladimir Putin and Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud or his late brother Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, are not prime examples of worldly or just rulers. I think rather that the assertion is that these countries will always have a religiously faithful ruler. While i agree that this is true, I cannot agree that this OUGHT to be the case. Indeed the fact that these rulers make the faith based claim that God is one their side, makes their actions (like the state funding of terrorism) LOOK justified, to people who make the same faith based claims. In the end, the widespread nature of religious faith no more lends to it's virtue than does the widespread nature of misogyny lend to its virtue.


Indeed this will be fun, so let's begin by talking a bit about your point on Guyana. Although Guyana may be a religious country, it does have many of it's own issues that tend to bring up the numbers of suicides. Issues such as rural poverty and alcoholism are extremely widespread but what is interesting is on how easy it is for these people to get their hands on poisonous pesticides. Not only that but mental illness and depression are extremely widespread in these areas and nothing much has been done due to the country being extremely poor.So in a sense it is not the religion that is causing all of these suicides but it is situation.(

But now to begin talking about the countries of Norway and Denmark. Yes you can say they are doing very well on the surface but what many people do not do is actually look into the countries themselves. Both these countries and the rest of Europe deal with a large issue of over Political Correctness. Secularists tend to trash the Bible and Christianity but when it comes to the non native religion of Islam they tend to look the other way. Yes Islam, the religion of peace, these Politically Correct secular people will keep chanting that into your face over and over again but what has this non native religion done to make them nervous to question it. Not a lot of people know this but did you know Sweden, a very secular country, has the second highest Rape Per Capita in the world?( Before the immigration though Sweden was considered the most Peaceful country on the planet. But what many people won't tell you is that most of the rapes are caused by Non-Native Religious Muslims, the people who will constantly deny this statistic are mainly atheists and secular. The reason why? They're afraid of offending Islam, and why not they will begin shouting in the streets how they want to kill and murder Danish Citizens. The whole Prophet Controversy timeline can be found right here, (

It is interesting though how secularists will call any Christian figure head racist and anti-woman, but in reality denying hard statistics about Islamic rape gangs is more anti-woman then anything else. Secularists love to take the high road and criticize Christianity but in reality the Christian Faith in perspective is a lot less misogynist then the Islamic world where women are forced to wear large burka to cover everything but their eyes. Clearly Christianity has been much less misogynist throughout history then Islam. Your secular country of the UK (

But back to the main topic of this whole thing was how Faith is a good characteristic in a leader. Racial superiority is a thing of the past when it comes to mainstream religion. Christians make up 33% of the world and come in every color,size and profession in human beings. You can find a black Christian in Africa just as likely as you can find a blonde haired blue eyed christian in the USA. Same goes with Islam where you are just as likely to find a blonde haired blue eyed muslim in Bosnia as you are a black muslim in Northern Nigeria. As far as everyone is concerned this is not a racial thing any longer and it is time to think of the big picture.

The problem with a very secular leader is that they tend to be a lot more submissive to a more aggressive outside faith and tend to bend down.Secularists seem to have a distain for their home country's predominant religion, possibly due to bullying by the culture for their opinion. The once proud christian nation of the United Kingdom is now subject to Muslim rape gangs thanks to the Labour Party's aggressive campaign to silence any white woman who comes forward. (
Debate Round No. 2


The point I make about Guyana is not that religion is necessarily Causing the country's problems, but rather the point I make is that one cannot look to the evidence you presented and draw the conclusion that secularism lead to a higher degree of suicide in these countries. The data is not there. In the first paragraph round two argument, you made this point no longer an issue...Or so I thought.

In response to Sweden's rape statistics. Once again, rape is not a result of secularism. For better or worse, the point you make
seems to be that secularism drives political correctness, which leads to a blind eye turned to rape crimes committed by Muslim men. First, political correctness is not ingrained in secularism. All one need do is take to the Internet to see that secularists as a whole give no person a free pass. Furthermore, the statistics you show are based on Reported rape. Countries that have better human rights records often move away from religious taboo regarding rape victimization. If one is not worried that the faith of one's family will result in a honor killing, one is more likely to report rape. However, THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT. By garnering the respect of Faith as a virtue, it becomes taboo to criticize faith based beliefs and this is a problem when, as I have shown Faith can justify anything. If this is still held in doubt question, investigate what justification is given for suicide bombing, genital mutilation, discrimination against homosexuals, and women sexual health? Aren't these USUALLY objected to on the basis of faith statements? If these abhorrent practices can be justified by faith, then what cannot?

If faith is not a virtue then what is the role of faith? Faith, not just religious faith, should be invoked only when one cannot know the answer, not merely when one refuses to hear the evidence. Faith ought not to be considered good in itself. Rather, faith ought to be considered a necessary and temporary state that one should strive to overcome. Friend, you defend faith amicably, but when justifying moral claims Faith just won't do.

Thank you. I hope that the community will read our arguments thoroughly.


Well let's begin on why I brought up the point of the Swedish Rape Statistics, the reason why I brought it up is to show the results of what the world has witnessed many times over. The idea of a secular leader is good in theory, but in reality we can see the results of secularist rule. The theory would be that everyone would get along in a liberal pan-sexual gender equal world where everyone has welfare and everyone is happy.But I don't look at theoretical ideas, the point of these ideas were to show the actual results of secularist rule. And those results tended to either be where the Secularists would pretend to hate all religions equally but the ones that react violently they would protect valiantly or the secularists would just find a different thing to worship.

Though what also is interesting is how many "reported rapes" there are, so many in fact that they rival the country of Lesotho. That is in fact a huge deal on how such an advanced country like Sweden can surpass all European countries AND predominantly the world. Why would it be that even for African standards they would be so high? Finland, who is only East of Sweden is 17th in the ranking of Rapes per Capita.(, my question still stands on how, comparably to the rest of Europe, Sweden is considered the most problematic area and yet they pretend to be a perfect society. If Sweden keeps thinking of itself as the EUtopia then why does it have such a high rape rate? I do not go by theory I go by the basis of cold hard numbers and what I see is 59%-85% of Sweden is non religious and yet the 5% who are Islamic are able to bully the rest of Sweden into doing exactly what they want them to do.( If you are a secularist wouldn't you base your opinions on the result of a sociological experiment?These are cold hard facts and you can't get around it. Sweden is considered the most secular country in the European Union and they have the 2nd highest number of rapes per capita in the world. Thus this shows a secularized government has been pushed around into covering up and pretending it doesn't exist.

I would like to challenge your point where you say I do defend faith amicably, I personally am not religious myself but I've been through religious school for most of my life and I've read a few stories. Now I know people may not agree with bringing up a biblical story but I believe this one does have a meaning behind it. While Moses had written down the 10 commandments, the Israelites had gotten bored of waiting for him and thought there was no God so instead they begun worshipping a Golden Calf. Yes this was an old story but it still remains true throughout history with many dictators, especially communist ones, who had created their Cult of Personalities which you can easily compare to the Golden Calf.

Same goes with the secularism of Europe. This form of secularism is nothing new, if you go back to ancient Roman times this is exactly what had happened, the Germanic tribes in the North and the Arab tribes in the South had begun to immigrate to Rome and eventually when the number of these immigrants surpassed the Roman citizens, this had begun the fall from within. Yes you can say that the tribes were battling the Romans on the outside but who was battling the Romans on the inside? The same exact people from within. The people who live today who know this more then anyone is ISIS, it is very clear from the many articles that they have studied ancient battle strategies. They have studied them so much that they have even implemented the Roman technique of throwing vases full of scorpions at their enemies to stun them. ( But the sickest tactic of all is the Trojan Horse that they have literally bragged about for months now with the Syrian refugees.

It has been a very fun and interesting first debate and I appreciate the debate sincerely but I assure you and everyone who reads this that Europe does not need an Angela Merkel. They need a King Clovis I. (
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jjorloff1 1 year ago
(continued from previous post...)

Alternatively, Merriam also includes the definition that faith is:
1a: Allegiance to duty or a person
1b: (1) fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

Either of those definitions could have been used if the original poster was interested in debating the merits of faith as a virtue separately from religious connotations.

As a side note, Mirriam 2b(1) is a definition that is pretty much identical to the original poster's definition; however I still think that the definition provided by Oxford is more accurate, and more likely to be accepted by the people to whom that definition is typically directed (often derogatorily).
Posted by jjorloff1 1 year ago
I think the biggest issue I see with the premise of this debate is that the definition used for faith, "faith is belief in a proposition without evidence and can therefore can be used to justify anything", is not a definition that would be accepted by just about anyone who would believe that faith is a virtue. That definition is both not a good dictionary definition, or a definition that would be used by people who consider themselves people of faith. That definition is primarily held by people who believe strongly that information obtained outside of the scientific process is of less truth, value and/or relevance than scientifically obtained information and who are also anti-religious in their worldview.

If the definition provided by Oxford (, for example had been used, then the debate could have been based around one or all of the potential definitions:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
2.1 A system of religious belief.
2.2 A strongly held belief or theory

The closest definition to the one provided by the original poster is #2; however, without including the "spiritual apprehension" component of that definition, the debate is not set off on consistent grounds. It is a little like saying (an extreme example, I admit, but I'm trying to demonstrate a point): "Assuming there is not a god and that everyone considers that to be true, argue that faith in a god is a good thing." Definition #2 might also be modified to be more closely in sync with what I think most religious people would agree with: Faith is a strong belief in God or the doctrines of a religion based on spiritual apprehensions, personal experiences, logical (as opposed to scientific) reasoning and/or philosophy rather than material scientific evidence.
No votes have been placed for this debate.