The Instigator
ErickCBass
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AmNotWhatYouThink
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should we believe in God?

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: 7/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 380 times Debate No: 35914
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ErickCBass

Con

Since there's no evidence in God, we should not believe in him.
AmNotWhatYouThink

Pro

The arguments presented below do not completely and necessarily provide my personal opinion.

1) Belief does not require evidence

Belief is something that does not require any evidence. We, as humans, believe in so many things without really caring about the fact they work or not. For example, many of us spend time in understanding our astrological future, without having any evidence of the accuracy of that system. We believe in universal systems where a bad karma brings bad consequences. Many of us believe in systems such as fate, fortune, and luck. None of these beliefs have evidence that proves their validity, but still we believe in them.

Since, Con has not yet gotten a chance to elaborate on his point, I would like to leave this argument to be expanded for later. For now, to counter what Con said, evidence is not necessary for a belief to be kept.

2) Belief is beneficial

Believing in god is a very personal decision and if someone wants to believe in One, there is no reason for one not to. Most people have different reasons for believing and I believe one of them is for self reflection. Many of us give power to a deity and believe that our actions will be punished. This helps us stay on the right track and guides many of us in the right direction. Most of the moral systems today, come from the same thinking philosophy of religion. There are some elements of religion that we could have never gotten without a strong belief of the people.

I would also expand this argument further after hearing from Con.

To resume, Con believes that we should not believe in God and this belief of his, till now lacks any evidence to be declared valid. Thus, I urge a strong Proposition ballot.

Debate Round No. 1
ErickCBass

Con

My opponents first contention is that belief does not require evidence. AmNotWhatYouThink has assumed the definition of the word 'believe' to be something that does not require evidence to do when this is not necessarily true. His proof for this strict definition is a series of examples, but all he is really doing is showing that belief is something that can be done without evidence. Just how he lists examples of things that are believed in without evidence, anyone can list things that are believed in with evidence. The greatest examples of things believe through evidence are any modern scientific theories such as thermodynamics and gravity. Things that are believed in because they have been tested in a physical and observable way.

My opponents second contention is that we should believe in God, because God makes our lives better. The scenario that AmNotWhatYouThink has proposed is really just an example of blind faith. My opponent is claiming that it doesn't matter if God actually exists or not. The only thing that matters is if he makes our lives better. This is hardly a reason to believe in God for the modern person who aims to seek the truth about the world around them and not live in a dark age of lies. Even if we assume that the best course of action is to take my opponents case for blind faith, there are still plenty of examples of the negative impact of religion. Millions of people have died through religious wars such as the Crusades and blind faith promotes ignorance and servitude in our society because of the nature of blind faith to make people believe and serve without question. My opponent's first point under this second contention is that there is no reason not to believe in God, but I've just stated two. My opponents second point under this second contention is that belief in religion promotes self reflection. But this point quickly falls through in formal debate since he plays it off as personal opinion and states no logical reasoning behind this conclusion. My opponents third and final point for the belief in religion is that it promotes moral conduct. I do agree that religion does promote morality but one does not have to believe in a religion to be a moral person. Parents can raise their children with morals and people can get their morality from obversing the world around them through a practice called Natural Law. This means that Religion is not the only place to find morality and so is not any more apealing as a life enhancer.
AmNotWhatYouThink

Pro


1) Belief does not require evidence


I am sorry to say that Con has misunderstood my first argument. He has stated examples such as thermodynamics and gravity which use evidence to strengthen the belief, however, he is missing to see the point I was making. My first argument was stating that belief does not require evidence. In no way was I saying that a belief cannot have evidence to be supported, but that a belief does not require evidence. Con has misinterpreted the point that evidence is not a necessary element of a belief. In every way a belief can be “tested in a physical and observable way”, however this not a must for one to believe in that belief.


Additionally, the examples I provided of fate, fortunes, and astrology are only believed when people find an “evidence” that proves their system of belief, however that particular “evidence” would not be considered a legit evidence in this modern world. Definitely, these people have evidence that proves their belief, but not the type of evidence that our scientific world looks at or an evidence that can be proven outside the personal profile.


Thus, my point still stands that a belief does not require the kind of evidence that we look for in today’s modern world.


2) Belief is beneficial


Again, Con has misunderstood my point. I never stated that “we should believe in God, because God makes our lives better”. My second point started off by saying that it is one’s personal decision to entrust in God, and if one decides to do so, there is no reason for us to stop one. I in no way am saying that we should believe in God, but rather that those who do believe in God, get a benefit from it so there is no reason to stop them from believing in one.


Con is right to say that I claim that it doesn’t matter if God exists or not, but rather that if a belief in a God makes anyone’s life worse or not. However, Con argues that “This is hardly a reason to believe in God for the modern person who aims to seek the truth about the world around them and not live in a dark age of lies”. I would like to point out that we are in no way arguing if religion provides answers to the world around us, but rather if a belief in God is alright. What lies is Con talking about? People who believe in God do have reasons to believe so. They are not in blind faith, but rather have evidence to believe in God, which would most probably not comply with the standards of evidence one looks for in science. Evidence that one needs to entrust in God is not a material one, but rather an immaterial one. It is one that only the person by him or herself can prove to him or herself. Do not get me wrong when I say it does not matter if God exists or not, it most certainly does to those who believe in God. It does not matter to us really since it does not provide any harm to the society.


Con later provides negative impacts of religion. First of all, Con is trying to enlighten the “modern person” and at the same time is giving examples of Crusades that no “modern person” was part of. I am proud to say that the thinking in today’s world has changed and less and less blood is shed in name of religion. This is not to say that we ignore all the violence and ignorance that still exists in the world in the name of religion. However, it is important to see that it is not a negative impact of religion, but rather of human nature.


Religion is just a means used to cause that impact. In a world where a majority of the population is influenced through religion, religion is used as one of the most effective weapon to unite the people against any cause. A good example of this was given by Con himself: the Crusades. It can easily be seen how religion was used as a motivation factor to get back the Holy Land, while it was just a way to regain lost territories from the Muslim invaders. Religion is just like other tools that powerful leaders use to unite people against an entity. It is like the nationalism in Germany that led to the Holocaust. It was in no way related to religion, but rather to race. It is a tool that many still use for their political agenda. As Myriam Francois-Cerrah very nicely put it, “extremists are, generally speaking, politicized individuals who are operating in a framework where the dominant lexicon is [a religion]…therefore, in order to make themselves audible to the population, ofcourse they express themselves by reference to [that religion].”( ). In other words, those people who want to make a remarkable change with help of the people, use the religion of the people to ignite them, but this in no way means that there is a problem with religion; It is a problem with credibility of people. People’s belief will always be used to manipulate them, be it in God or something else.


Yes, Con, self-reflection is a very personal thing, as is a belief in anything. So, if your rebuttal is that it is not a logical reason, then I strongly see a loophole here. Most people who believe in God are God-fearing, meaning that they are afraid to do anything that might offend God and this is what helps them reflect. When they commit an inhumane act, they can use their belief for this reflection. This, ofcourse, is a personal thing and not all do this, but so is religion and it is the choice of one who believes to believe if they wish to believe.


I am glad that Con and I agree on the point that religion promotes morality. I certainly agree that parents and the Natural Law play a huge role in shaping our morality, but religion works where these things don’t. Religion works where the parents are not on the right track themselves. Religion works where people don’t have parents. Religion works where people are lost and have no one to guide them. Religion works where people go against the Natural Law. Religion is just an enforcer of morality. Even if we have other sources to affirm morality, there is no harm in using another tool that increases this morality.


As Con put it “religion is not the only place to find morality”, but it is one place.


Why should we bother removing this place?


Debate Round No. 2
ErickCBass

Con

ErickCBass forfeited this round.
AmNotWhatYouThink

Pro

AmNotWhatYouThink forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ErickCBass

Con

ErickCBass forfeited this round.
AmNotWhatYouThink

Pro

Since Con has neither provided any rebuttals nor strengthened his case, I would like to urge for a strong Proposition vote.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
ErickCBass

Con

ErickCBass forfeited this round.
AmNotWhatYouThink

Pro

AmNotWhatYouThink forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.