The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Theists leave evidence and reason behind when they believe

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 72830
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




Most Theists admit that they cannot prove God exists and, beyond that, have no evidence other than personal revelation. One might think that this would be the end of the line, but along comes the virtue of faith to take up the baton. My simple suggestion, hence the debate, is that belief comes via brute faith rather than evidence or reason.


So you are telling us that you can prove it exists?
Debate Round No. 1


It strikes me that your question would have been better addressed to the comments section, but here's your answer:

What I am saying is that theists must needs be abandon evidence and good reason in order to believe through faith.

I contend that theists come to belief through either:

1. Proselytising
2. Guilt and Fear
3. Personal revelation (highly suspect)

And that nobody is convinced to believe by solid evidence (there is none) or good argument (there are none). The cosmological argument never made a believer of a non-believer (at least as far as Theism goes... Deism may be a different matter)


You can't know why people believe in what they believe and why they think it's right you are just giving your opinion.

I can say, and think it's right, most people who believe in god, or act that way is because they are the ones who are scared and guilty in life, asking for mercy and forgiveness.

Here is something that can also help you understand: The real reasons people believe in God

I hope this helps you understand, you can't just state what you think is right about why people don't believe.
Debate Round No. 2


You seem to be saying why people believe whilst telling me that I may not! And... it seems that you agree with me.

Anyway, I can say some things, such as:
There is no evidence for a Theistic God.
There are no compelling arguments for a Theistic God.

And thence I can conclude that:
Nobody is believing on the grounds of good evidence or good reason; therefore it is either false evidence, false reasoning or some other factor such as fear, compulsion or blind faith.

But since we seem to agree, why did you take the debate on? Is the image and the name an ironic prod?


I just wanted to get some facts right, but in a way I to agree with you. Decent debate, I think we should finish it here!
Debate Round No. 3


Okay, so I guess we'll just make a couple of silly comments for the last two rounds and leave it to the vote. Then I'll start the debate up and hopefully find somebody who disagrees with me to debate the topic :D


Got ya, sorry I was a little bored too so I was finding someone to argue with, thanks anyway though :D
Debate Round No. 4


I leave you with a thought: I believe that there is one pernicious lie that is spread by theistic religions that is believed by theists and atheists alike. If I could disabuse the World of one lie, it would be this: religion (whether right or wrong) does good.

1. Belief does not make you more generous
(theists give slightly more to charity than atheists if you count the churches as charity, which I wouldn't)
(BUT, remove the donations that go to church and empire-building, preaching and proselytising, atheists give slightly more to charity than theists)

2. Belief does not, contrary to instinct, make you more moral
theistic states, countries or regions do not have less crime than their more atheistic neighbours

So, why believe a thing that has no evidence and no benefit? The list of it's negative effects are so long that I don't have time to go into them all, but briefly:

Believe one nuts thing and you're susceptible to believing more nuts things
Believe in God and you tend to rule out GM (Golden Rice could save millions) because it's interfering with God's order
Believe in God and you might form some pretty odd opinions about zygotes because abortion is interfering with G's order
Believe in God and you might do something silly like oppose condoms (killing millions of AIDS)
It's hard to believe in God and not elevate your personal morals to a dangerously untouchable and, dare I say it, fanatical level - in short, you say idiotic things like "I don't disapprove of homosexuality but God does"

To name but a few...

Oh, how I yearn for the day mankind grows up from imaginary friends and learns to remove the training wheels!


Let's finish this with a rap

I can hear you in the toilet stop with the fap

If you want to know what's going on you gotta get outta here asap.

You might buy your t-shirt from GAP

Damn, you need a real rehab.

While OG Pope is getting out

Leave your mind with a doubt.

MC Francis the Pope 69 outta' here fool!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Creativist 2 years ago
I think Pope is getting a bit confused here, if you agreed, then why talk about something else which isn't about what Andy is asking?
Posted by Creativist 2 years ago
Well then, I can just contend that believers come to belief through either:

-Peer pressure / Family pressure.
-Feeling guilty / Asking for forgiveness for something bad they've done.
-Fear of death.

There is a better use of source that makes people think by user PopeFrancis (just my opinion).
I think it's wrong to just give your opinion on why Theists choose to not believe in God.
Posted by AndyHood 2 years ago
I'm slightly open on all of these issues.

1 Burden of proof is not really something that I think it makes any sense to discuss splitting up. Anybody making any claim owns a burden of proof and "you can't prove me wrong" is not sufficient! So, BOP is shared, if you push me to it.

2 I'd rather debate a theist, but if an atheist wishes to take the debate on, that could be fun too.

3 Hmm; yes, I am going hard-line on this one. The Cosmological Argument is a post-rationalisation that theists often rally behind, but I genuinely don't believe that anybody has been convinced by it. I don't think that anybody has moved from a state of non-belief to a state of belief via any good evidence or valid reason... the closest to reasonable that anybody has ever got, in that bold step, is personal revelation... but even then, when we analyse what is likely to be going on (e.g. hallucination), based on the conflicting personal revelations of others, we can easily conclude that personal revelation is not a reliable route to truth.

I suppose the other alternative is the reasoned choice to believe, as per Pascal's Wager... but I very much doubt that Pascal's Wager has convinced anybody either.

So, yes, I am absolutely saying that theists must abandon good reason to believe and that they do rely solely on faith.
Posted by Nac 2 years ago
Who would the burden of proof lie on?

Would you require the con to be a theist?

Are you saying there is no reasoning in their faith, or that they rely solely on faith?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by VotesforCandid_Atheism 2 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was obviously being a troll. This debate goes to Pro. I agreed with him before and after the debate. He also had better conduct and more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by JesusYoloSwag 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con didn't really debate even. he just states people can't be understood about why they believe things. pro makes it clear that people do abandon reason and evidence for theistic gods, but con is quiet about this idea