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

Why debate God's existence since faith is required

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,163 times Debate No: 69433
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)




Atheists want to say there is no God only to tell believers that instead of proving there is no God, it is incumbent upon the believer to prove there is God, even though the atheist initiates the claim. One has to back up a claim initiated by themselves rather than twisting it around. (There is an current example of this on this site). Believers should know it takes faith to believe in God & it puzzles me as to how they can accept such a challenge, knowing it is impossible to prove. So why is this such a popular discussion topic knowing how it's going to turn out?
I will use faith as a means to prove it exists in our everyday life and not only when it comes to believing in God. The opposition can explain why an argument is necessary when faith is involved. The opposition can be a believer or not because it's puzzling either way.


Atheists do not claim there is no god. They reject the claim that others have made. Atheists debate not just the existence of a god or gods, they debate that faith is a good reason to believe something. The definition of faith is to blindly accept something that lacks evidence. This proposes a problem: anyone can make a claim and follow it up with "you just need faith" and have whatever claim that is be acceptable. Atheists want you to defend your position and your claim. If you can't, then they have no reason to accept any god or any faith based subject. They certainly have no reason to accept your claim over someone else's. If you can't defend your reason for belief, then your belief basically falls flat.
Debate Round No. 1


I posed my statement the way I had because of many atheists have done exactly what you say they do not & in the manner in which I previously stated. You may have a different brand or purist idea of what an atheist should be, but in my experience, & it's extensive in this area, most are as I relayed.
I must ask where you got your definition of faith of "blindly accepting ...." As far as all the definitions I have heard or researched, they all prey much state, "trusting or believing in something you cannot explicitly or definitively prove." I know of know of no person that blindly follows anything other than kids doing what parents telling them & that can be going to bed at a certain time or eating certain vegetables. That being said, we all have to have some evidence in something we are about to believe in. What is evidence to some, may be silliness to others. I do not mean we see a shooting star & therefore it's aliens from outer space either. That's not evidence because it can me proven to be false & therefore the 'evidence' is not really evidence.
So, let's get back to faith ..... faith in anything. You already have claimed victory with your "If you can't defend your reason for belief, then your belief basically falls flat." Please define "reason for belief.' It seems as though you want a reason that you already have defined within your own parameters, which may be just a little short sighted. Why not let's see what else we have faith in every single day of our lives? Let's go by the definition of faith of academia accepts, which is trusting or believing in something you cannot explicitly or definitively prove & not the "follow blindly" one you gave OK? Or do you say that we do everything we do in this world only after we have all the facts & therefore do not need 'faith' in doing anything?
I'm not trying to go off course or trying to act stupid here. I believe it's a misconception of what faith is more than anything else. If I went with your definition, I would certainly accept faith as silliness & anytime that faith is used in any context, we would know that what followed has no credence whatsoever.


A reason for belief is the thing that convinces you. You say that people have different reasons for accepting things and that they call different things "evidence". The way that the scientific community (the community that is responsible for all we know today) determines something as factual is can it be observed. If people claim to have observed it, did they observe it with any of the human senses we know people have? If they observed it by just "feeling his love", that evidence falls flat on it's face. If they accept the holy text as evidence, again, it falls flat. "Why do you believe in god?" "The bible is says that god exists." "Why is the bible a source of evidence?" "It came from god".
I'm not saying that that is your reasoning, but a lot of people get in to that cycle. It's a cycle that makes no sense. The only acceptable evidence is evidence that can be observed regularly using any of the human senses.
Many claim miracles as evidence, which they are not. Miracles is a concept way too broad. Here's why: a miracle is an unlikely, positive event that occurs because of God. But are there unlikely positive events that don't occur because of God? If so, how can we differentiate the two? And if all positive unlikely events are miracles, what if it's positive for one group and negative for another? Is that a miracle? Because in that situation, God worked against his own, something the bible says he'd never do, for he loves all his children.
Atheists only require one thing to be an atheist: disbelief in a god. What one atheist does can be different than another. Two people can be absolutely nothing alike what so ever. One can be completely skeptical about everything while another accepts a lot of super natural claims and believes everything that is said to him. But if he does not believe in god just like the skeptic, than they both fall in to the same category. However, an atheist saying "there is no god" is actually similar to "I do not accept your claim for a god". When someone tells their child that Santa Claus does not really exist are they asserting something? Or do they really mean that Santa is a fake, made up character that we have never been able to observe? Same goes for many atheists and gods. Many believe God is a fake made up character that has no evidence to back up it's existence. I am someone who falls in to that category.
The Christian God is one in a few million gods, the bible is one in many holy texts, Jesus is one of millions of prophets, the bible to me is a fake. I do know from my historical studies that Christianity is nothing more than a stolen story, for the stories of Jesus and god have occurred in extremely similar ways long before the bible ever came about. In fact, here is a chart that shows a comparison of Christianity and a religion from Egypt

Egyptian - (Began 4,000 BCE)

1. The Mysteries
2. The Sem, or mythical representations
3. The Ritual as the book.of resurrection
4.The sayings of Iu or Iu-em-hetep
5. Huhi the father in heaven as the eternal, a title of Atum-Ra
6. Ra, the holy spirit
7. Ra the father of Iu the Su, or son of God, with the hawk or dove as the bird of the holy spirit
8. Iu or Horus, the manifesting son of God
9. The trinity of Atum (or Osiris) the father, Horus (or Iu) the son, and Ra the holy spirit
10. Iu-Su or Iusa, the coming son of Iusaas, who was great with Iusa or Iusu
11.The ever-coming Messu or Child as Egyptian
12. Horus (or Heru), the Lord by name, as a child
13. Isis, the virgin mother of Iu, her Su or son
14. The .rst Horus as Child of the Virgin, the second as son of Ra, the father
15. The first Horus as the founder, the second as fulfiller for the father
16. The two mothers of Child-Horus, Isis and Nephthys, who were two sisters
17. Meri or Nut, the mother-heaven The outcast great mother with her seven sons
18. Isis taken by Horus in adultery with Sut
19. Apt, the crib or manger, by name as the birthplace and mother in one
20. Seb, the earth-father, as consort to the virgin Isis
21. Seb, the foster-father to Child-Horus
22. Seb, Isis and Horus, the Kamite holy trinity

Christian - (Began 200 BCE)

1. The miracles.
2. The parables.
3. The Book of Revelation.
4. The sayings of Jesus.
5. Ihuh, the father in heaven as the eternal.
6. God the Holy Ghost.
7. God, the Father of Jesus, with the dove as the bird of the Holy Spirit.
8. Jesus the manifesting Son of God.
9. The Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
10. Jesus.
11. The Hebrew Messianic Child.
12. Child-Jesus as the Lord by name (Gospels of the Infancy).
13. Mary the virgin mother of Jesus.
14. Jesus as the Virgin's child, the Christ as son of the father.
15. Jesus as the founder, and the Christ as fulfiller for the father.
16. The two mothers of Child-Jesus, who , were sisters.
17. Mary, as Regina Cceli.
18. Mary Magdalene, with her seven devils.
19. The woman taken in adultery.
20. The manger as cradle of the Child Christ.
21. Joseph, the father on earth, as putative husband to the Virgin Mary.
22. Joseph, as foster-father to the Child Jesus.
23. Joseph, Mary and Jesus, a Christian holy trinity.

I find Christianity and all religions to be full of holes. And I find too many similarities among religions to find one more acceptable than another. I also find them all hard to believe due to a lack of evidence.
Debate Round No. 2


I hate to do this cuz I do appreciate all the work you have put into your answer to me, but you are getting away from the original question posed, & what needs to be answered here. You seem to be hung up on a certain definition of faith & evidence, which does not explain why people do certain things ....... like believe in God, love, loyalty, experiment, take a different path, etc. Science cannot empirically provide facts why people do different things, other than using neurology & physiology to explain it. But that still does not explain why we do the things we do satisfactorily in many cases. Just cuz science determines facts, how is faith lumped into something that science cannot prove? Your definition of being able to believe in something seems that there is a need for an observable 'thing'.

Your comment of "The only acceptable evidence is evidence that can be observed regularly using any of the human senses," limits evidence with, once again, your own self-limiting definition of evidence. It follows then that a feeling one has of trusting someone, or belief, does not fit does it? Where is the observable scientific standard? What trusting is for one person, surely is not the same for another. & having that faith in the other to trust them cannot be proven cuz that person may have ulterior motives, & not deserving of trust, only wanting something from you using trust as a ruse. Ergo, there is no absolute proof.

But I am getting away from the question originally asked & the one we are supposed to debate.

Pretty much the rest of your last answer to me attempts to disprove God without the use of faith, which is for maybe another debate, but not this one. You try to use correlation of loosely tied comparisons to discredit things in the bible. If this was a widely accepted ruse of the bible to hijack mythology, then the bible would have been exposed for just that. To use a theory that is not accepted in any regarded academia to argue your point, only shows opinion & therefore does nothing for your cause. Your last paragraph of "I find Christianity and all religions to be full of holes. And I find too many similarities among religions to find one more acceptable than another. I also find them all hard to believe due to a lack of evidence," has nothing to do with the original question asked here. This may be your belief & opinion & you are most certainly entitled to it. You never have answered the question of, why debate God's existence since faith is required? Instead, you have given your own opinion of definitions of faith & evidence that fits your perception of those words. Most of your verbiage here consists of your own belief system, which does nothing to answer the question.

Ya see, it doesn't matter why you or I believe or what we do concerning God in this discourse. What matters is why God's existence is debated when there is no definitive proof from either side .......... it takes faith. & faith is ones perception of evidence & is not necessarily right or wrong, altho can be considered as such. You have defined faith, not by the worldwide accepted definitions, but by your personal beliefs of what it should mean & therefore cherry picked, which is opinionated & self-limiting, & therefore an invalid argument with the original question asked in mind.


The reason for debating the subject based around faith is that faith is not good justification for belief. That's what my "off topic rambling" was about. To show that faith can go anywhere. The point of faith is to get people to believe what you can't prove. Once someone says 'no, I can't prove it' then the claim should be thrown away or at least researched without a bias. But it should not be accepted until proven.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
Ozzy, "Gaining trust over time is not faith." That's not what I'm saying. Faith is believing that the evidence of the trust we have had so far is worth believing in & therefore, worth trusting that person or thing.

Your, "Faith is acceptance without evidence." If that's the case, then it must be completely blind & without any merit whatsoever. Yet, we have faith that a plane will get us to our destination safely. & the evidence is that we believe enough research, technology & work was put forth into the the plane so as we can have faith that we trust the plane is sound transportation. Trust is completely separate, altho a component of faith. So I can say "I have faith in the plane to get me there cuz I believe I can trust the evidence thru research, technology & work that was put forth into the the plane & deemed safe." So, we see that faith is indeed different than trust & also evidence is needed to had said faith.

& also what is evidence to one person is not necessarily evidence to someone else, even tho both people have their own different evidence of the same thing. Take beauty or true love. So my evidence may be something you totally do not believe in, & visa versa. Altho, I have believe that my evidence is totally sound to have faith in something to believe in it. (whatever that 'thing' may be, that is).
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Gaining trust over time is not faith. Trust is earned. Faith is acceptance without evidence. But that's also a different debate
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
A dog shows it is trained not loyal. It shows us companionship not loyalty. It show us protection not loyalty. A mother shows love to her baby, but can that be false love at times so others won't know her true feelings, but we see it as love? "Consistently keeping their word" shows that we CAN trust them thru faith in their actions, but can we be guaranteed they are indeed genuinely trustworthy ........ or only doing it to get something they want from us? Ya see, that's the difference between proof & faith in someone. Proof is undeniable & faith is a belief something is true, altho it cannot be 100% proven in all instances, but we believe it as so.
Yes, your girlfriend has earned your trust to have faith in her love & not cheating on you. You believe she won't cheat, or you wouldn't have her as your girlfriend. & that is called faith. The belief (faith) she won't cheat. If you don't have any faith she won't cheat on you, you have the wrong girlfriend, or you need counseling. (kidding of course).

Oops, my bad re voting. My 1st debate here. Thanx for the word of caution. Just consider this our 4th round. I should have given this more than the 3 rounds I had, but didn't know that was an option ....... tunnel visioned I suppose. My bad & will know better next time. Thanx for the debate & will see you on the board again some time.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Love, trust and loyalty can be proven. Let's take love: we know from birth most mothers love their children. They nurture them constantly. We know she loves the child based on many criteria we have for what we define as love. Trust can also be proven. If someone is constantly keeping their word, they have proven they are trustworthy. Of course they can break their trust, at which point, they are trustworthy. Let's take a dog and loyalty: A dog follows our instructions after it's been trained. That is proven loyalty. Again, when the loyalty is broken, it is no longer true. But until it is broken, it is true. I have zero faith in anything. I have zero faith in my girlfriend not cheating on me. She has earned my trust.

I hope the voters do not take the comments in to account. The comments are not the debate zone and should not be taken into consideration
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
Ozzy, Your last statement "... But it should not be accepted until proven ..." Why do we love or trust or believe in loyalty or many other aspects of life that requires not proof, but faith that we believe it is true, also have no definitive proof. You prove without exception that you can trust someone, or that someone loves you or someone is loyal ...... without exception, then I will acquiesce to you. It's the faith, or what we believe to be true, for many things of everyday life that we accept. We have faith in trusting someone, but that trust may also be broken & therefore not proven trust. We could believe someone is loyal to us, but in reality they could just be acting that way for an ulterior motive, & when that motive is accomplished their loyalty vanishes. Same with a loved one. These aspects of life are never 'proven' only we have faith they are true & therefore accepted on the basis of faith in that person or whatever we are looking at. If you didn't have faith in you kids to succeed cuz they haven't proven themselves, would they ever succeed if you didn't show confidence (faith) in them?
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
illusiveman47, I agree with the blind faith statement of yours.

"Subjectivism is flawed and a very dangerous mindset.... Much like religion and faith." I believe that it can be flawed, not necessarily tho. If a person does their due diligence with research, their subjectivity is based on objectivity. Some times as we research the 'other side' we may find our own opinion &/or facts to be in error & that's how one should/must research things to find the truth. Thing is, we must be very careful of the sources we use as research material.

As far as your quote here, you make a definitive statement that religion & faith is a dangerous mindset without prefacing it with 'some' or 'in my opinion.' If you had an all inclusive reason for the manner in which you claim this to be fact, then please by all means share. What you say does have merit in some cases, but you did not say it in that fashion.

& a belief in God does not have a monopoly on the word 'faith.' We have faith everyday in many aspects of our lives. Rather than being redundant, please read my comment to missmedic below & if further clarification is needed, let me know. Thanx.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
Esiar, "Atheists do not claim there is no god." Your answer may be true, altho that is not the question asked here. My question is "Why debate God's existence since faith is required." Even my opponent seems to want to debate other things, getting off task. I'm sorta disappointed people seem to get off task & be very tunnel visioned with their own agendas without regard to the specifics that pertain to the topic question.
Posted by illusiveman47 2 years ago
Im sorry but that opposing argument is subjectivism at it's finest. If truth is subjective and reason is achieved not through logic and evidence then justice is a joke, arguments would be pointless because no one is right or wrong. Subjectivism is flawed and a very dangerous mindset.... Much like religion and faith ;)
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
missmedic, true what you say regarding the three, altho to believe that the particular trust, loyalty or respect is worthy of our consideration, we must have faith that all are genuine somehow & therefore something we can believe to be true for our acceptance. I could see someone's loyalty & still not have the faith to accept it for my own reasons.

Try trusting someone with your own child or money without believing in your heart they are truly deserving of that trust. Sure that's earned, but earning something is different than believing with all your heart they will treat your child as you would ...... that's faith in that person that they have earned your trust & will act accordingly.

I never said faith is the same as hope & trust. But one must have faith to believe hope & trust exist for themselves. We can see others trusting & hoping & loving all around us, yet not accept any of them cuz we don't believe it is for us personally. That is the faith we all have within our 'hearts' to different degrees.

This may be semantics, & you just do not correlate faith with believing in something to be able to do all the other things listed here, but without faith, something that is deserving of our acceptance, would not take place without believing it is worthy ........ that's placing our faith in trusting, hoping, loyalty, loving.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Faith doesn't have to be blind faith.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments on both side were weak and wandered a lot. Con misdefined atheism from the outset, which Pro tried to correct. Pro demonstrated that faith alone can lead you to believe some very odd things.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 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 Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a poorly worded debate that did a lot of unreasonable unnecessary verbage and bad logic. Con didn't really upset pro, pro never met the claim. . . I wish I got this debate. . : )