The Instigator
PointProven
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Leaning
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Believing in God is no different than believing in the tooth fairy

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 2 votes the winner is...
Leaning
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 967 times Debate No: 118888
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)

 

PointProven

Pro

Seeing as there is just as little proof of God as there is of the tooth fairy, It really isn't that much of a stretch to say that believing in God is just as absurd as believing in the tooth fairy.
Leaning

Con

Eh, If belief in a deity was no different than belief in a tooth fairy, Then there would be far fewer people who believe in deities. As there are not far fewer people who believe in deities, Believing in a deity is different than believing in the tooth fairy.
Debate Round No. 1
PointProven

Pro

When I said they are the same thing, I didn't mean in the literal sense. I meant, As far as logic goes, They are no different. The point I made was that they both lack any sort of evidence, Therefore believing in a god is equally as foolish as believing in the tooth fairy. And it doesn't just have to be the tooth fairy, This argument can be made about most anything for which there is no proof. You can say it about Santa Clause, Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want.

Also, Just like a couple people said in the comments, You used an argument known as "ad populum fallacy". Just because more people believe in a god than the tooth fairy, Doesn't make a god any more real or provable.
Leaning

Con

Hrm, I don't think I made an ad populum fallacy, But ah well.

Definition of evidence
: an outward sign : indication
: something that furnishes proof : testimony
specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
: one who bears witness
especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
in evidence
: to be seen : conspicuous

Definition of testimony
: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
: firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence
: an outward sign
: an open acknowledgment
: a public profession of religious experience
: the tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law
: the ark containing the tablets
: a divine decree attested in the Scriptures

https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/evidence
https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/testimony

There were individuals who wrote different parts of the bible, Were there not? Were parts of the bible not historical writings? Perhaps you consider the bible poor evidence/testimony. But it kind of looks like evidence/testimony none the less.

I am unfamiliar myself with what types of reasons deists other than Christians have. But perhaps that will be delved into later.
I don't recall meeting any adults who believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want. Well, At least any current time period adults. Then again, I've know a few people here and there to claim to believe in Big Foot. Hmm, Anyway, Do vast numbers of people not believe in deities because they can find evidence for them still? Far more evidence than they find for Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want?
Debate Round No. 2
PointProven

Pro

You most certainly used the ad populum fallacy.

"If belief in a deity was no different than belief in a tooth fairy, Then there would be far fewer people who believe in deities. "

This is your quote in which you quite literally made the claim that god is different from the tooth fairy simply because more people believe in him. The ad populum fallacy is when someone claims something to be validated because of how many people share that belief. So yeah, You did use ad populum.

"Definition of evidence
: an outward sign : indication
: something that furnishes proof : testimony"

Thanks for defining evidence for me, I really needed that. Moving on.

"There were individuals who wrote different parts of the bible, Were there not? Were parts of the bible not historical writings? Perhaps you consider the bible poor evidence/testimony. But it kind of looks like evidence/testimony none the less. "

Right, But you see, I believe that the people who wrote the bible were mentally ill. If someone nowadays went around talking about how they see things that aren't there and talk to magical beings that no one sees but them, We would throw them in a loony bin immediately. Unfortunately, Loony bins weren't a thing back then so we just let these people go around spreading their fairy tales and people were stupid enough to believe it, And thus religion is created. Every person that believed that god was speaking to them while they were writing the bible was crazy. They were completely nuts. That's it.

"I don't recall meeting any adults who believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want. "

Right but you know plenty of adults who believe in the magical fairy man who lives in the clouds and grants you wishes or whatever it is you people believe. His name is God and adults all over the world believe in him, And he is basically a glorified tooth fairy.

"Do vast numbers of people not believe in deities because they can find evidence for them still? Far more evidence than they find for Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want? "

Well, No. That's actually the whole point of this debate. I'm not here to argue about whether or not god exists, I'm just saying that god has no evidence, Much like the tooth fairy. With all the theories of God's creation, You could just as easily say "a wizard did it" and it would make just as much sense.
Leaning

Con

"You most certainly used the ad populum fallacy. "

""If belief in a deity was no different than belief in a tooth fairy, Then there would be far fewer people who believe in deities. ""

"This is your quote in which you quite literally made the claim that god is different from the tooth fairy simply because more people believe in him. The ad populum fallacy is when someone claims something to be validated because of how many people share that belief. So yeah, You did use ad populum. "


I dunno mate, To me it looks clear enough that I say a that belief in a deity is different than a belief in the tooth fairy. I did not say that a deity must be real because so many people believe in him. It would not matter if the deity was false or not. My aforementioned statement was not about the existence of the deity being true based on number of people who believe it.

Based on the logic that you are using. There is no difference between the speeds a child's electric car goes and a Nascar racer. Yes they are both speeds, But one difference is in the amount of speed. I would think one could tell by the vast amount of difference in speed that there is something different about a child's car and a racecar. But no, I get a couple of people kneejerking their hate of religion and crying fallacy fallacy. But in any case all I said in that statement basically is there is a difference of speeds between a child's electric car and a Nascar racecar.

I said
"There were individuals who wrote different parts of the bible, Were there not? Were parts of the bible not historical writings? Perhaps you consider the bible poor evidence/testimony. But it kind of looks like evidence/testimony none the less. "

My opponent said
"Right"

He then went on to describe why he found it to be poor evidence/testimony, Because he thought every single person who wrote believing that god spoke to us through this worlds existence were crazy. "Every person that believed that god was speaking to them while they were writing the bible was crazy. They were completely nuts. That's it. "

Well, I'm glad he agrees with me in any case that there is evidence for god. And since there is more evidence for god than the Easter bunny, This would cause a difference in the belief of those who believe. Clearly it is more reasonable to believe in god than the Easter bunny? I'll give reason if you like during the last round, But the logic of it just seems so obvious to me.

"I don't recall meeting any adults who believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want. "

Right but you know plenty of adults who believe in the magical fairy man who lives in the clouds and grants you wishes or whatever it is you people believe. His name is God and adults all over the world believe in him, And he is basically a glorified tooth fairy.


Ah! Again my opponent gracefully agrees with me. Though it seems to me he makes a bit of a mistake when he says what religious people believe in. I don't think Christians believe god to be a fairy, Nor suffer some sort of fear they shall fly a plane into him while flying though a cloud, Yes there are believers deities across the globe, I don't about the glorified tooth fairy thing though mate. The two seem rather different to me.

"Do vast numbers of people not believe in deities because they can find evidence for them still? Far more evidence than they find for Dragons, Goblins, Ghosts, Trolls or whatever you want? "

Well, No. That's actually the whole point of this debate. I'm not here to argue about whether or not god exists, I'm just saying that god has no evidence, Much like the tooth fairy. With all the theories of God's creation, You could just as easily say "a wizard did it" and it would make just as much sense.


Ah, Now we come to a part where my opponent disagrees with me. Indeed, We are not supposed to be in this debate to argue about the existence of god. But rather that peoples belief in god is different than peoples belief in the tooth fairy. I don't really see how saying a wizard did it would make any sense. I suppose a wizard 'could do it. Doesn't really explain the why though. Or the evidence that you don't like but did say "Right" it is evidence.
Debate Round No. 3
PointProven

Pro

"I did not say that a deity must be real because so many people believe in him. It would not matter if the deity was false or not. My aforementioned statement was not about the existence of the deity being true based on number of people who believe it. "

You don't have to claim something to be true in order to use ad populum. You were making a claim that the belief in god is different than the belief in the tooth fairy because more people believe in god. You are using the number of people who believe in god as a key point to why it is different. I have mentioned twice now that I am speaking about the lack of proof. I didn't mean that the tooth fairy and god are the exact same, I said BELIEVING in them is no different, And it isn't. I have mentioned this multiple times now and you don't listen.

"Based on the logic that you are using. There is no difference between the speeds a child's electric car goes and a Nascar racer. "

What? ! That is not even slightly close to what I am saying. But while you're at it let me throw some logic your way. If a child thinks his toy car is the one true god, And a race car driver thinks his race car is the one true god, They are both equally stupid. Just replace "toy car" with "tooth fairy" and "race car" with "god".

"He then went on to describe why he found it to be poor evidence/testimony, Because he thought every single person who wrote believing that god spoke to us through this worlds existence were crazy. "

If a man walked up to you and told you that he was the son of god and you should listen to whatever he says, Even the most faithful christians in the world would laugh in his face and tell him he is crazy. I know this because I went to church when I was younger and I remember them telling me never to believe in someone who claims to be the messiah, For they are the "false Christ". How would you know that? What if they are the true second coming of Christ and you are damned to helll for not believing him? Obviously none of this is true, But what I'm saying is, Just like people today who claim to be christ are crazy, The people who did similar things in the past were crazy. This includes the people who wrote the bible.

"Well, I'm glad he agrees with me in any case that there is evidence for god. "

Another dumb comment. Where are you getting this stuff? My whole point is that there is no proof of god. Or the tooth fairy for that matter.

" And since there is more evidence for god than the Easter bunny"

There isn't! There is just as much proof of the easter bunny or the tooth fairy than there is for god! How are you not getting this? This is the whole reason I think that believing in them is no different.

" Clearly it is more reasonable to believe in god than the Easter bunny? "

No, No it isn't. People who believe in god are equally as foolish as the people who believe in the easter bunny. Simple as that.

"Ah! Again my opponent gracefully agrees with me. "

I agreed with the fact that most adults don't believe in goblins or fairies. But they do believe in God which as I said, Is just a glorified tooth fairy.

" I don't think Christians believe god to be a fairy, Nor suffer some sort of fear they shall fly a plane into him while flying though a cloud"

I was using satire when I referred to god as a "magical fairy in the clouds" and I thought that was clear enough but I guess not. I'm fully aware that that isn't how christians view god, I'm just making the point that it is a foolish belief, And it deserves to be mocked.

" I don't really see how saying a wizard did it would make any sense. "

If you can tell me how saying "God done did it! " makes any sense, Then I'll explain why saying "A wizard did it! " makes equally as much sense.
Leaning

Con

In argumentation theory, An argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, Often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, It is so. "
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm not an expert in fallacious argument after all. Though I do not think I made a Argumentum ad populum myself.

Not to worry my fine friend, I will explain my car example more thoroughly. Since it seems beyond your comprehension.
"Based on the logic that you are using. There is no difference between the speeds a child's electric car goes and a Nascar racer. " See the word in bold? Speeds.
Now say beliefs. Beee LIeeefsssssss. I am not examining the nature of the cars, But the nature of the speeds. I am not examining the nature of the Easter bunny and god. But the nature of the beliefs people have in god and the Easter bunny.

As you said this is not about the tooth fairy and god being the same thing. It is about the difference in how people believe in them. Beeelieeevvveee

Again same with the example about cars. Let's compare belief to speed. Yes, Belief in a deity is a belief and belief in a tooth fairy are beliefs. Is one of those beliefs stronger than the other belief? No? Wow. . . . That's your answer. I do hope you drive the speed limit. It sounds like you can't tell the difference between 10 miles an hour and hundred miles an hour. Since they're both speed, It must be the same. You also seem to think that there is nothing that causes this difference in belief. . . .

While messiah thing. Yes, People are told to doubt false prophets. Why do you think plenty of Christians dislike some obviously fake preacher on TV, Obviously taking advantage of people?

So you're going to choose to ignore all the parts in the bible where many people only believe after seeing miracles and listening wise men talk before deciding their opinions? . . . . Ohhhhkay.

So now you want to change this to a debate about the evidence for god? . . Bit late mate. You already admitted the bible existed. Sure you didn't think it was very good evidence, But you accepted it's existence. Perhaps you know of some bunny worshiping cult with some thousands years old books, Historical writings, And believers. . . I wouldn't think so though. Note that the number of believers in this example do not make it more true, But certainly more believers is going to affect a persons belief. Thus making a difference in the belief of a deity X number of people believe, And the belief of a Easter bunny Y number of people believe. X > Y.

I was using satire when I referred to god as a "magical fairy in the clouds" and I thought that was clear enough but I guess not. I'm fully aware that that isn't how Christians view god, I'm just making the point that it is a foolish belief, And it deserves to be mocked.

So you were deliberately trying to lead people away from fact and evidence using bullying as a technique to make people live the way you want them to live. . . . Oh dear.

If you can tell me how saying "God done did it! " makes any sense, Then I'll explain why saying "A wizard did it! " makes equally as much sense.

As I said mate, The whys? The motivations. I could say that the fisherman at the store has just cut off your hunk of pork, But it makes more sense to say butcher.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 2 months ago
omar2345
My argument still stands. Belief does not require evidence. The title is misleading which should be what the debate is about. No mention of evidence in the title so the title is misleading.

" Just because what he said wasn't identical to the example given on wikipedia, Doesn't mean it wasn't ad populum. "- Why not define it? It would clear it up and even if you did it won't make a difference because you changed the definition of the word to suit yourself.

"Your arguing with me about how believing in god is waaayyy different than believing in the tooth fairy"- I have with examples if you actually tried to read what I said.

"They are nearly identical and you can you them interchangeably and everything you say would make equally as little sense as it already does. "- Did you not say this?

"Just because they are different, Doesn't mean that believing in them is different. "- So you are arguing the belief is the same? How is it? Even Christians do not believe in the same beliefs since they are so many Sects. Why do you think they will have the same belief or it is different? Because you says so. Explain this point more: "Doesn't mean that believing in them is different".

"Because I imagined people were smarter than they are. It isn't that complicated. "- Why not be clearer the next time around or maybe define your words. If you defined belief then do you think me or Leaning would have a problem with what you meant with belief?

"I sort of assumed that people would realize that I was referring to the lack of evidence in both of them"- I assumed you were going by the definition which does not require evidence.
Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, Especially one without proof.
Posted by PointProven 2 months ago
PointProven
Again, When I say "believing in them is no different", I sort of assumed that people would realize that I was referring to the lack of evidence in both of them. They way I look at it, A young child who believes in the tooth fairy is just as naive as a fully grown adult that believes in a god. The reason being the lack of evidence for both.
Posted by PointProven 2 months ago
PointProven
"They are two different things. Belief does not require evidence but you went straight to evidence. "

Of course I went straight to evidence, That's what this entire debate is about. My whole purpose for saying that believing in god is no different than believing in the tooth fairy is that they both lack any sort of evidence.

"So you don't disagree that you twisted the Ad populum fallacy? "

I do disagree. Why wouldn't I? Just because what he said wasn't identical to the example given on wikipedia, Doesn't mean it wasn't ad populum. If you use the number of people who believe in something as your main argument, That is a textbook example of ad populum, And is precisely what he did in his first argument. The fact that you two are denying that is laughable.

"Was I trying to explains God's existence to you or was I voting on a debate? "

Your arguing with me about how believing in god is waaayyy different than believing in the tooth fairy, But you aren't telling me how. To say that the are different is one thing. But I'm not saying that they are the same thing, I'm saying that BELIEVING in them is the same thing. And it's true. Like I said, I never expected to win this debate because there are too many people like yourself in the world.

"It doesn't matter if it is interchangeable. They are not the same thing. "

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE! I said BELIEVING in them is the same. How is this so hard for you to understand?

"Then why did you title the debate stating there is no difference in belief? "

Just because they are different, Doesn't mean that believing in them is different. I've said this countless times. Please, Just let it soak into that thick skull of yours.

" You had to clarify your argument in Round 2. If you were clear why did it take 2 rounds to set up your side of the argument? "

Because I imagined people were smarter than they are. It isn't that complicated.
Posted by omar2345 2 months ago
omar2345
Title: Believing in God is no different than believing in the tooth fairy
The argument: Seeing as there is just as little proof of God as there is of the tooth fairy, It really isn't that much of a stretch to say that believing in God is just as absurd as believing in the tooth fairy.

They are two different things. Belief does not require evidence but you went straight to evidence.

So you don't disagree that you twisted the Ad populum fallacy?

"I don't know how many times I've mentioned it and over and over again people like yourself fail to prove me wrong. The reason being that it's the truth. "- Was I trying to explains God's existence to you or was I voting on a debate?

"The fact that you believe that in some way, God is more provable than the tooth fairy. "- Show me proof or you are a liar.

"They are nearly identical"- doesn't no difference not include nearly identical. It doesn't matter if it is interchangeable. They are not the same thing. Does a tooth fairy have a historical document? Does the God tale go that you would get money for every tooth you lose?

"I'm fully aware that they aren't the same thing. "- Then why did you title the debate stating there is no difference in belief?

I actually did read your arguments but the title was still misleading. Conduct was given to leaning and I was judging based on the title. Belief does not require evidence. "When I said they are the same thing, I didn't mean in the literal sense" You had to clarify your argument in Round 2. If you were clear why did it take 2 rounds to set up your side of the argument?

If you think you made any points that you think would change my mind. Feel free to post it into the comment because from what I read I couldn't find any.
Posted by PointProven 2 months ago
PointProven
You keep saying "they are different". Of course they are. Believing in them, However, Is not. A child who believes in the tooth fairy is just as naive as an adult who believes in god. That's what I meant when I said they are no different. I hope that clears things up a bit. I'm fully aware that they aren't the same thing.
Posted by PointProven 2 months ago
PointProven
"No different? There is a difference. "

I believe i have mentioned multiple times now, That was not in the literal sense. Of course there are minor differences, Had you read my arguments, You would no that. Now listen up and let this soak into your brain, There is no more proof of god than the tooth fairy! I don't know how many times I've mentioned it and over and over again people like yourself fail to prove me wrong. The reason being that it's the truth.

And I stand corrected about you being religious. I should have said spiritual. I forget that believing the god (aka the glorified tooth fairy who lives in the clouds) and actually going to church (being religious) are different things. I do apologies, I'll be more clear next time.

""At a young age I started looking at my religion and realizing"- what makes you think I didn't? "

The fact that you believe that in some way, God is more provable than the tooth fairy. If you would have truly analyzed that belief, You would know that in that way, God and the tooth fairy are no different. I will never know why this is so impossible for you to understand.

In the sense that neither god nor the tooth fairy have any evidence, They are nearly identical and you can you them interchangeably and everything you say would make equally as little sense as it already does.
Posted by omar2345 2 months ago
omar2345
@PointProven

You assumption was wrong. I am not religious.

Your arguments were not very good. You did not clearly lay out your stance and if someone's reads it and does find your rebuttals sufficient then you might have point. I did not find it sufficient. The proof is in the debate. I do not need to quote like this one: "The ad populum fallacy is when someone claims something to be validated because of how many people share that belief. " to say how bad it was. Let me tell you why this is wrong. You changed the definition. Validation is not the same as true. Evidence is not needed for the fallacy. It requires truth. If you quote your source then I want to see it.

"Believing in God is no different than believing in the tooth fairy"- No different? There is a difference. One someone spends their whole life praying to it and the other when they are old enough they forget about. That is one difference between the two.

"You refuse to listen to anyone else. If you did, You would be like us atheists. "- I do listen which is why your assumption is wrong.

"At a young age I started looking at my religion and realizing"- what makes you think I didn't?

Reply if you have a point to make.
Posted by Leaning 2 months ago
Leaning
If you would like more people to vote, You can always put it in
https://www. Debate. Org/forums/debate. Org/topic/98204/
Posted by PointProven 2 months ago
PointProven
@omar the title could not be any more self explanatory and a made my arguments perfectly clear. I am most certain that you did not even read them as you did not adequately explain how my arguments were flawed, You simply said I didn't make my points when I did. I didn't expect to win this debate seeing as we live in a religious world were people are too afraid to admit that their beliefs are just as silly as any others. You walk around with this thought that you, Out of the 4, 200 religions in the world, Have the right one. You have a one in 4, 200 chance of being right. That being said, It's actually more likely the tooth fairy exists seeing as there are 4, 200 religions, And only one tooth fairy. But my ultimate point was this: if you believe in god, You are just as naive as a 10 year old who believes in the tooth fairy, And the sooner you accept that, The better.

Also, I am 99% positive that you only voted con because you are religious, And like most religious people, You refuse to listen to anyone else. If you did, You would be like us atheists. At a young age I started looking at my religion and realizing, What makes this any more true than any other religion? Same goes for the tooth fairy.
Posted by Leaning 2 months ago
Leaning
Darn, Just realized I used Easter Bunny as example in the last round rather than tooth fairy. Principle is the same though, Ah well.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Adam_Godzilla 2 months ago
Adam_Godzilla
PointProvenLeaningTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was getting somewhere. Ultimately I feel con got distracted. But Pro was not debating his resolution at all. Con's point is that people's motivations for believing in things are different for different things. Pro would've won the debate if the debate said, "the belief in god is as faulty as the belief in the tooth fairy". And then Pro would then make arguments that made sense. But here, Pro is trying to question people's beliefs. And I agree with Pro, but he was confusing resolutions. Next time, make better resolutions. Pro confuses ad populum. Con was making a logical argument. To which Pro repeatedly refused to refute.
Vote Placed by omar2345 2 months ago
omar2345
PointProvenLeaningTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons in the comment section.