The Instigator
ShadowCorbin
Pro (for)
The Contender
Nicholaspanda
Con (against)

Does religion need a solid foundation or does faith alone work? (Con means faith alone acceptable)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ShadowCorbin has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 111650
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

ShadowCorbin

Pro

No matter what say Christ was savior and lord or not, there is solid evidence that Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth was real. It is written he said to one of his followers, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Whether you believe the Christ and the passion of the Christ are real, even this man who founded Christianity knew his Church needed a solid foundation which he built on Simon/Peter. Through your studies in school you learn of so many religions, and many of them, like languages, have died out almost entirely. You hear of these pagan (may gods) religions, and they last for a while, then they almost completely die out. The point is whether you believe a religion's foundation is true or not, any major religion has a foundation that has a person or animal behind it. If you base something solely on faith it will surely fail, A house divided will fall, and if a religion has no should I say overseer to clear up discrepancies, sides will form and the religion will form factions(not like Christianities denomination, no matter what you think Catholics do not hate other denominations, and these sides aren't warring against each other, it is like democrats and liberals, they are looking towards similar goals, but they argue over small things.) Yes it is good to have faith, no doubt, but think, people used to have no foundation on the belief the earth wasn't flat, so they assumed it was flat, and until we had a foundation that our planet is a sphere, most people said it was flat. The point is without a solid foundation, your beliefs will fail, maybe not yourself, but how many people will believe your lies unless you provide a foundation (fake or not.)
Nicholaspanda

Con

I want to thank my friend for providing such an interesting and fascinating topic. I hope we can reach a conclusion by the end of this discussion. Having said that, I have some concerns about what they said. I will address them here:

An Objective Foundation

My friend seems to be under the mistaken assumption that every worldview and religion held without sufficient evidence will ultimately fail. I see two major problems with this assertion: (1) Atheism, (2) Christianity.

Atheism

Atheism, at its core, doesn't have a foundation. In fact, many atheists have conceded and stated that it's merely impossible to prove that; examples include Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. With this being said, atheism has been around since sixth or fifth century BCE and it still hasn't died out. [1] So my question to you is: For a worldview, that has been around longer than Christianity, how do justify your statement that "without a solid foundation, your beliefs will fail"?

Christianity

Christianity, at its core, is based on faith; it is also referred to as "Core Faith". And while yes, the evidence for the existence of God is good, it's subjective. For instance, let us take your first example: Jesus Christ was a real person. There is physical evidence for the life of Jesus, his miracles, mission, death and even his resurrection. We add up all these pieces of evidence together (along with prophecy, etc.) to draw a conclusion. Our conclusion is a logical inference from the evidence. We call this inference 'faith'. Since we weren’t there for these events, we don’t have absolute physical “proof”. We would need a time machine. But looking at the evidence and using our logic, we believe (i.e. faith).

This is where the problem lies. My friend explicitly stated that "If you base something solely on faith it will surely fail..." However, Christianity has been around since 1st century AD and it has not failed yet. And as I've shown, Christianity is based on faith. [2]

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org...;
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk...;



I'll be intrigued by your response.
Debate Round No. 1
ShadowCorbin

Pro

When I said a "foundation" is needed for faith I didn't mean physical evidence like God speaking, I meant something to back it up, for example Christ or science. I will rebuttal both systems of belief here and establish new points in the third round.
Atheism- In the last fifteen hundred years or so science has really taken off. We have gone from simply listening to smart people to objectively proving things. First, Atheism does have a foundation or core. While they have no evidence that there is physically not a God, things every religion believes(not every religion has the same creation theory) science has proved there was a beginning of time or life, and whether or not God or a animal spirits or whoever else did this, that proof alone is good enough for some people to believe there is no God. Remember I said the reasons don't have to be correct or even completely reasonable, they just need to provide people with a foothold. I apologize for getting on science so much, but what every religion and science wants to find is the truth. Christianity hasn't had to mold it's beliefs to support evolution, why? Because the Bible like many other books doesn't refute many scientific claims, people just take them too literally saying in the case of Christianity, the world was made in six, twenty four hour days, and the point is people have seen the foundation their own way, even if it isn't how it was meant to be seen. People can make a foundation based on what they believe and see.

If you have a child and never expose them to religion, will they ever know. Someone would likely still find a faith in a higher form, but would this many people have almost the exact same beliefs for thousands of years. It is because of people coming together and seeing the foundation, the rock of their religion, that they have lasted so long. Even muslims have the foundation of their beliefs centered around the teachings of Muhammad, he made the foundation. Again I say the foundation of beliefs doesn't have to be scientific research, just something for people to believe in.

You see all these polytheistic religions like the Roman gods, and people will believe in them for a long time, but eventually like countries, cracks develop, and people see the truth. If a religion is built on random events that you believe are triggered by mad gods, and science proves it is electron cloud formation, what will you think. No that doesn't disprove the gods theory, but that foothold is enough to get people to stop believing, why? Because your doubts set a foundation for these people to see the error in their faith.
Nicholaspanda

Con

I want to thank my opponent for getting back to me; he has made some interesting points. Having said that, I do have a few concerns about his latest response. I will address them now:

An Objective Foundation

My friend described that a "foundation" doesn't require evidence, but "something to back it up." In a debate, business, and science, you back things up with evidence. When you back up an initial premise [foundation], you provide evidence to support it. For example, let's take the question of God's existence:

Initial premise: God existence

Backup evidence #1: Kalam Cosmological Argument
Backup evidence #2: The Moral Argument
Backup evidence #3: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
Backup evidence #4: The Ontological Argument

Atheism

With that being said, my friend then swerved directly into a logical fallacy that undercuts the credibility of their ENTIRE argument: atheism has a "foundation or core." The problem, as I see it, my opponent would have to provide evidence that atheism is true. Afterall, my opponent explicitly stated that a foundation needs "something to back it up, for example, Christ or science." But science nor the Bible back up atheism. This, therefore, leads me back to my original question: For a worldview, that has been around longer than Christianity, how do justify your statement that "without a solid foundation, your beliefs will fail"?

Christianity

I was at first confused about what your argument was. I like that you expanded my case, but the one thing you didn't do was refute it. I find this a quite interesting dodge. In fact, all of your examples actually SUPPORT my claims. Let us see why:

In many ways, my opponent repeats the argument Casper Risby makes: you cannot solely base Christian Doctrine on faith alone. However, both my opponent and Risby have misunderstood the word "faith". For anyone that's not Christian, Jesus demonstrates two types of faith: (1) natural faith and; (2) spiritual faith. "
Natural Faith comes by natural birth and relies on our physical senses. Spiritual Faith comes from God (Eph 2:8) and relies on Him." [1] I'm referring to the latter. Afterall, no one can prove that God exists. One example my friend provides is that "someone would likely still find faith in a higher form... it is because of people coming together and seeing a foundation, the rock of their religion..." This quote actually supports my claim that Christianity is based on faith; namely, because all arguments for the God are subjective.

Conclusion

I feel that my opponent hasn't refuted either of my contentions. With that being said, all three questions still stand and have not been refuted.

References

1. http://jesusonline.com...;

I'll be intrigued by your response.
Debate Round No. 2
ShadowCorbin

Pro

First I would like to ignore atheism since it isn't really a "religion" since religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Sorry I brought this up halfway into the debate, I forgot to bring it up in the second round.
I believe our debate is starting to intertwine itself. We are both saying (Christianity specifically) Christ made the foundation. You are saying the foundation is on faith, but what I am talking about is we believe in what he and other prophets said. I believe we are both looking at opposite sides of the argument and need to bring them together to find the truth. I will stick mainly to Christianity for my first point. First, faith is your own, your faith is what you believe in, and we need to stop switching between faith and belief (likely my fault). First, yes Christianity is based on faith, we have a foundation, and evidence to support this before the time of Christ. When Moses led his people (the Jews) out of Egypt, the Red Sea supposedly parted until they traversed its bed saving them from an Egyptian army. We may be thinking of different meanings for foundation, but we can use that as a foundation saying God delivered these people, even though there is no proof. Yes Christianity is based on faith in God, but we have the foundation set by prophets and the Christ. We may have different ideas on what the foundation on a religion is, and therefore the argument may be slightly skewed, not enough for a major effect most likely though. When I say foundation, I mean something to base it off of. The Jews in the time of Abraham had the story of creation passed on orally giving them a "stone" to believe in. Yes people would have believed in God without the creation story being passed on, but without any basis, what gives the people a reason to believe in it? Yes religion is built on faith, but all major religions have a physical person or event that gives people a reason to believe.

-------------
Again I apologize for forgetting about defining religion earlier. I felt like you restated your points from earlier and didn't hear much new. We should see much of our debate come together in the last round.

Side note- I think the combination of faith and physical things make the religion, not just one or the other. Is there any religion people just thought of, doesn't every religion have some person or event that founded or provided a basis for it?
Nicholaspanda

Con

I want to thank my friend for their thorough response. Although I do believe atheism is a religion because it fulfills the 'seven dimensions' of religion set forth by Ninian Smart and the 'Dimensions of Conversion' (which can be based on the principles of atheism), I will drop this argument for the sake of brevity and for narrowing down our objections and discrepancies of 'faith'. In this round, I believe that we both need to clarify a few terms:

1. Foundation
2. Faith
3. Evidence (This will be going in the faith category)
4. Belief

What is a Foundation:

I believe my friend must first provide the burden of proof. Usually, in a debate, the first contender offers definitions and rules that must be followed in the following rounds. However, as anyone can see, my opponent keeps changing his definition of what foundation means. In the second round, my friend offered his definition of a foundation. Let's take a look:

"When I said a "foundation" is needed for faith I didn't mean physical evidence like God speaking, I meant something to back it up, for example Christ or science."

This is the definition we are going to follow. If my friend has any objections towards this definition he can offer an alternative that we can discuss in the comments. If he brings it up in next debate round, it will be ignored.

Argument One: A Foundation requires Evidence

Pro states, "We may be thinking of different meanings for foundation, but we can use that as a foundation saying God delivered these people, even though there is no proof. Yes Christianity is based on faith in God, but we have the foundation set by prophets and the Christ. We may have different ideas on what the foundation on a religion is, and therefore the argument may be slightly skewed, not enough for a major effect most likely though. When I say foundation, I mean something to base it off of. The Jews in the time of Abraham had the story of creation passed on orally giving them a "stone" to believe in. Yes people would have believed in God without the creation story being passed on, but without any basis, what gives the people a reason to believe in it? Yes religion is built on faith, but all major religions have a physical person or event that gives people a reason to believe."

I believe that this whole paragraph highlights my entire point. I honestly feel that my friend hasn't grasped the fact that all evidence for God is subjective. If we go back to my initial premise, I stated that a foundation requires evidence. That foundation is faith, and the evidence is the prophets and Christ. The prophets are known as the "reinforcers" that God exists. However, since all evidence towards God's existence is subjective it comes down to faith - which is the foundation. For example, let's take the question of God's existence:

Initial premise: God exists (faith)

Backup evidence #1: Kalam Cosmological Argument
Backup evidence #2: The Moral Argument
Backup evidence #3: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
Backup evidence #4: The Ontological Argument

I really don't like repeating myself, but until you provide a proper definition of foundation or you realize that your evidence is subjective (which goes back to faith), your argument is pointless. I'm sorry.

What is Faith:


In round two I described two different types of faith.

1. Natural Faith
2. Spiritual Faith

This whole argument comes down to the latter since we both believe in natural faith. Which, again, begs the question of God's existence. Since we don't actually know if God exists, it goes back to my initial premise: Christianity is based on faith.

What is Belief:

A "belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty." [1]

References:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org...;


Debate Round No. 3
ShadowCorbin

Pro

(I give up this argument is boring me) GOODLUCK!!! There is a site called debate island and I like it much better than this one (I think the format is better) You should try it.
Nicholaspanda

Con

My friend forfeited the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by jtlove 3 years ago
jtlove
Alexander,

Thanks for the feedback, I'm just here to learn and perhaps help others to learn. I agree there are some theist who are vulgar and don't present themselves as a Christian...Let me say it this way, they claim to be Christian/theist but by their very actions you can tell they are not.

Unfortunately, to the person who does not know what Christianity is...They begin to perceive Christianity as a hypocritical religion.

Jim

Canis: Hope I didn't offend you...not my intention.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Yes the world of dreams..
https://store.veritablehokum.com...
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
Nicholaspanda
@jtlove, your example is a pretty accurate description that I hope my opponent understands as well. Being a Christian myself, I've realized that you should never solely base your faith with arguments. As for the atheist remark, it's pretty true. Although, some would point theists do that too; for example, William Lane Craig has been using his same 5 arguments for over a decade.

- Alexander
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
@ missmedic. Be carefull you are entering the world of dreams/ nothing... And dreams..Well hard to fight.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
If gods are real they do nothing. Please show me that god is either required, productive, or useful.
Posted by jtlove 3 years ago
jtlove
So Canis want proof (scientific proof) that God exists? You know jumping 500 meters to test your belief in your ability to fly would be a blind faith. Not the kind of faith God is looking for.

Good luck on your debate, I haven't meaningful debate with an atheist yet. No original thoughts, all say the same thing, won't admit to something being true when you show them in black and white. They all use the same two or three websites to copy/paste their arguments from, and you just start chasing rabbits...running in circles. I'm sure not all of you who profess to be atheists are this way, but I'm betting perhaps the majority. Oh, and when you have them stumped, they quit on you.

Don't mean any disrespect, just some observations I've been noticing. Again, I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush.
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
Nicholaspanda
@Canis, I don't really understand your point. Could you please rephrase?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
I believe,(faith) I can fly...That is ok if I do nothing but believe it.. But I would not test it in a 500 meter jump without a kind of "backup"..I could loose my faith...
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.