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

Is faith a valid point in the belief of a god?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ssadi has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 437 times Debate No: 102982
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Hello and, this is my first debate. I want to pre-apologize if I commit any grammar mistakes since I am not native from an english country.

Here are my points, feel free to contradict them.

1) Believing something just because you want to believe it is a clear example of manipulation, and brainwash. Faith is basically that, people believe in gods because they want to believe them. There are some people that try their best to prove that their god in question is real, but as shown by stuff like inteligent design, they don't precisely follow a scientific method. They ALREADY have a conclusion, and they're searching for ways to prove it, not the other way around.

2) Theists that have been refuted in all of their arguments still believe in their gods because of faith, meaning they, mentally want their god to be real. They believe it because they want to believe it, not because they have come to a conclusion via evidence they have found about it, which as you know, doesn't work in a debate.

3) It is indeed hypocritical to ask to an atheist/agnostic all the proof he can find to show why he believes any god isn't real, while resorting to faith to prove his point. I have seen many debates alongside this website and others, that take place between atheists and theists, and most of the time theists always demand all the proof possible (which I'm not critizicing, they should be doing that) but then when having their ideals refuted they say "thats were faith comes in" which is, again, basically believing something because you want to, which is a clear fallacy.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by shannon83 2 years ago
Just to make it clear @Killerchicken made an equivocation fallacy (1) in his statement that the religious faith was the same as faith in science. In that fact that the atheist faith is the same as a religious faith.

I Did not want to have misunderstanding from my previous comment.

Posted by shannon83 2 years ago
I would just like to say that the argument that both systems has faith is flawed. Science works, we have verifiable evidence in its working. If you wish to call a working system that can show results faith then that is different than what religions show us. Religions give no results though expect you to accept claims without evidence. This is a different type of faith, one is where we have something to back it up. The other with nothing to support it.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
"Why is it that the Gideons are putting bible"s around in every hotel rooms when modern people cannot possibly reach the proper conclusions and cannot understand it? Why is it that you have to become an expert in dead languages and archeology in order to have any rational foundation to believe this? Because it doesn"t make sense with the model. Let"s imagine for a moment that I"m god and that I made the colossal list of errors that lead me to the point where I decided that the best solution to have a portion of me come down and take human form and be tortured and and be killed to serve as a substitute for other animal slaughter to make up for sins and then I spend a portion of a weekend dead and then I get to come back with me and be with me forever. Let"s set aside that makes any sense. If it did in fact happen and if it were IMPORTANT and it were the most IMPORTANT thing people could possibly question, if it were the most important thing people could EVER understand properly, WHY would I EVER allow all the originals to go away, no eyewitnesses, no authorship, no way to verify this information, no bible 2.0, no bible 3.0, and why doesn"t god show up and say "hang on a minute this is important, here"s what actually happened." None of that makes any sense. And whether or not there was a real person behind this one has to wonder if this makes any sense at all. Only an idiot, an idiot, would proceed with the most important question and not give sufficient evidence for it. And allow this issue to be debated for millennia and allow it to divide families and homes. This is a question of truth. In much the same way people are dismissive about conversation this past week "oh its just politics" no its not politics, it values, its about what kind of world you want to live in. Dismissing it as politics "well it doesn"t really matter what we know what jesus said." YES IT DOES!!! And the modern churches belf on what Paul said anyway." Matt Dillahunty
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
Oh you are absolutely 100% correct with you opening debate igFlaming. Here's another way of looking at it to prove you 100% correct... Creationists will never put their god on trial again. Why? Because all they have to go on is faith based oriented and faith can never be proved. In other words, they are true cowards to put their test product on trial.

"Sure and captain Kirk asked god why he needed a spaceship. You can"t go to the bible and say what the bible says. Because then the next question is "why do you believe the bible to be true?" If your source of truth is the bible you"ve already lost." Matt Dillahunty

"If you care about something is true, faith has no place. Your faith is indistinguishable from the faith of the people"s of those who disagree with you. Its not a path to truth. Faith is accepting something. Faith is gullibility. Faith is the reason, the excuse people give when they don"t have a good reason. I"m talking about how do we find a good reason. And if your only answer is "well the bible says so, or you just have to have faith", then you"ve demonstrated that you are not actually concerned whether its true." Matt Dillahunty

"If you cannot give a definition for what you believe, then you really don"t believe in anything." Tracie Harris

I don't know if you know what The Atheist Experience is? If not it comes on every Sunday at 5:30pm EST and you can watch it on youtube. You can call in and they take callers from around the world. Theists are a top priority.

There are tons of websites that will agree with you also and precious few that won't. One to google is "contradictions in the bible", another is "Pew research center god", another is "absurdities in the bible", "god's genocides" is a good one

Videos would take up far too much space on this comment. But if you wish I can post them on another comment.
But regardless, you really did nail it on the head. Congrats.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Tldr: restructure your argument or your question, because you're going to get crushed if you don't.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Killerchicken is right. The way the question is phrased doesn't imply that faith is the only point of belief only that it is some point of belief. And to be honest, every belief or knowledge requires some faith. Even science presupposes its own principles in order to work, which is something science can't actually prove. But we have faith it works because our experience of the natural world and the study thereof seems to imply it does. So people may have faith for more personal reasons or more logical reasons but in the end, the faith is that those reasons are valid.

Honestly, I'd say it's more out of intellectual honesty. Not knowing the answer doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means you don't know the answer. There may very well be an answer, and that sort of faith is what drives scientists in the field of medicine to cure cancer or in the field of astrophysics to further understand the nature of the universe. But it's all just in faith that there is an answer.
Posted by Killerchicken 2 years ago
I would accept this debate, but I believe the argument in question to be greatly flawed.

The argument in question states:
"Is faith a valid point in the belief of god"

Con then goes on to make her argument around Religious faith, while at the same time ignoring faith held by atheist peoples. A certain amount of faith is required in any system; whether it is faith in God, or a political system, or faith in science.

Thus, the argument in itself is flawed, as no one can completely prove God is real, nor can anyone prove that he is not real without using an amount faith in his or her argument.
This debate has 8 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.