The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Should people believe in God or not?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,341 times Debate No: 26857
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




My position is the following that people should believe in God. It is no matter what religion you profess, because God the same for all. At the same time appears the question: "Why people should believe in God?". I have several points about it and also with help points I will present my arguments. The first point I would like to raise is this that the faith help to people live. You live by faith, because the faith awakens the highest feelings as compassion and kindness to others. The second point is that the faith in God help to survive. For example, take the situation, where man gets into a car accident and falls into a coma. It seems that there are no doubt that he will die, but he survives. It turned out that his wife every day, hour and minute she prayed to God that he help to survive her husband. Is not it wonderful? Finally, according to Norman Cousins: " That's what we believe, this is become stronger of everything". I agree with this phrase, because person who believe in God and in themselves - this is the most stronger person.

I await my opponent's response.


I have decided to accept this challenge and look forward to an excellent debate.

To begin with, I shall offer a rebuttal to my opponent's claims.

My opponent claims that we live by faith and that faith awakens our highest feelings. I believe this to be most untrue. Can one not be kind and compassionate without faith? Are, by extension, atheists and antitheists unkind, incompassionate, etc.? One's feelings and actions can be motivated by faith, but in no way can faith be considered the cause for human feelings and emotions. Emotions are human nature and instinct, that is, they are natural to human beings. One does not have to believe in God to have feelings, lest we call a large number of humans insensitive simply because they reject the claim that a certain deity exists - that is most illogical. Discriminative, even.

As for the second point and the example of a man in a coma - I do not see what this point is supposed to prove. The man is in a coma. His wife is praying for him. She prays for him and that's all well and good, but what is the connection between his state and her prayers? How do her prayers help him survive? My opponent has given no proof as to how those prayers affect the man in any way. This point only proves that she is obviously religious and nothing more. Thus, the example is irrelevant and the point untrue.

As my opponent stated, this debate revolves around the question whether or not people should believe in God.
So, should people believe in God? If they wish to do so, they may, no problems here. But is it a prerequisite for anything? Certainly not. One cannot call people insensitive simply because they are not religious, or call non-religious people weaker - there are no grounds for such claims and generalizations.

To summarize, belief in God or any deity is not necessary for any aspect of life and thus, as the Con side, I state that the only reason for people to believe in God are their own wishes and beliefs, and that belief in God cannot be made a general prerequisite for achieving "greater strength" as my opponent stated.

Back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for his response.

And let's look to my arguments.

First of all, when I say that "You live by faith, because the faith awakens the highest feelings as compassion and kindness to others", I mean here that human beings they are themselves can be the part of God. Every day people kneel and pray, and when they pray and ask something, what do you think they ask? For example, son prays that his mother never disappear and always be ealthy. Another one, for instance, a married and desperate couple asking God for a child. Eventually, all this things come true not at now, but in time. The reason for this wonders can be the belief which people keep in their hearts. Belief in a better.

Secondly, I recommend you to read a really good article about evidences of God existence.;

Finally, it is not important do you believe in God or not, because he live with us, how I say earlier, in our hearts.



First, I would like to thank my opponent for posting his rebuttal.

Now, let's begin.

My opponent defends his claim that people "live by faith" by saying that they pray for good health, children etc. and that those things may come true in time. That is all well and good, but my opponent again fails to prove that there exists a correlation between prayers and wishes that come true. He didn't show how the prayers cause those wishes to come true. This point only proves, as I already stated in round 1, that people pray for good things and nothing more.

As for the article, it only proves that some people have a different viewpoint on how the world was created etc., but it does not prove that people should believe in God. The theory of a great creator (God) is but a hypothesis that lacks firm evidence and explanation. Unless it can be proven to be true, it represents but a certain viewpoint and does not prove that people should believe in God. Beliefs depend on one's opinion, and the "God hypothesis" is just one of those opinions.

Lastly, my opponent confusingly states that whether or not one believes in God isn't really important. If that is the case, I feel compelled to ask my opponent why he started this debate in the first place.
As for the statement that God lives in our hearts, that is, once again, a matter of personal opinion. Simply stating one's opinion proves nothing.

I shall also point out that my opponent did not refer at all to my rebuttal of his statement about how faith awakens "the highest feelings", so I shall take that point to be fully refuted.

After this rebuttal, I believe I have shown that my opponent's arguments have not proven that people should believe in God and that I have clearly pointed out that simply stating a personal opinion does not prove a resolution true or false.

Back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his response.

And let's look to my evidences, which I will give from my personal experience.
I am from Kazakhstan. On the west of Kazakhstan, near to Aktau city are situated the underground mosque, which dedicates for Beket ata. Beket ata is saint who healed people, gave them hope to live and vitality. He lived in the XVIII century. Every year this mosque visits several millions people from different countries who want to cure their diseases and for fulfill desires. And I heared a lot of stories about real people who after visiting this mosque miraculously cured. In addition, I also visited this place and all desires was fulfilled which I asked from Beket ata.But maybe you asked "How?". People who visit this place they come with faith and hope, so healing it comes with faith! If you want to know more about Beket ata, you will can search about him in Google.


First, I offer my thanks to my opponent for posting his response.

To begin with, I must point out that my opponent completely and absolutely ignored my round 2 rebuttal and focused on only one thing, the story of how visiting a mosque dedicated to a saint called Beket Ata heals people.

He explains this by saying that he, personally heard a lot of stories. I have also heard a lot of stories, including those about Superman, Batman and Spiderman. My opponent's logic leads to the conclusion that, because I've heard those stories, Superman, Batman and Spiderman are perfectly real.
This analogy serves to explain how him hearing stories is in no way reliable evidence. He then comes to an even more far-fetched conclusion that because those people (who, I point out again, were SURELY healed because my opponent heard they were) came with faith, and thus they were healed because of that faith.

The basis of his argumentation are stories about how people were healed by faith. It isn't reliable evidence, it can't be proven, and thus, my opponent fails to explain the connection between faith and good things (like healing) coming true, which has ocome to be the basis of his argumentation, not only in this round, but in the whole debate, so I believe his argumentatin has been even further refuted - especially since, I repeat, he did not refer at all to my round 2 response.

Back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for his response.

Let's start our final round.

As I understand my opponent said that I cannot give the evidences of my arguments, but my example was the evidence. Actually, I explained. All this story completely truthful, because I was there and saw the whole process and I recently also recommended to my opponent search in Google about it.
Thousands, even millions pilgrims visit this place. When we returned from mosque, and a bit tired because in order to get to the mosque have to walk several kilometers to the cliff and down the thousands of steps, I saw the old lady,who told me that she for several years, felt pain in her leg and could not even walk. She thought she cannot to go down to mosque but she could do it because I saw she also returned with me and she said that Beket ata helps her to go such a long way. Consequently, this lady believes in power of saint and her faith helps for hers to go this difficult way. After that her pain in her leg disappeared, because further she do not has difficulty with walking.
Finally, faith is the most strongest thing, especially faith in God, because if you believe in somebody or something, all your dreams or deseases can go away. Faith and hope can create the wonders, only it depends of people.


I thank my opponent for responding.

We have now entered the fourth and final round, and I shall now offer my final rebuttal, followed by my concluding statement.

My opponent defends his story about Beket Ata with yet another story, and since I have already given my opinion on mere stories used as arguments in round 3, I see no need to repeat said opinion. And even if faith does help (which my oon has failed to prove in this debate), there is no reason as to why it should be faith in God. It can be faith in Santa Claus, or in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. So, my opponent has in every way failed to prove that people should believe in God.

Now for the concluding statement.

This debate was mostly led around one argument by my opponent, which also became the sole basis of his case: does faith help people and make them stronger?
My opponent referred to less and less of my points and arguments as the debate progressed (for example, my rebuttal to his statement about faith awakening the highest feelings), and focused solely on the aforementioned question.
He failed to prove the correlation between faith and wishes coming true, good health etc., only telling stories without any proof whatsoever, and, by extension, he failed to show how faith generally makes people stronger, let alone how faith in God makes people stronger. I, on the other hand, have stated many points as to why faith in God isn't a prerequisite for anything and managed to refute my opponent's argument.

Since this was basically the only major point of my opponent's case (which has been successfully refuted) and most y claims remained unanswered, I believe I have won this debate.

I thank my opponent for participating.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 5 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: very weak arguments on pro?s side. Linking to an article isn't debating. Personal experience isn't too good of an argument either.
Vote Placed by Torvald 5 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I considered pardoning Pro's poor English, since he is not a first-language English speaker, but decided not to do so, since he voluntarily started a debate on an English-speaking website, with the information available that he would be evaluated partly by language skills. Conduct I award to the Con because he was very polite about dropping a logical hammer on Pro, and because he gave Pro multiple opportunities to amend his fallacies, which Pro ignored. Convincing arguments is obvious: Pro had no convincing arguments, and Con rebutted Pro's poor arguments very efficiently, though he made few strong arguments of his own (this is pardoned, since Pro had the burden of proof). Sources go to no one, for, while Pro did list a source, it was not a reliable source. Con, having listed no sources, is awarded no point either. For a beginner-level debate, this was actually somewhat interesting.