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

Some Faiths Are Better Than Others

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 671 times Debate No: 103099
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Sometimes a person is better at predicting the future than another person is. Therefore, some faiths are better than others.


Your argument provides insanely flawed logic. It implies not only that a certain faith is correct without any proof, but implies that faiths have to predict the future.

I assume that the term faith is referring to a religion of some kind. Faith doesn't predict the future in the eyes of believers, it seals their future. Even if your argument about one person being better than another is true, there is absolutely no way it is possible to prove that without dying and coming back, telling a truthful account of what happened. The only examples of that are children who have been coaxed by their parents into saying stuff they don't mean.

With everything that exists right now, by your logic of one faith being better than another, wouldn't not having a faith be the ultimate mechanism of predicting the future? There is no proof of a faith predicting the future, but proving we die is pretty easy. So the entire idea of a faith being superior is debunked by the idea that no faith is proven.
Debate Round No. 1


Actually, the term "faith" refers to a system of belief, a system as simple as a set containing one and only one belief. The term "faith" as I use it in this debate is not necessarily referring to a religion. The sense I'm using is sense 3 under Merriam-Webster's first, noun definition of "faith,", visited Jul. 4, 2017.

Take the following example of this paragraph: One person believes another person will die if the second jumps off a cliff and the second believes the second will float in the air if the second jumps off the cliff. The second jumps off the cliff. But he does not float in the air. Instead, he falls a great height and dies. The first's faith was truer and thus better.

The Ten Commandments have prevailed for hundreds, possibly thousands of years, as opposed to another moral rule system promoting greed, jealousy, lust, stealing, and killing. It thus seems the Ten Commandments is a better faith than the other rule system.


The cliff example is almost laughably irrelevant to this debate. Of course, if you jump off a cliff you aren't going to float. That is basic science, and has been proven. However, no single faith has been proven true or untrue. It seems you have shifted the context of the word faith from the original one presented. You use it as a single entity, it isn't fluid. But suddenly, you've changed it to be such. Furthermore, the ten commandments aren't followed accurately. It is a flawed faith. If they were followed fully, we'd all be running around killing each other for having different religious beliefs according to Also, popularity doesn't determine if something is good or not. Nixon won and he was a terrible, corrupt president. You have also made no attempt to answer my argument about no faith. My no faith argument still applies in the context of the definition you provided. Somebody can believe with strong conviction that there is no god
Debate Round No. 2


The cliff example is relevant and should not be disregarded. It is proven that the second isn't going to float if he jumps off the cliff does not imply the second person believes that. His faith ends up being incorrect and thus inferior to the first person's faith. Some beliefs are true and some beliefs are false. The true beliefs are better than the false beliefs because they are more right than the false beliefs. So, some beliefs are better than others.

I know the Ten Commandments are not always followed. The Ten Commandments may be a flawed faith, but they still seem to be a better faith than the other moral rule system that I have previously discussed.

I suppose I agree with your suggestion that: a thing is popular does not imply it is good. The majority can be wrong. But I'm not measuring goodness of a faith by popularity; I'm measuring it by truth.

As to your argument about no faith, I say some faiths do exist, whether that fact is best or not. And some are better than others.


That cliff example is still dumb, because realistically, nobody would have that faith. The true beliefs may be better than false beliefs, but gravity is proven, and most faiths are not (including the ten commandments which you cited before). You haven't discussed any other moral rule book, you seem fixated on the idea of the ten commandments being perfect. They're far from the best faith if in order to follow them practically, you must break them. This still feeds the argument that no faith is better than faith. No strict guidelines, only believing that what happens happens. It avoids every impact you've stated. You argue that some faiths exist, which is very vague. If you're arguing that the faiths you believe exist are better, that shouldn't be considered here, since as I have proven, you can be wrong. You said you're measuring faith by truth, but you never provided a single fact, only opinion. There was no measurement of truth within this debate. The entire pro arg is very vague.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
The ten commandments are not better, the first four are not about morality, there are about god's ego. The punishment for breaking most of the ten, is death.
The Jain's have one commandment "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being."

Jain scripture
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by truthiskey 3 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a hard topic to debate. As Pro's uncontested definition of faith left con in an unwinnable debate. This debate was decided before it even began. Horribly skewed topic.

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