Attention: is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

There Is No Need To Believe In God!

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,598 times Debate No: 60175
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I can see no necessity for any belief in God.

I'm certain somebody on DDO can possibly make me see a reason to believe in God.

As Friedrich Nietzsche so blatantly stated over a century ago.
"God Is Dead"

First Round for Acceptance,

Good Luck!


I accept this debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly from my own Experience:

I was essentially raised irreligious (atheist) from birth.

Though I was introduced to church and Sunday school, as a young child, but no religion was mentioned to us by our parents who simply used church as a meeting place, since it was a rural region and the only meeting place in the region was the local church on Sundays. Where they used the Sunday school as a crèche for us children.

Yet, there was no pressure to take notice of the Sunday school teacher, so I essentially ignored her, except I did find even then, some of her stories alarmingly stupid.
Yet, in my early teens, I was shoved against my will into a Christian college as my parents considered such a school as the highest achieving school in the state for its students, though I think they rigged their figures.
I was suddenly thrown into the deep end of Christianity and became influenced by the teachers and other Christian students into believing Christianity had answers for my life. So I struggled to understand it for a little while and decided that since I had not been a Christian for most of my life, I had better strive to become a better, more knowledgeable Christian, so I took the Theology class that had a spare seat.
After a year of studying the Bible and their cherry picked passages, I could see their reason to believe in Jesus Christ, but I did not feel any actual NEED to believe.
I mentioned this to a fellow student who told the priest and the priest claimed that it was because I did not strive hard enough to believe and it was my fault, not God's.
This got me curious, my wise uncle said not to accept blame for things I cannot understand, it is up to the teacher to explain things better, If I cannot understand anything, it is the teacher's fault.
So I decided to read the Bible for myself, as I was not understanding the teacher and he evidently and stupidly blamed me for my misunderstanding.
So I decided to read the Bible as I would read any novel or story. From start to finish, Genesis to the end of Revelations.
By the time I reached Leviticus, I started to realize why the teacher skipped many passages, as they were extremely and ludicrously Irrational.
In fact I discovered the entire Bible is full of irrational, nonsense.
So I stopped reading it and left Theology class.
On leaving college I became a heavy smoker and having smoked since I was 12, I found it difficult to give it up.
A friend introduced me to a Pentecostal church that claimed to be able to help me give up smoking.
I was initiated, water baptised and started speaking in tongues.

I picked up the religion pretty quick and became a devout member.
I even joined their Bible reading and studied their theology under their local leader who was a Theologian.
I even served time preaching on the street for them.
Yet, somewhere in my mind, I still did not feel any NEED to believe in God.
The enthusiasm (as it was initially a refreshing experience ) and the excitement began to wear off.
So I frequented the public library and started researching the History of Religion, in particular Christianity.

In the process, I was introduced to other beliefs, I read the Koran, the Hindu Upanishads and other texts on Buddhism and Taoism.
I finally realized that God is entirely subjective and that there are millions of Gods.
Every Theist has a subjective God of their own.
If there are 5 Billion Theists on Earth, there are 5 billion Gods.

God is what you create in your own mind.
Thus there is no NEED to believe in this subjective God.
You can simply create your own, as does every Theist on the Planet.

Thus, there is no NEED/Necessity for Belief!


"Religion, opium for the people. To those suffering pain, humiliation, illness, and serfdom, it promised a reward in an afterlife. And now we are witnessing a transformation. A true opium for the people is a belief in nothingness after death"the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders we are not going to be judged."-Czesław Miłosz

The atheists who think that the the technological and scientific advances in history came about as a result of removing God ignore substantial amount of historical evidence.

Supporting Evidence
"According to Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer, both renowned philosophers and scientists of our era (but not Christians themselves), modern science was born out of the Christian world view. Whitehead said that Christianity is the "mother of science" because of the insistence on the rationality of God.[1] Entomologist Stanley Beck,though not a Christian himself, acknowledged the corner-stone premises of science which the Judeo-Christian world view offers: "The first of the unprovable premises on which science has been based is the belief that the world is real and the human mind is capable of knowing its real nature. The second and best-known postulate underlying the structure of scientific knowledge is that of cause and effect. The third basic scientific premise is that nature is unified."[2] In other words, the epistemological foundation of technology has been the Judeo-Christian world view presented in the Bible.

This may sound incredible to some because of the popular feeling that science and religion don't mix. Didn't Christianity vehemently oppose Galileo and Copernicus when they proposed the modern models for the solar system?

The truth, however, is that the real conflict was not between Christianity, as presented in the Bible, and science. In fact, the true conflict was not between science and religion at all, but between the existing scientific view and a new scientific view. The geocentric world view held at that time was not based on the Bible but on the Ptolemaic system which was rooted in the views of Plato and Aristotle.

Historians have observed that the foundations for modern science were laid as early as the thirteenth century when scholars like Roger Bacon showed that Aristotle made certain mistakes about natural phenomena. Medieval science was based on authority -- primarily of Aristotle -- rather than observation. It developed through logic, rather than experimentation.[3] Both Copernicus and Galileo challenged Aristotle's authority, using experimentation in the spirit of modern science. The Biblical emphasis of the Reformation, just prior to this, had already paved the way for dropping Aristotle's authority; it also encouraged the rational investigation of our world.

Perhaps the most obvious affirmation that Biblical Christianity and science are friends and not foes comes from the fact that most of the early scientists after the Renaissance were also strong believers in the Bible as the authoritative source of knowledge concerning the origin of the universe and man's place in it.[4] The book of Genesis, the opening book of the Bible, presents the distinctly Judeo-Christian world view of a personal Creator God behind the origin and sustenance of the universe (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:17; etc.).

Among the early scientists of note who held the Biblical creationist world view are Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and Samuel Morse (1791-1872) - what motivated them was a confidence in the "rationality" behind the universe and the "goodness" of the material world. The creation account in Genesis presents an intelligent, purposeful Creator, who, after completing the creation work, declared it to be very good (Genesis 1:31). That assures us that the physical universe operates under reliable laws which may be discovered by the intelligent mind and used in practical applications. The confidence in the divinely pronounced goodness of the material world removed any reluctance concerning the development of material things for the betterment of life in this world. The spiritual world and the material world can work together in harmony.

Genesis also gives another important motivation for the investigation of the laws of nature and application of it to technology. That is the divine mandate given to man to subdue the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). Obviously, the discovery of the laws of nature is the key to harnessing the powers of nature for man's use and control. Herein is the key to the motivation for developing technology. Genesis 4 records the earliest technological developments by man (4:21-22).

The world view held in many cultures, however, is different from the Biblical creationist view. Religions influenced by dualistic philosophies view the material world with suspicion and hostility. The material world is considered evil, while the spiritual world is considered good and noble. Renouncing this world became the mark of holiness. Equally detrimental to the development of science were world views that did not have a concept of a supreme personal Creator God. Some of the ancient civilizations, for example, which did develop some mathematics and technologies, did not develop general scientific theories, because of the absence of a creationist perspective that gives confidence in the existence of rational laws in nature. This clearly explains the lack of interest on the part of these cultures in scientific research and technology. It also shows how the Reformation, with its return to Biblical Christianity, spurred a phenomenal interest in fundamental research and technology. The great scientific advances and the industrial revolution that followed bear this out."

As any rational person could conclude from the evidence presented, we do need God. The flawed idea that the advancement of knowledge that has got us to where we are today is a result of taking God out of the equation is not at all supported by historical evidence. In fact, it is an obvious contradiction to historical evidence.

"Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing." Matthew Parris

Atheism was a defining characteristic of many of the most atrocious rulers in world history. Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh were adamant about the removal of God from their society.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for your argument Con:

Though there is an awful lot that I totally Disagree With:

1: Use of The Bible as evidence for belief in God:
The Bible is insanely wrong about almost everything and is non-applicable to the modern world.

Genesis was totally wrong in it's conception of everything natural.
Genesis 1:1 was wrong, God did not create the Heaven and The Earth, it was formed by collisions of meteorites and asteroids.
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
If the earth was void and without form, it would not hold water, and since the Sun had not been created, it would not be water, but ICE as according to Genesis, there was no source of heat nor light.

Not to mention the wrong sequences of things being created and the naivety in that it considers both the Sun and Moon as sources of Light, when in fact only the Sun is a source.

Besides, the Bible describes the Earth as a Flat Disc with a Dome (Heaven) over it, sort of like a Snow globe or like the world of Truman on "The Truman Show".

The Bible thinks stars are glued to the underside of this dome (supported by pillars) possibly with silly putty, and if the dome or it's pillars are shaken, the stars will break free from their silly putty and fall to earth:
Revelations 6:13 "and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind."


This is how the Bible viewed the cosmos, as the Flat Earth Society also gained it's conception of the Earth from the Bible.

So as anybody can see, when discussing reality, the Bible has little knowledge of it.
Even Leonardo da Vinci questioned the Genesis Creation model, as he knew it was false back in the 16th century, it is totally useless now.

As I have already stated in my opening discussion, I've read the entire Bible and found it ludicrously Naive and Stupid.
So as far as NEED to believe goes, the Biblical God is out of the Question.

Which makes all of Con's Creationist (Bible based) links non-sequitur.

If there is a God, it is definitely not the one described in the Bible, as I've already mentioned in my opening statement.
Because the Bible was written by men who had little knowledge of anything practical, they knew nothing of science and there is no scientific knowledge of any value in the Bible, except for Leviticus where insects have 4 legs. Ha Ha. Though it is only useful for making people laugh, once only, and after that it becomes a sad reminder of people in a time where they probably couldn't count past 4.

The Christian Bible is scientifically inept and so are the Creationists who try to draw scientific parallels from it.
They are no more practical than the Flat Earth Society, who both have the same Biblical Earth image, as shown above.

If a God does exist, it would more likely be like the Deistic or Agnostics God, unattached to this planet and unknowable by humans.
More like the God of Spinoza and Einstein, simply started the laws of physics and not even interested in humankind.

For such a Cosmic Being, which has no interest in humanity, souls, nor Humans concepts of Good and Bad/Evil, such a God would not care for whether humans believe in it or not.

Thus, with such a Cosmic Agency, there no need for us to believe in it.
Sources for Flat Earth in the Bible:

Though apart from the Stupidity of the Creation story in the Bible, there is even more stupidity in the Earth's Population and Morality of the Bible.
So Here is a presentation of the Immorality of The Bible, which is Condoned by the Idiotic Bible God. Genesis is also Extremely Immoral, thanks to help from it's God.
Satan in the Bible was more Moral than God's chosen ones, such as Lot.


Thanks again Con.

Over to you!



Jwmart21587 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I will extend my arguments, hoping Con just missed the deadline.
With a bit of luck, Con will return with a stinging rubuttal.
Which I will not be able to defend against as this is my last chance to argue.


Jwmart21587 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
I wonder why nobody bumped into those pillars holding up the dome/heavens, surely a jet liner would crash, maybe they didn't shoot it down, it just hit a pillar holding up the Heavens in the pre-Copernican model (The Biblical Model) of Earth.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Basically, if you just read the bold print, it gives you a basic idea and saves having to read the normal print.

I copied this off some magazines I get, where the basic idea is in bold, but if you want to go deeper, you can read the rest.

Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
@ Loveshismom, Just 2 b BOLD!

Posted by Loveshismom 7 years ago
Sagey why'd you type everything in round one in bold letters?
Posted by Jwmart21587 7 years ago
Yep I noticed. Waiting on you....
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Notice I used Need, instead of Reason.

People have in the past tried to show me Reasons for belief in God and once upon a time I was a Christian with my own reasons to believe.
But, even then, I never felt a real Need for belief.
It was reading the Bible that lost my reasons for belief and since I felt no real Need for belief, I said goodbye to Christianity.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Thanks Jwmart21587,
This should be fun!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by texans14 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture

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