Instigator / Con
34
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#1292

Is Faith a Reliable Pathway to Truth?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
3
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
4
5

After 5 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

TheAtheist
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
23
1395
rating
12
debates
4.17%
won
Description

I will be arguing that faith is not a reliable path to truth, my opponent will be arguing that it is. In this debate, Faith means belief in a deity based on a strong conviction and not any evidence. Example:

Person A: "I believe God exists."
Person B: "Do you have any evidence that God exists?"
Person A: "No, I believe based on faith."

==

DEFINITIONS:

"Faith"
1. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

"Reliable"
1. Consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.

"Pathway"
1. A way of achieving a specified result; a course of action.

"Truth"
1. In accordance with reality.

==

RULES:
1. No Kritiks of the topic.
2. You must follow the definitions in the debate description.
3. No forfeiting rounds.
4. No trolling.
5. Provide sources for quotes or statistics.

Violation of any of those rules is considered bad conduct.

My argument, while I believe was technically correct, didn't actually address, nor refute, pro's argument.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

To an extent, I agree with you. It is a trap debate for a theist to accept. However, as an agnostic, I have some points to bring up that I don't believe a theist would, which work around what the OP has stipulated in the description.

Should you find that acceptable, I would ask to change the character limit to 15,000 per round.

Would you be alright with accepting an agnostic to debate with? Of course, I don't hold this position you wish to argue against(nor would I hold the position you're arguing for), but I could certainly offer a different perspective for the position you want to argue against. While I don't believe in this position, I am willing to argue for it, and I don't believe a theist would bring up similar arguments, at least I've not seen any from one that I've pondered over.

Too favorable for con

I might take this if no-one else does.