Instigator / Pro
4
1363
rating
13
debates
3.85%
won
Topic
#2407

Christian or non-believer. Either world view (any applicable for non-believer) require a basis in faith.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

This includes the world view of the big bang happened in nature, laws of the universe took over, the sun and earth formed, through random chance life evolved to where it is now.

I do not define faith in this case as belief without evidence. I believe to take either world you, You must assume one is the more likely, Not the proven, Worldview.

-->
@seldiora

I don't see an option which allows me to vote. It just says voting period where publish argument usually was. What am I missing? Sorry. One of the first debates I've done on here and also enter the voting period. I'm not trying to be difficult (just happen to be hahaha)

-->
@Sum1hugme

ah read that as like you were ready with a one off. I understand where you're beefs are coming from in that section. I'm not out here to defend Turek haha.

If any of my arguments drift towards his, ill find out which are relevant to me haha

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

Take your pick lol He gave me his book and I read half of it. But by the time i got the part i cared about, the evolution part, it was just so fractally wrong that every sentence was so loaded with fallacies it became unbearable.

-->
@Sum1hugme

I've only watched his presentation and some follow up Q&A. Which argument are you referring to?

-->
@seldiora

Franks argument is completely useless against agnostic atheists

-->
@Sum1hugme

Frank's argument is completely useless against Agnostics.

-->
@seldiora

Juts the book title is a fallacy of projection and false equivalence. The whole book starts with straw manning the word atheist.

-->
@seldiora

I have a feeling we're about to see some Frank Turek arguments. Here, https://www.academia.edu/21505705/I_Don_t_Have_Enough_Faith_to_Be_an_Atheist

I would definitely not accept this debate, the opponent has an anti-definition, but not the actual definition? Not only that, but they provide no actual reason for the topicality of the definition. On top of both of these things, the Pro would necessarily adopt the BoP and be responsible for a constructive. Overall I don't like the framing of this debate. Dishonest.

-->
@seldiora

I have done a debate on this topic. Feel free to check it out.

I’m very curious why pro thinks lack of belief requires faith.