BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is more of a religion than Christianity

///You contradict yourself...First you claim that religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...Then you say that Christianity is not a religion./// --You have misunderstood my point. Christianity is indeed NOT a religion, rather A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST. The term 'religion' can be applied to the 'earthly' things of Christianity, like church buildings and so forth. Atheism, however, is indeed a religion in that it is a "specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ///There are a lot of different types of Atheist./// --If you would, please elaborate on this statement. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ///They simply believe that there is no God...It does not take that much faith for most people to think that./// --I believe it takes an incredible amount of faith; but that argument just goes back to proving the existence of God. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ///Now, the overwhelming scientific evidence you speak of does not prove the Christian God...That could be Allah, Buddha, or Zeus./// --Remember, this is only one single shred of the evidence and I realize what I provided only proves the existence of A God. Besides, Allah is (technically) the same Judeo-Christian God and Buddha is not a God but a philosopher. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ///It is much easier to believe that there is no God than to believe that a man rose from the grave./// --I beg to differ, I can prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but again, that's another debate. _________________________________________________________________________________
Atheism is more of a religion than Christianity

Thank you, DEFINITIONS =============== Atheist: Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being Faith: confidence or trust Christianity: Conformity to the Christian religion ARGUMENT =============== You contradict yourself. First you claim that religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Then you say that Christianity is not a religion. Since you provided the definition, I will debate using the definition. There are a lot of different types of Atheist. I would like to point out that Atheist are not all evolutionist. Evolutionism in my opinion does take a huge amount of faith. There is little evidence, but people still believe that it happens. Atheism however is simpler. They simply believe that there is no God. It does not take that much faith for most people to think that. Atheists think simple, I can not see God, I can not hear God, and I can not feel God, so there must not be a God. To them that does not require a lot of faith. Their theory of how we got here does in fact require the faith you speak of. Now, the overwhelming scientific evidence you speak of does not prove the Christian God. That could be Allah, Buddha, or Zeus. Christians can look at the universe and say that there is a God, but that does not necessarily prove the existence of the God the Christians believe in. No matter how hard we try, we can not outright prove to the world that the real Christian God exists. We are born skeptical, it is in our nature. Christianity does in fact take a lot of faith. In Proverbs 3:5 God says, "Trust the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding" Atheists do rely on their own understanding. It is much easier to believe that there is no God than to believe that a man rose from the grave. Don't you concur? I will stop here for now. I look forward to your next argument
Atheism is more of a religion than Christianity

There is much, much more, but here's a start. The Fine-Tuning Argument: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design. 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance. 3. Therefore, it is due to design. Here, premise 1 is a given. It simply provides you with the obvious options to choose from as a means of explaining the apparent ‘fine-tuning' of the universe. If we can confirm premise 2, then the conclusion will logically follow, and the ‘fine-tuning' of the universe is due to design, which requires an intelligent designer. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, they contain certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The mathematical values of these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Second, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are just part of the initial conditions of the universe—for example, the amount of entropy in the universe. These constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by less than a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and life would not exist. This is not even the slightest of dents in the evidence...I can elaborate if need be. Remember that this is not an argument on God's existence, but a debate as stated in the OP
Atheism is more of a religion than Christianity

1. I believe everything in the Bible is true; but some things aren't to be taken literally, rather, be a form of symbolism. I say this pertaining only to the proportion of the Bible that I have read. 2. You choose. 3. We'll save that for later..... 4. I define Christianity as an acknowledgement of the divinity and actions of Jesus Christ. Be it Protestant, Catholic, or what have you.
Atheism is more of a religion than Christianity

Since there are five rounds I will simply ask a few questions. 1. Do you believe everything in the bible to be true? 2. Do you wish me to debate this topic from a Christian's point of view? 3. Can you provide me with the overwhelming scientific evidence of God you speak of? 4. Can you specify which Christianity? (Some people believe that Mormonism is Christianity. ) I look forward to your response.
Atheism is more of a religion than Christianity

In my humble opinion, I observe atheism to be more of a 'religion' than Christianity. Before I go any further, I will define what religion is. Religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." I, as a Christian, do not like the word 'religion'. Religion is man-made; and Christianity is not a religion, rather a relationship with Jesus Christ. The reason I say atheism is more of a religion than Christianity is that it takes more faith to believe there is no God than to believe the contrary. OVERWHELMING scientific evidence exists in the favor of God's existence.
The demonic of the Gospels were derived from human attack

The Pro position, (mine) is that the demon possession found in the Gospels and confronted by Jesus were the results of human planning. It is not demons that attack human beings. It is other humans that attack human beings. Demons and Angels are fraudulent beings. These fake beings are used to provide cover for spiritual terror. As always my main source is the Bible but Con is welcome to use any source, and good luck Con. "The peoples of the Mediterranean began to emerge from barbarism when they learned to cultivate the olive and the vine." Greek historian Thucydides
The demonic of the Gospels were derived from human attack

Sorry. Been busy. I'm going to keep this short because, honestly, I'm starting to get annoyed by your cocky and condescending attitude. 1: the apostle Luke was a physician. A doctor. More likely than not, he would be able to tell the difference. 2: the wisdom for serving the worse wine last is that people have the good wine first and are too drunk to tell that the bad wine is bad. That's pretty straightforward. 3: you claim that there are no angels or demons. Then disregard the angel Gabriel coming to Mary, because both statements can't be true. So far all of your arguments have rested solely on a lack of understanding of ancient customs mixed with hastily drawn conclusions that are so far off the mark that it's funny. Read 1 and 2 Kings. That details ancient warfare and how people die of their wounds. Furthermore, in the bible those who were healed of demon possession had instantaneous recoveries and the demons even once went into a herd of pigs. Regardless of whether or not you believe in demons (because in all likelihood there will be some atheists reading this debate) you cannot make the claim that the demon possessions of the Bible were drug-induced. They were either real, or they were made up (but that's a debate for another time) but they were not - could not possibly be - drug-induced. And even more than that, for the arguments that you're making to be valid, EVERYBODY would have had to have been addicted to a substance that was not around for another 1600 years. That seems highly unlikely to me. if literally every man, woman, and child in Israel were addicted to narcotics and hallucinogens, then we would have, at the very least, an astoundingly expansive record of birth defects ranging from 2000BC through to now. In conclusion: there is more evidence for the demon possession of the bible to be from actual demons that from substance abuse. Laudanum wasn't around for another 1600 years after the death of Jesus. And every single claim you have made thus far has rested not on evidence but on your ability to swing from one assumption to the next like some sort of debating Tarzan. Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen.
The demonic of the Gospels were derived from human attack

(Maybe this place should be called forfiet.org?) Pro's final argument: John 2:1-11 (the good versus the worse) "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him." Every wine Sommelier is trained and knowledgeable in all aspects of wine service, not just pairing wines with foods. Obviously the Governor of the marriage feast did not know what he was talking about. From a purely economic point of view the bridegroom would naturally be inclined to serve the worse wine first. Then after men have well drunk that which is best. In this way the best would be saved for last. But the Governor had no insight to the wisdom of saving the best for last. Neither did the Nation of Israel. What is the ancient wisdom for serving the worse wine last? Has the Con of this debate or anyone in the audience ever drank Laudanum? Laudanum has such a terrible taste there are only a few ways one could drink it- 1 Your pain is such that the need for relief exceeds the repugnant taste that Laudanum carries. 2 You are addicted to Laudanum, (which is another way of stating reason number 1 because if the addict does not drink he/she will be in agonizing pain). 3 You are already inebriated to such an extent that your senses are dulled to the point where you don't recognize the foul taste of Laudanum. The question is- Did Israel at the time prior to the Gospels have any need for Laudanum?
The demonic of the Gospels were derived from human attack

Maybe Con you have heard of the product Coke-a-Cola? It is just the most recognized brand name in the entire world. Maybe Con you could guess where Coke-a-Cola got its name? To conserve time and space Pro will tell you Con- COCAINE The makers of Coke-a-Cola use to put cocaine in their 'soft' drink. Highly addictive. That is good for sales. Cocaine is also a stimulant. You can run faster longer on cocaine. Also cocaine blocks pain receptors in the human body. You can run faster longer even when wounded on cocaine. The guy who formulated the original Coke-a-Cola was a morphine addict. This is important because directly after the United States Civil War there were more drug addicts in America then all the drug addicts before and since all added together. The Civil War was the most brutal war America has ever fought. It was on the order of ancient warfare because of the strong feelings and valor of the Americans on both sides. The NAZIs used meth to 'stimulate' the fighting spirit in the German Army. Is it becoming clearer for you Con?
The demonic of the Gospels were derived from human attack

These arguments are both lengthy, but I'm afraid they're not effective. I will first address argument 'A'. You claim that the bible doesn't tell us the nature of or ingredients of the fruit in Genesis. You compare this with modern nutritional information. This is, quite frankly, absurd. Bible commentator Matthew Henry suggests that the fruit itself did not give knowledge of good and evil, but the act of disobeying God did (http://www.creationtips.com...). This is supported by the use of the word 'know' throughout the Bible. Knowledge can mean: Literal knowledge of facts. Sex (Genesis 4:17) And decision. The fruit was probably just some other kind of fruit. The sin was the disobedience that Adam and his wife Eve showed towards God. In argument 'B' you say that it is impossible for men to survive ancient warfare. This is also untrue. Not everyone would have been injured, and of those who were many would have died of their wounds. The issue you seem to have, however, is that the Bible doesn't tell us literally everything about everything. The Bible is not an encyclopedia, ladies and gentlemen, not is it supposed to be. It is supposed to be a collection of texts that tell the history of God's people and share the good news of Christ's resurrection. Whilst reading Plutarch, for example, do I throw up my arms and declare that, since he didn't tell me literally everything about ancient life, he's inaccurate and should be ignored? Does contemporary American history tell us what George bush had for breakfast on the 72nd day of his term of presidency? Does ancient history tell us how many time Julius Caesar blinked? Of course not! The reason being that those are facts, yes, but of no importance to the overall text. Ladies and gentlemen, how boring would The Lord of the Rings have been if all of the extensive information in the appendices had been part of the main body of the work? What if, the moment we were introduced to the elves, we had to stop reading the main story to learn the entire elvish languages, Sindarin and Quenya? History textbooks do not tell us the facts that do not pertain to the main story, so we should not criticise the Bible for not doing so. In fact, the writings of Luke (Luke's Gospel, and Acts) have been historically and archaeologically proved time and time again to the point where experts no longer pay any attention to the ridiculous claims that Luke's high status as an historian is undeserved. So, no, the Bible does not tell us everything. Nothing tells us everything. Only what's important. Furthermore, I don't see how this pertains to the original topic of debate.
The demonic of the Gospels were derived from human attack

Argument Number 1: The Bible does not tell us everything. A. Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil God did not tell Adam and Eve, (or us for that matter) why they should abstain from the particular fruit. The Bible does not list the ingredients contained in the fruit. The Bible does not even tell us what kind of fruit. The fruit of Eden fame is sort of like the processed food that is so popular right now in the United States. We must pass a LAW forcing the manufacturers to list the contents of the 'food' they would have us consume. Just forcing the manufacturers to provide a list of the contents makes the manufacturers begin to upgrade the nutritional value of their products. Have the Cons ever heard of MSG for example? The 'food' manufacturers like to slip this 'spice' into the food they produce. The nutritional value of MSG is suspect. But its importance to the 'food' manufacturers is not suspect. MSG is a cheap way to trick human taste buds into thinking that the junk food that the manufacturers are producing tastes better. Making food taste better is not the only thing MSG does to the human body but the 'food' manufacturers only care about the bottom line, and staying out of prison. That is right, prison. It is against the LAW to knowingly produce food that can harm people. The manufacturers must meet certain standards by LAW. The manufacturers cannot do anything they want no matter how much money they might be able to make. They must adhere to strict guidelines. B. Ancient warfare The Bible tells about several battles and wars of ancient times. But it does not tell us how. How could men face hand-to-hand combat of such a brutal fashion? And after the battles, how could men face such agony from the wounds they would have had to endure? It is simply not possible to suffer the kinds of wounds that the soldiers of ancient times would have had to have suffered without some kind of medication to block the pain. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE
Dogs are better than cats.

Let me address where you say they are careless, selfish, annoying, lazy and mean. Cats are none of those things. They are hardly careless and being selfish, annoying, lazy and mean? In what way? Dogs fit that definition more than cats. Cats kill roaches, birds and mice. You said "unlike" are you saying they don`t do any of those things because cats are notorious for killing mice. Dogs? Well they are more known to kill your slippers and shoes. Then you said when it comes to a pet it doesn't matter how much you spend on them. So you're willing to spend a million dollars on dog? Give up money that could be spent on feeding your kids, welfare, rent, electricity on a dog!? That "loyal protection" thing. Instead of getting a dog what about getting a tall fence or a burglar alarm? It will make you feel as secure and cost less than $54,000. You never hear cats at night. Its always dogs keeping on barking waking up the whole neighbourhood and its a domino effect once one barks the whole lot start barking. Dogs and cats have pretty much the same fur but no, dogs fur sheds more and sticks more. I know by experience as I have a dog and a cat. After going away from the dog I have a whole lot of fur stuck to my clothing but after I come out of patting a cat I have little to no fur on me. You don`t have trouble breathing because there is cat fur in the air. This is very false and I have no idea where you came up with that idea. I would have you to know there are alot of stories where cats have saved lives so they are as good as dogs. Check out this link which has a classic story of a cat that saved its owners life. http://pussingtonpost.com... Dogs are used to aid policemen because they have a keen sense of smell and they are big and buff. There is no other reason. Its not because they are better its because they can sniff things out. Now onto my second point. Cats are smart, funny, cute and polite. Dogs are big, obnoxious, loud, hyperactive and smelly, Which one would you prefer? Cats can go outside to do their business dogs,well, just can`t. Cats have the best personality's, manners and smell. Therefore the moot shall fall.
Dogs are better than cats.

OK, I get where you're coming from, but your wrong I have own a cat before, 15 to be exact (my bro loves cats) and they were just that: careless, selfish, annoying, lazy and mean. My dogs were/are twice as useful as those cats....they would even kill roaches, birds, and mice (still do) unlike the cats. Yes, you invest money on dogs just as much as you do in cats, but you do it because you love them, are loyal and they are like a family member. Plus, you should know that when it comes to a pet it doesn't matter how much u spend on it, but how much you care for it. I don't mind walking the dog or anything like that because in return I get the loyal protection my dogs give me at night to sleep soundly knowing that they will protect the house and my family. If you here a cat at night is because they are fighting since they a very territorial or they are forcefully mating hence the screeching, annoying, baby-like cry. Also your labeling people as lazy here and well that's not right. If they get cats they are just as lazy as cats because they don't do anything, no offense, just going along with your statement. Also your saying that dog's fur sheds and leaves hair everywhere, well cats are just the same, but dogs hair is less hazardous to our health because the cat's hair sticks in the air causing more trouble breathing while dogs just stick to furniture and can be cleaned up easily. Yes, they stink, but not if you keep them clean. Another thing you're saying they are not selfish, but when have you seen a cat risk their lives for a person or another animal?? hardly ever right?? Well dogs have been reported to have saved a person's life or any animal in fact that they are attached to. To prove my point that they are protective I'm going to state that dogs are trained animals of any police department and have been in war helping man and received medals for it. Where have you heard that cats are used for protection?? I sure haven't.