IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

To elaborate to my opponent, I wish to point out the title is "IN MY OPINION, God does not exist" because if I flat out say God does not exist, then I would require... Well, in all irony; a godly amount of knowledge. And as an atheist, there is doubt in ALL of my ideas. I am a skeptic and not only do I doubt outside ideas. I even doubt MY ideas. I do admit I might be wrong. But from all the evidence that shows right now, I believe that no, there is no God present in our lives. Anyways, but contention is basically saying "In my opinion, God DOES exist." The exact opposite of mine. And yes, thank you for giving them. That is what I was looking for. Refuting 'The Standards of Logic." "If logic is just a human concept; a societal construct; and we are animals that are here by means of chance and evolution, how can we trust our mind? Why should we trust the way that we perceive reality? How do we know that our minds are rational? What if our perceptions of reality are incorrect, but the incorrect perception serves as a mechanism for survival?" Well, we cannot really trust our minds at all. Logic is a societal construct created by us, animals. And we can trust our logic and minds because that is our way of thinking. That is the only way of thinking. We can never know if our minds are rational or not, we are human beings. We act upon what we observe in the reality that we occupy. All of our minds are different, and our cognitive functions are heavily varied in each human being that has ever existed. And what if our perceptions of reality are false? Well, that doesn't even make any sense as a question. Because if even reality around us was all a huge mistake of frail human sight, then it still doesn't matter because we see the world as we see it. We see reality as we see it. You can't just ask "What if our perceptions of reality are incorrect, but the incorrect perception serves as a mechanism of our survival?" and assume "Yes, then there must be a God." That's like placing a word in a broken sentence without knowing how to write and calling it truth. So no, you cannot just assume that our logic and rationality works under a religious paradigm. And I am not saying our logic is one hundred percent trustworthy, I am saying it is all we have to trust upon. Our rationality, critical thinking skills, and use of logic is all we have rely upon to seek truth of the reality that we occupy. It's not always right, and its not always wrong. It is all subjective to being proved wrong. Or, if you want a better term for it... We all use science to think. One way or another. And to finish up, I didn't even have to put logic being trustworthy under an atheistic paradigm, because I don't even think that is true. Because it is not correct. Because we all have different versions of it. Refuting 'Miracles.' For your first claim, no. It makes sense to assume "Well, if the christian God exists then he obviously wrote the scriptures, therefore, they are true." But the other way around, that just isn't true. "If there were any place where we could see if miracles happen or not, I would argue that the best place would be in a hospital. 3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles." Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true. I mean, look at how many people believed in Zeus why back during the Greek times. You don't believe in him anymore do ya? No, I didn't think so. Its the same with all deities of religion to me, but you wouldn't agree with that so I won't make that comparison. "As people who are trained in their field would know when something happens that defies natural human biology, then if we trust the testimonies of the doctors in the survey, we can conclude that miracles do exist and happen today." Okay, well this isn't true. Only an idiot would believe that. Because the field of biology is a field of science. And science is based off skepticism and questioning. Science hasn't figured out everything there is to know about even our own race yet. There is still so much unlearned! Like how to cure cancer or many other various diseases. Whatever biologist claims that a miracle happened just because something happened that was of unknown origin should be criticised heavily! Refuting 'The Resurrection of Jesus.' Well first of all, let me start by saying that this all possibly isn't true at all. Because all this information is known is by religious text. The bible. And as we know, the bible has been re-written by several different authors over and over and over again through history, effectively crafting the biggest game of telephone EVER. You see, there is no way that what was initially written is in today's christian texts. Sure, some of it may still be there but most certainly not all of it! A good chunk of it was probably re-written falsely. So that's the first thing. Second thing, I see actually three options here. OR they had lied. AND the massive game of telephone ever since its origin was based off one massive lie, or it was something completely different and someone lied along the way to fabricate it into something that would make an ideal famous for the time that they lived, liking giving them fortune that was proper for the time! It makes perfect sense, humans are known to lie all the time! It makes A LOT more sense then somebody resurrecting out of nowhere. And for your last argument. Yes, people will die for a lie. Its been done numerous times throughout history and is being done in modern times. For your next paragraph basically telling me bible stories I am not going to refute it because trying to prove the existence of God through the literature of the faith you are trying to prove to be true is absurd. Because you know that 'I' don't believe in it. But I will however debate this: "The apostles refuted the idea that they were having a hallucinatory experience. They observed physical evidence of Jesus before believing He was resurrected. Since we know that they were convinced Jesus was resurrected, and people will not die for a lie, then only one option is left: Jesus was really resurrected." Oh wait, I already did! And I will not repeat what I said. My 'Adam and Eve Story' defense. Sexual reproduction would have ceased? No it wouldn't! We humans love to have sex! Its what we were designed to do! It is in our very biological nature to have sex. Okay, sure. That can be reasonable. And, quite the opposite. No, if he had not given them any laws, they would not have been machines at all. Because they don't have any orders to follow. They would be as free as can be. And why did he bother giving us said law at all? If the law is so stupid. Also, if he didn't want us to break the law, why did he place a talking snake (yeah, that too. That makes total sense.) to intentionally tempt us into doing so. That's like going "Hey guys, you can do whatever you want and all that, but if you eat from this tree I swear, you will curse your race and grow old and die! Every single one of your species for the rest of existence! Muhahaha!!" Clearly, my God is a bit more of a drama queen. But come now, it is kind of like that. He is a crappy law-maker. And your next paragraph I am simply going to dismiss. Not out of disrespect for your opinion, but because YOU may believe that. But the majority of your faith does not. The majority of your faith believes God is an all-knowing being. Defending 'Contradictions of God.' 1.) Already explained. 2.) Already explained. 3.) So wait, just because our free will went outside what he had planned (which already shouldn't have mattered because apparently he gave us free will) he had to adjust his plan? No, you see, the bible says that when you go outside his plan in multiple areas that you are punished severely or killed. God does not sound like a guy who adjusts. Just saying. I can quote these if you want me to. In conclusion, have a good night.