IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

Yes, that is the correct stances on the matter. And the subject. Well, on this one I would have to disagree with you. I clearly said the title was debating the existence of God or not. So that basically is covering all of atheism. Likewise, for your stance, it is covering all of Christianity. So in my opinion by default, we are arguing the existence of God by any stances our two beliefs show. Do not treat me like a child con, and tell me what I am really debating. I knew what I was looking for when I made this debate. My opponent clearly did not. Standards of Logic I believe that I am understanding his stance quite perfectly, but I will now debate what I exactly interpret from what he said. "IF non-theism is true, THEN we are here by chance and evolution. We would only be further developed animals. We know that we have consciousness, but we do not know that we can trust our minds for rationality and logic. We can observe reality, and we can create things and use things that work, but we cannot trust that our logical systems are correct. There may or may not be objective truth in the world, and we would never be able to know if we could discover it." Yeah, this seems all right. What's the problem? "IF theism is true, THEN we would have been created by God to be rational beings. We can trust logic because we were designed to use it. We should be able to discover objective truth in the world, because we know it exists and we know that we can use logic to discover it." Okay. So THIS is my interpretation of your argument: You are saying that if non-religion is true, Then we are here basically by total random coincidence. And that non-religious thinking is that we cannot trust our cognitive functions with absolute perfect logical or rational thinking. Yes, that is a perfect start. Exactly. Then you say that if religion is true, then we would have been created by a God in his perfect design to be rational beings by default and that we can totally trust our minds. Then you proceed on to say that non-theism is the only rational method for finding truth of the reality that we occupy. That form of thinking is absolutely absurd. And here is why. For your first part, yes, the view of atheism is that we cannot absolutely trust our cognitive functions for rationality and reason. Which is a very reasonable stance because you have to consider a lot of factors. Like we can only use 10 percent of our brains. And, human beings by their very nature don't use their logic or rationality. We also use our emotional thinking. Or we have mental problems. There is so many factors that contribute to why we will never ever be 100% totally rational. That just will never happen. To say that through a theistic way of thinking we can trust our brains and logic just because we believe in a deity is foolish because that does not manipulate our cognitive functions at all to be 100% right at all times. Also, do you want to know why Christians tend to think they are the most rational just because they believe in God? Because they make outlandish, comforting claims to the existence of God and just because of the amount of population that agrees with them, and, the close-minded "We have all the answers!" mentality. They make claims that a lot of people agree with, therefore they solidify that into truth. As Richard Dawkins once said: "Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time." In conclusion, all I am saying is no, we cannot fully trust our cognitive functions to be rational and reasonable all the time because that is impossible. We don't have all the answers and we admit that and instead seek to find them. Science makes theories, tests them, makes them into theories. The closest we can get to truth which we always make subjective to change because we admit that we may be wrong. That is how we work scientific advancement. Because at least under a non-religious point of view, we don't make any outlandish claims without any evidence and be satisfied with not knowing the truth. We keep working to find the truth. Miracles: Yes, doctors are professionals at what they do and that is debatable for person to person. But do you honestly think, that in a world where religion is supreme, 3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles, and that scientific advancement in medicine is not fully complete in our process of even knowing about ourselves, that the claim of a doctor saying a miracle occurred is really accurate? Or could it be that something happened that didn't meet with his mind? What is more likely? A simple mistake? Or the divine intervention of an unproven deity? And who's to say its the christian God? What if it was the Muslim God? Or the Jewish God? So in conclusion, no. Doctors testimonies are not always trustworthy. Because the chances of divine intervention are so slim that it is out of reality. My previous argument was indeed stupid. Resurrection of Jesus: Let me tell you why option 2 is not as absurd as it sounds. You see, you have it flipped. Sure, at first they were probably jailed and persecuted, but moving along. I will defend my examples. 1. World War 2, well. I suppose it is a matter of how you view the events of World War 2. I view it as Hitler spread forth a lot of propaganda against groups he wanted genocide against that were lies and deceit just so he could start the imprisonment and murder and torture of the groups that were targeted. He said that the Jews were at fault for the financial crash of Germany, which was obviously a lie. And the soldiers following under Hitler did indeed die for the cause of him. Which was the cause of a lie. 2. The Crusades: Catholics murdered because they were claiming they did it under the name of God and were just barbaric people who wanted to gain non-divine rewards out of it, still a lie. Or they honestly thought that God would approve the murdering of non-believers. Both of which were a lie, and the crusades had to be actively stopped. And the crusaders died for the same lie. Both ways. 3. Native Americans. I did not say ALL Native American conflicts. I said some. Take a look at the Sand Creek Massacre for instance. http://www.authentichistory.com... They may have believed it to be true themselves but in the end of the day they were indeed fighting for or dying for a lie. And this did indeed spread religious faith more. Through fear and power. Claim I cannot refute the resurrection of Jesus all you want, con. It is not for you to decide, it is not for me to decide, it is for our audience to decide. Adam and Eve: This first sentence is absolutely absurd, because I think my opponent doesn't know the fact that as humans it is our very nature to be sexual creatures. That is one of our very designs. We are lovers of sex by nature because we are sexual creatures. Our bodies want to reproduce. Naturally. It's no obsession with sex, its just fact. Sure, some people intentionally repress themselves because they feel it is somehow immoral to procreate. But not one human on this planet has ever lived a life without finding a way to satisfy their sexual needs. Ever. Secondly, Adam and Eve is still a very popular belief in America, and not just America alone. Britain as well, and therefore, I debate against it. Conclusion: I feel that I made a pretty good argument. I hope the viewers are enjoying this debate.