azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

If you are looking for evidence of something you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want. Also, you can't tell the evidence what to do and only except the evidence if it does what YOU want. For example: Lets say that my brother was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden he bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me." That's not only illogical it's just plain dumb. Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic. In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what YOU want? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. Again since it is impossible to know everything, especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

If you are looking for evidence of something you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want.I know. I accept ALL forms of evidence. Sadly, the bullshit bible isn't fact by any stretch of the word. Lets say that my brother was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden he bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me." That's not only illogical it's just plain dumb.What a terrible analogy. I will gladly accept that there is a snake, even walk outside, but you have to show me the snake. There is no snake (HAHA...UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT BIBLE IN WHICH CASE SNAKES CAN TALK!).Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you?This has never happened. Ever.Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.All I ask is that you give even a shred of evidence. You have given none.In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientificBoth. Not only is not scientific, science CONTRADICTS the bullshit bible.but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?HA! You were born a Christian. This statement invalidates your own beliefs. And no, I don't have a predisposition to atheism. I'm not even an atheist.Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomenaIt has not yet. Regardless, this is the God of the Gaps fallacy.there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.You are right. If there is no evidence pointing to divine intervention, there is no logical reason to believe it. Regardless, miracles aren't evidence for the bible, nor even god. it is impossible to know everythingHAHA! The Judeo-Christian god is supposedly omniscient. You are contradicting your religion's beliefs. So if you are saying omniscience is not possible, your god doesn't exist.especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.God of the Gaps. You are saying a lack of evidence for your God is evidence for your god. That makes no sense.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Sadly, the bullshit bible isn't fact by any stretch of the word.I have no idea why I used the word "sadly." "Thankfully," would have been the better choice. I certainly would lament the existence of a narcistic, egomaniacal, perverted child killer like the Judeo-Christian god.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Are you, by any chance, an antitheist? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Haha. No. Anti-Judeo-Christianity? Perhaps...------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

You have yet to see because you have never looked with an open mind, or even looked at all. See my link in my other post on here.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

What your little link said was that homosexuality is not a hereditary trait. That is quite obvious. Straight parents have given birth to gay children.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

some research shows that Gay people can change,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

That research is bullshit. Show me an credible, scientific, peer-reviewed study that says that.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

No need to be so against that. There have been many people who changed and are happy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010509/aponline013921_000.htm
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

"Psychologist Douglas Haldeman, who is on the clinical faculty of the University of Washington and has published evaluations of reparative therapy, said the study offers no convincing evidence of change.He said there is no credible scientific evidence that suggests sexual orientation can be changed, 'and this study doesn't prove that either.'"
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

There is still some research to be done until now, both sides cannot say for certain, but we can say it is possible. For one very good reason, we do not really now what causes homosexuality.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

we can say it is possible.BS.we do not really now what causes homosexualityWe know it isn't a behavioral choice as homophobes would have me believe.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Why are you so biased the scientific community has not even come to a conclusion. No body said it is a behavioral choice, there is a difference between choice and change.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Ha. Give me scientific evidence that sexual orientation exists.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Hell, you even have abc news, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=117465&page=1#.T3tys_BzV70 I am not asking you to accept that homosexuals can change but be more open to it.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

Christianity conflicts with historical, archaeological, astronomical, biological, and many other forms of evidence. It denies rational & impartial common sense. Its teachings, written by an all powerful, all knowing, creator of the universe, are filled with contradictions. The arguments for Christianity just don't hold ground (bar one or two, and those are close). Atheism is not perfect, but it is the more logical position of the two.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

There is no dispute in Christianity. In order to prove what you are stating, you need full knowledge of this entire universe and at the exact same time you need that knowledge of each of the items you listed: historical evidence, all knowing evidence, creator of the universe evidence, and "many other forms" of evidence. If you can do this, you are "god" yourself and this is where I prove you have already disputed your own theory of God not existing. God is Omnipotent and this is where the real common sense belief lies. You have such strong "faith" in atheism, which is illogical but tell me why you have faith at all?
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

Why would you create this debate if you cannot accept valid points that go against your own beliefs? Why would you claim that I have to provide proof? How can you assume that God is real, and that you are right? In your short time on this website, you have shown awful debating technique.Regardless ....you need full knowledge of this entire universeNo I do not.each of the items you listedhistorical: Big Bang, contradictions between historical sources + the bible (there are hundreds - no I will not give you hundreds of examples)archaeological: Bones of dinosaurs, fossils in generalastronomical: The fact that the earth is not the centre of the universe, that the bible makes no mention of the earth being round, that the universe stretches much further than the earth, moon + sunbiological: Evolutionall knowing evidence, creator of the universe evidenceGoogle the problem of evil."many other forms" of evidenceI hardly feel I need to give you more arguments to refute. But, if you do, I shall.If you can do this, you are "god" yourself and this is where I prove you have already disputed your own theory of God not existing.Once I remove your justification for full knowledge, which is a straw man argument, then your above statement is fallacious. I do not need to know everything about the universe to say that there is no God, because in debate, philosophical, and scientific procedure states that we must assume that the negative is true, and that those claiming the affirmative must provide proof. Until you give me proof of a God, Atheism is the assumed position of the two. Using your logic, I could claim that unicorns are true. Do you need to know everything about the universe to tell me I'm wrong? No. I would need to provide you proof.God is Omnipotent and this is where the real common sense belief lies.Why? Why does a floating man in the sky make any sense in the slightest? Why does life after death make sense, why does worldwide floods make sense, why does parting the red sea make sense, why does anything about religion fall under real common sense? It does for you, because - I would assume that - you were raised as a Christian, and have never been taught to critically think about your beliefs? Have you ever considered that you might be wrong, and given it serious thought? Have you ever considered other religions? I would guess, that like most theists, you have not. Please, prove me wrong and start good debate, if I am wrong. But stop asserting your beliefs as facts until you can back them up.You have such strong "faith" in atheism, which is illogical but tell me why you have faith at all?Why is it illogical? I have faith in atheism because I reject religion, and the idea of a creator. Simple enough really. That's all it takes to be an atheist, that's all it means, nothing else. Hardly difficult.And anyway, I already told you that Atheism is not perfect, and yet you assert that ['I have such strong faith in atheism']? Don't you dare tell me what I think, especially when I imply otherwise. To do so is insulting, and just makes you look unintelligent.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Why would you create this debate if you cannot accept valid points that go against your own beliefs?If this is the case, why don't you follow your own words and accept my valid beliefs against your own belief? Who said anyone has to accept anyone's beliefs in the first place?you need full knowledge of this entire universeYou just don't get it do you? Point in stance, there is only One that knows this entire Universe. If God weren't real, there wouldn't be so many earthlings attempting to refute him time and time again but yet the Holy Bible still stands. Google the problem of evil.Why would I do so when I have already stared evil in the eyes in my lifetime. I surely know what "evil" is and I know how to combat evil.I hardly feel I need to give you more arguments to refute. But, if you do, I shall.I didn't request you to give me anything, I merely referred to your inadequate list of arguments.Until you give me proof of a God, Atheism is the assumed position of the two. Using your logic, I could claim that unicorns are true. Do you need to know everything about the universe to tell me I'm wrong? No. I would need to provide you proof.You can claim whatever you want to claim is true, but when referring to whether God is true, the Holy Bible says it's trust so it's true. If the Holy Bible said that Big Foot was real, I would believe it with no proof needed.Why? Why does a floating man in the sky make any sense in the slightest? Why does life after death make sense, why does worldwide floods make sense, why does parting the red sea make sense, why does anything about religion fall under real common sense?Why do you struggle with all these questions because they must go through your head. I have no question about these things being true. And there is a difference between religion and spirituality. You explain the question about religion to me as you are the one who is religious, and I am the spiritual one here. I am not religious.Get back to me on these statements and we will take it from there.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

If this is the case, why don't you follow your own words and accept my valid beliefs against your own belief? Who said anyone has to accept anyone's beliefs in the first place?I have accepted all points you made. I refuted them in logical manner. You did no such thing to my arguments.You just don't get it do you? Point in stance, there is only One that knows this entire Universe. If God weren't real, there wouldn't be so many earthlings attempting to refute him time and time again but yet the Holy Bible still stands.OK. So if we all start refuting the Quran, or Hindu Gods, or the Flying Spaghetti monster, and notice that some argument still remains, then that's considered proof? You refuse to think objectively, and your arguments are fallacious.Why would I do so when I have already stared evil in the eyes in my lifetime. I surely know what "evil" is and I know how to combat evil.I'm trying to help you be educated on debate between Christianity and atheism. The problem of evil is not just 'evil', it's a philosophical proof that disproves the possibility of an all powerful, all knowing, and good, creator, on the grounds that evil exists. An all powerful & good person would end all evil. As evil exists, the only logical answer is that there is no all powerful, all knowing, and good, creator, aka, your God.I didn't request you to give me anything, I merely referred to your inadequate list of arguments.In debate, that's the same thing. Stop being so petty , when you ignore massive arguments that I put forward.You can claim whatever you want to claim is true, but when referring to whether God is true, the Holy Bible says it's trust so it's true. If the Holy Bible said that Big Foot was real, I would believe it with no proof needed.How do you know the Bible is true? There is no proof. How can you even consider starting a debate on this topic if you refuse to listen to empirical reasoning, to any form of critical thinking, to anything that is necessary to proper debate?Why do you struggle with all these questions because they must go through your head. I have no question about these things being true. And there is a difference between religion and spirituality.Because the world is much more complex than you claim. Things aren't black and white. There aren't easy answers.You explain the question about religion to me as you are the one who is religious, and I am the spiritual one here.What you mean, is that I know the topic much better than you do. I'm interested debating this topic, it intrigues me. But, I do not enjoy ignorance and denial.I am not religious.You are religious. You believe in the Christian God. Therefore, you are religious. Either you are wrong, you were previously lying, or you are mistaken on definitions.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Ben, Ben, Ben.....I am not even going to copy each question as I lack the time here at work but I will give it my best to answer in the time I have available. No, I haven't heard of the Celestial Teapot Argument nor am I interested in it if it's coming from an atheist. But, feel free to explain as I am not here to make enemies but I am hard headed when it comes to where I stand and what I believe in. I feel that in debate the burden of proof is on both sides of debate if we must prove anything, which I don't have to prove anything. Debate can be also based off of a person's feelings, remember that. I know all about evil and evil is all of satan, the prince of the air. Call me petty, call me pretty, neither matters Ben. I cannot accept any scientific findings because science is unreliable Ben. And on the argument where you feel I have stated an unjustifiable statement, please refute. I am glad you accepted you are ignorant for not believing in Jesus Christ. I won't define religion because I want no part of religion. You are the religious one, why don't you define it?
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

To take a page of of keenEdge's book:*'I don't care what Atheists have to say, they're wrong. It makes sense to believe the ridiculous, and we shouldn't question our beliefs, even where they don't make sense, because I just know God is real. I know nothing of the standard arguments that atheists have against Christianity. I don't like science, because science says the bible isn't real and we know the bible's real because God said so and we know God's real because the bible said so, so there, all science is wrong. I can't explain things, but they must be as I want them to be, because Christians said so, even though I don't understand their arguments. I'm right and you're wrong'.That's how I view your argument. Interesting how different our perspectives are, isn't it?And also, I've stopped debating until you bring something to the table, you haven't even began to offer proof yet. As you said, both of us should take the burden of proof.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Why don't you show me proof that atheism is truth. Here's a video for you since you like to use other references. This should clear it all up for you Ben.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSOaSeJgvKI&list=PLA4AD71E546A83D85&index=41&feature=plpp_video
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

You know what, I don't have any proof of atheism. I don't believe there can ever be proof, if there was, everyone would 'believe' the same thing, or be ignorant fools. I have never claimed that I was an atheist, simply that I was an atheist over a Christian. I am an agnostic atheist. But, atheism is the starting belief of people, if you take them away from human contact, would they be atheist, or Christian? Therefore, it is the Christian who needs to provide proof. The Celestial Teapot Argument shows how unreasonable you are being to suggest otherwise. The Problem of Evil disputes your claims. Almost the entire list of scientific discoveries throughout history supports either atheism, or is impartial. And since you have not rebutted any of my claims so far in any meaningful way, I will not reply any more to any rebuttals. I will, however, reply to your own claims of proof, and encourage you to prove me wrong. I look forward to the 'challenge'.All things considering, I think that my position as an agnostic atheist is perfectly well justified.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Call it what you want. I can tell you this, you will see the proof when Jesus returns.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

Jesus never returned.Not for your Great grand parents, not for your Great Great Grand parents and not even for your Great Great Great Great Great Great Grand parents... it goes on and on.They waited for him. And they died waiting.And it will be the same for us, and for our grand children.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Have you ever heard of the Rapture? Even if we don't see Jesus return while we are here on earth, we will indeed see His return. Many will fall for the anti-Christ who will come to earth before Christ's return. One tell tale difference between the anti-christ and Jesus Christ is that the anti-christ will actually walk the earth where Jesus will call us up in the air. Remember this, because when the anti-christ comes, this is the very last chance for non-believers to convert.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

If you have given up rebutting my arguments, may I assume that you have given up trying to claim that atheism is unjustifiable? It was only yesterday that you said you had proof of Christianity, I'd hate for you to have forgotten it so quickly.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

Some of us enjoy sleep such as myself. I have already proven atheism. You disagree so continue to try and prove atheism.
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Christianity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSOaSeJgvKI&list=PLA4AD71E546A83D85&index=41&feature=plpp_video
Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

There is no dispute in Christianity.You have got to be kidding me. Not only are there thousands of disputes of Christianity, there are thousands of contradictions and self-refuations within Christianity.In order to prove what you are statingStop right there. Atheism is proving nothing (a fact I was so ignorant to until ThePyg enlightened me). It makes no claims, and, therefore, it need defend nothing.you need full knowledge of this entire universe and at the exact same time you need that knowledge of each of the items you listed: historical evidence, all knowing evidence, creator of the universe evidence, and "many other forms" of evidence.This is a textbook example of the argumentum ad bullshit logical fallacy.You have such strong "faith" in atheismAtheism requires no faith. And even if it did, your argument is irrelevant as theism does as well. which is illogicalOK. You have now claimed that faith-based beliefs are "illogical." Christianity is a faith-based belief. Therefore, Christianity is illogical. You have successfully disproven your own argument.