azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: yes

Ah, poor little atheist. Look up feeding the less fortunate and come in and get some chow. Feel better now.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

Actually, Religion is a cop out. It was an easy way for early humans to explain what they were scared of without the need of investigation.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

What about atheism could possibly be a cop out exactly? What about not believing that we were all created by one man/woman/whatever else god could be is a cop out? Atheists believe in science, because it's proven fact. There is little to no faith in science because it's proven, it is just the way it is. God and religion is not. A virgin birth is unnatural, a man walking on water and claiming (like many many others in his time) to be the son of god, all of these things are unnatural and there is no evidence to prove any of them true. I'll tell you what is a bloody cop out. In a debate I watched once, a Christian priest (I can't recall the name) said that the reason we can't see, hear or find god is because he is beyond nature and therefore beyond our comprehension. That's a fucking cop out. That's like me saying, "I own an invisible unicorn that cannot be seen, touched, heard or felt. But... it is definitely 100% true". You could say prove it, but why do I have to prove it, when I have faith that it is real. It is an unprovable hypothesis.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: yes

right, how many times have we revised science? science is ALWAYS changing, and if anything, its the scientists who have to change more than science itself, so suck on that
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

right, how many times have we revised science? science is ALWAYS changing, and if anything, its the scientists who have to change more than science itself, so suck on thatWhich practically all that follow science, and practically all atheists understand. what you aren't understanding is that all science really is, is a discipline used for learning about the world around us that we can see, and just as human as we are, we aren't perfect at it. so yes science is always changing, but trying to understand the universe and everything that we can means our understanding of everything will always be changing, as it is impossible to figure out how everything is from the start, and it is impossible to know everything from the start. so the only way your point here has any validity would be if you are saying that there is evidence for god, but if that's the case you should have the evidence and be able to prove it's existence, or if you are simply stating that we COULD always find evidence of god, then we still have no reason to believe in god because since there hasn't ever been any evidence. so yes science is always changing and its not impossible for science to one day in the future tell us god exists, but there is no reason to think that day will ever come, an atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god, there is no justification to believing in god because there hasn't been any evidence made, and we are perfectly justified to not believe in god because we have no reason to. and 99% of agnostic atheists reading your argument here are thinking this, all you told us was that its possible science could one day tell us that god exists, which is another way of saying that god's absence of existence isn't fact, which 99% of atheists (which will all be agnostic atheists) will acknowledge and agree to. so when you say "suck on that" to us there is nothing to suck on cause you are simply stating something that ironically all agnostic atheists and you will agree on, why would we need to "suck on that" to an argument we agree on you with. like i said before that you are simply stating science can one day tell us that god exists, that in no way makes itself an argument towards atheism.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: yes

well, thats the problem, you guys dont believe, and you will never feel the results, these are repeatable experiments but they only have an effect on YOU, thats what spirituality is all about self growth, and you expect science to answer the questions it can't answer, so you never believe, and by not even believing, your mind will never ever equate any experience you have as "divine or supernatural" simply because it deosnt fit, if you want real results, you have to believe, so when i say "suck on that" i meant change yourself now before you get disappointed and have conniption fits because the truth fills you with power, but you need to believe it works in order for it to work... also, you are excluding 20,000+ years of experiences that without, we wouldnt be where we are today, we would be far worse, shamans in traditional cultures are revered and respected, in modern days they are labelled as mentally insane, how do you think it feels when noone will even slightly try to understand?
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

Thank you for just reiterating the greatest strength of science, that it is continually improving with new observation so we have an ever clearer understanding of the world.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

I know I seem pretty anti atheist but I'm really not against atheism as a whole. Disagreeing is one thing but I don't think that having a belief is a cop out. It may be for some people. It would be pretty bold to say atheism is a cop out because by saying that you're talking about all atheists. To tell you the truth I give atheists more credit than all these people who say that they're "Christian" who hardly ever act like it, rarely go to church that never legitimately sought for answers and just assumed the position as christian.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

Not really. It's a lot easier to attack religious ideas than hold them. It's the more logical position.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: yes

no, it just gives you nothing to defend so you never have to worry about losing an argument, talk about the easy way out
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: yes

Exactly. Atheism gives us nothing to defend. We have to come up with our own ideas on things, and defend them. Theism hands your beliefs and values to you on a silver platter; no thinking required - only faith. And you call atheism the easy way out.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

Atheism mens being NOT religious. Religion relies on existence of God or a deity. Spirituality is an American invention. In fact there is no difference between religion (organized or otherwise) and Spirituality. If you believe in God or any Higher Power for that matter, you are religious, by definition. Atheism is absence of belief in God or higher power (not simply disbelief) for which there is no proof of existence by any scientific method. Not being able to prove God's non-existence is not a scientifically or philosophically valid argument. Being a Theist or religious is a cop out. Critical thinking is suspended and pure belief takes over. Freud himself said that being religious is a pathological condition. I am not denying that religious people benefit from it and that's fine with me, but thinking that Atheists are somehow "lesser than" and do not see "the light" is an illusion on believers side. I do not see a need for God's existence. The Universe is just fine without a concept of "God." :-)
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

How is it in anyway a cop out? We take responsibility for our actions, we abhor human sacrifice unlike Christianity, we have only one life to live and the very fact we get to live one at all is a privilege.We don't like living under an unalterable celestial dictatorship that can convict us of thought crimes. We live our lives with evidence rather than faith.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

It is the built-in human "emotion" of intrigue and curiosity which has driven us (literally) to where we are now. If you believe in a god, (which I don't) then surely you will know that god created us, and therefore gave us all the things we required. So, s/he gave us the sense of intrigue. Therefore, it seems only logical to say that god wanted us to question things. And atheism is the only belief which allows us to do that.So atheism is the religion of logic and reasoning. Therefore it is not a cop out.And I still don't know why we are taught religion in school.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

Is religion just a cop out?...................................
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

How can it be a cop out when it rejects a claim?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

In any case where a claim is tested for veracity, the only verifiable test is that of evidence. When we find no objective evidence to support a claim, we find in favor of the null conclusion. For example; we have many suggested entities for which we have no evidence, including fairies, Leprechauns, gremlins, unicorns, and mermaids. And in each example, the common response is to note the lack of evidenced to support the existence of each suggested entity, and therefore conclude that they do not exist. However, religion has remained very popular while the concept of a god (or gods), appears to be just as devoid of objective evidence as for any of the other suggested examples, which most of us would give little more than a second thought before concluding non-existence.So concluding that God does exist is a case of special-pleading. Being a more popular belief, does not mean that it's more logical, or more likely.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

The evidence is clear when you understand what "God" means.God is defined by merriam-webster as "The supreme and/or ultimate reality"Supreme is defined by merriam-webster as "highest in rank or authority" or "highest in degree or quality"Ultimate is defined by merriam-webster as "the best or most extreme of its kind" or "basic, fundamental" or "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"Reality is defined by merriam-webster as "The quality or state of being real"~~~~God is real by definition. Therefore, it is nonsensical to deny God. In fact, God isn't just defined as being real, but God is defined as being real in the truest sense of the word. So real in fact, that if you say "there is no God" you automatically invalidate any other claims of truth that you may make.To hammer things home, lets go to the OxfordOxford defines God as the "supreme being"Supreme is defined as "Highest in rank or authority".Being is defined as "Existence".It means the same thing in Oxford.~~~The existence of God is a given. It isn't something that should even be up for debate.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Not sure if you missed the rest of the definition on purpose or through oversight:merriam-webster1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as  a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe  b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and warSee the oxford defition as well.You can't just define god as reality itself and therefore make god real - a claim of god comes with a certain set of attributes - attributes that the atheist remains unconvinced of without evidence.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

A lightface colon following a definition and immediately preceding two or more subsenses indicates that the subsenses are subsumed by the preceding definition:2crunch noun . . . 3 : a tight or critical situation: as a : a critical point in the buildup of pressure between opposing elements . . . b : a severe economic squeeze . . . c : SHORTAGE se·quoia . . . noun . . . : either of two huge coniferous California trees of the bald cypress family that may reach a height of over 300 feet (90 meters): a : GIANT SEQUOIA b : REDWOOD 3aThe word as may or may not follow the lightface colon. Its presence (as at 2 crunch) indicates that the following subsenses are typical or significant examples. Its absence (as at sequoia) indicates that the subsenses which follow are exhaustive.~~~~~What does that all mean? It means that the word God with a capital "G" means "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality"Oxford says "The Supreme Being". It means the same thing.See, you have so little respect for what it is we are talking about that you can't even capitalize the word. I am talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and that is the theologically correct understanding of what the concept of "God" means. Your confusion comes from using the dictionary improperly. The second definition you use is not relevant to what I am talking about. The gods come and go, but God is eternal.If you refuse to accept the definition of God that theists agree on, why are you pretending to care about evidence?The many varying opinions about God do not have any bearing on what God IS.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Oxford says "The Supreme Being"From previous Oxford link:1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.2 (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.‘a moon god’‘the Hindu god Vishnu’2.1 An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.‘wooden gods from the Congo’2.2 Used as a conventional personification of fate.‘he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once’---------Neither definitions 1 nor 2 can just be presumed to exist because reality exists.you can't even capitalize the wordIf we are not talking about a specific god, the correct usage is not capitalized.The many varying opinions about God do not have any bearing on what God IS.But changing the definition can certainly change the arguments.God = reality therefore God is real = useless tautology and ignores the general use of the term.God controls human fate, created the universe, is the source of morality, etc. comports more with the general use of the term, but are all things for which there is no evidence.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

The God I speak of is The Only True God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.Clearly God controls human fate, God is omnipotent. That means "All influence". What that means is that GOD DID IT.Clearly God created the universe, because the universe could not create The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. There is no existence apart from The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.Clearly God is the source of moral authority, because The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what grants all authority to begin with.The evidence is in accepting that when I say "God", I am talking about "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality", what that means, and nothing else. If you do not acknowledge God as being real you are denying the truth. Literally denying the truth. If you deny the truth, you lost from the get go. You don't even believe in what you say. Your argument isn't valid. You are being arbitrary.So it would be better for you to turn from your wicked ways and acknowledge The Supreme and Ultimate Reality as God.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Clearly God controls human fate, God is omnipotent. That means "All influence". What that means is that GOD DID IT.Clearly God created the universe, because the universe could not create The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. There is no existence apart from The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.Clearly God is the source of moral authority, because The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what grants all authority to begin with.Exactly - there is no evidence for any of this.It is not invalid to say that your argument with no evidence is unconvincing.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

The evidence is in understanding what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means, and what it implies.This is clearly The Determiner of All Things.The proof is in trying to make sense of what I'm saying, because it is very consistent. So you don't want to call The Supreme and Ultimate Reality God? Then, do you at least believe that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

This is only proof that your argument is circular.Just saying that God is the source of moral authority doesn't magically make it so. It could very well be that there is no moral authority.Saying clearly God made the Universe is, again, not evidence for that.Your ipse dixit is not evidence.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

If there is no moral authority, your argument can not be any more valid than mine.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

My argument could, of course, still be more logically valid - it would not be more moral, and I have not claimed it to be.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Your logic isn't anything other than mental masturbation. Vain imaginings. There is no moral standard, therefore logic's authority is invalidated.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

There is no accessible moral standard with or without God.If there is a god, there would only (potentially) be an ontological objective morality that humans might be judged by, but epistemologically don't have access to.Logic's has shown its validity in making better predictions than the alternatives and is useful regardless of whether an omnibenevolent dictator who can't prevent suffering exists to give moral laws or not.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Your standards are arbitrary. You attach all these properties to God out of superstition, not knowledge.You don't know what you are talking about. God means "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". Clearly you either don't understand what that means or you are lying.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

You attach all these properties to God out of superstitionI didn't assign any attributes to God, I asked you what attributes you assigned."The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". Clearly you either don't understand what that means or you are lying.I asked you what it meant to you, and you said it meant the real reality.Then you said reality includes all of the below...:Clearly God controls human fate, God is omnipotent. That means "All influence". What that means is that GOD DID IT.Clearly God created the universe, because the universe could not create The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. There is no existence apart from The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.Clearly God is the source of moral authority, because The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what grants all authority to begin with.and, still, you have given no reason(s) why this must be the case except your say so.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.You are pondering about created things, you still don't even recognize what I'm telling you.How can I speak more plainly? The God I speak of is The Truth.Yet something so simple is impossible for the God denier to grasp, for if they truly did have knowledge they could never believe that God doesn't exist. As the scriptures so rightly say, it is because they have no love for the truth that they have been cursed with delusion.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

If people believe in reality and truth, then they believe in reality and truth - they don't suddenly believe in God because you temporarily change the definition to try to get someone to agree, so you can then re-assign any attributes you want to God.Changing the word god to mean reality and/or truth, (or love or any of the other attempts in this vein) is to obliterate the meaning so that God is useless and has no properties (which is by design to avoid providing evidence of any asserted attributes.)If God has no property except unverifiable existence, what use is it? Why would anyone change their lives in support of a belief that reality exists? Should people pray to reality?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

I am not doing what you are accusing me of.You really are denying reality by denying God. I can't make this simpler. You accuse me of trying to weasel something else in because you are superstitious and think that what I have to say has any bearing on The Absolute Truth of God.It is relationship with God that has an effect on one's life. Being God conscious is always better in any situation than not being God conscious.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Yes - you are trying to have it both ways.One moment the word god is basically meaningless, the next it has every possible meaning and neither version is substantiated by anything.God is the reality that exists beyond reality...Have you given any evidence that such a thing exists - nope.God is the omnipotent moral law-giver that controls the fate of the universe.Have you given any evidence that such a thing exists - nope.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

You don't know what you are asking. Maybe you should contemplate on what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means, and then see how that answers all your questions. Maybe if you took the question more seriously, you'd have already figured it out.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Ah - the wisdom of the ages. If only anyone throughout history ever thought to just change the term to just be meaningless, they could have proved "God" existed long ago...
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

You saying something is meaningless does not make it meaningless.You are not the judge of reality, oh arbitrary one.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

saying god = reality,or that reality necessarily includes believing in a moral authority, and an omnipotent being with intent for the fate of humanity,or that a Determiner of All Things exists, etc. etc. does not make it so...
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

You don't even understand what you are saying.I can't make it more clearer. You are being arbitrary. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what God means, and denying God is denying the Supreme and Ultimate Reality.You deny my God, you are the greatest of fools. It would be better for you didn't embrace wickedness. You condemn yourself, though you know it not.Do you deny my God? You can't be justified.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

How about a better question - does a god worthy of worship exist?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Abide in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and the futility of the gods should become obvious.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

so, no?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

I say dragons are the supremest beings - therefore dragons now exist...
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Yeah, except I am actually using an academically respected dictionary. A dictionary that predicts atheists are by nature ones who have embraced arbitrariness.Something you aren't really make a good case against right now.