azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

What I spoke of was the God that lies with in us. It wasn't theological... It was rather philosophical. Yes, Morals differ. But, there has to be one universal moral accepted by all. I do not define God as per the scriptures. That is also a belief that you like holding on to. They might have different views, but there is a commonness. You and I will agree with a lot of common ethics as human nature. Things like abortion, sometimes even war tend to bend a little with the high confusion of their existence. But, if I said that the kid is being aborted at one of the grown stages due to it being a girl. ( It is very common in certain 3rd Worlds) You will agree with all of us that it is a wrong thing and not ethical. It will be a universal belief. But, nonetheless I was referring to God who resides subjectively in you as a guide.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

God exists as a term. As a rule poorly defined, inarguably and absolutely authority centric, hence as divisive a term as there is, but existent nonetheless.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Nobody is arguing whether the term "God" exists, they are arguing over what the term is supposed to be describing exists.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

One friend of mine likes to define god as "All that which Is", Another prefers "god is love"what the term is supposed to be describingWhen YOU use the term are you describing something that you don't think exists? Can things that don't exist be discussed? Do imaginative constructs exist? Is an imaginary problem a real problem?Go ahead and be bold enough to define the term god in your own words. What do you think the term means? Don't tell me what you think other people think it means, tell me what you think it means. Blurt it out if you're satisfied with your opinion on the matter.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

What a jip!I guess I should have expected that you wouldn't be comfortable defining god using your own words to give evidence of independent thought.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

People can define God as whatever they like, they just won't be correct definitions. You can define god as a flat piece of wood supported by four legs, and then assert that your table is God, but that would be a fruitless argument, in the same manner leveraging the ambiguous nature of god as supporting his existence. This is nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters.If you say God is everything then clearly we are not talking about the same thing.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Do you do any give and take dialog where you ask and answer questions? Offer scrutiny and lay yourself open to it?Was my question: "Is an imaginary problem a real problem?" not worth responding to?My point (well one of em) is that when people are using the word god (or any other word for that matter) they do so for actual reasons. I think the word god is USUALLY a metaphor for beliefs that people have that they no longer leave subject to enough scrutiny and doubt. (That's just one way that I'm willing to articulate using my own words to give you an idea of what I think about god) Care to offer any scrutiny of the way I think about god? Or do you think that using the word god to describe a non-existent entity is somehow logical, or in any way likely to enable fruitful arguments?People can define God as whatever they like, they just won't be correct definitions.Tell me what authority you rely on without question to determine "correct definitions" and it will give me a clue as to the nature of the god you worship.This is nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters.No it's an attempt to sow discontent and self doubt. To expose worship under WHATEVER guise it may be hiding behindIf you say God is everything then clearly we are not talking about the same thing.I don't describe god that way, a friend of mine does. You want to try telling me what groups X, Y, and Z believe, I'd like to hear what you believe.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Do you do any give and take dialog where you ask and answer questions? Offer scrutiny and lay yourself open to it?I don't know what you're asking.Was my question: "Is an imaginary problem a real problem?" not worth responding to?I assumed it was a rhetorical question that did/does not require an answer. As a serious question, NO, it does not merit an answer.My point (well one of em) is that when people are using the word god (or any other word for that matter) they do so for actual reasons.As opposed to? Fake reasons?Yes, people use words for reasons. I fail to see how this in any way demonstrates the existence of Deities.I think the word god is USUALLY a metaphor for beliefs that people have that they no longer leave subject to enough scrutiny and doubt.And how many metaphors do you worship? How many days have you set aside for metaphors? Any foods that you refuse to eat because of a metaphor? Attend any services dedicated to a metaphor? Persecuted anyone because of a metaphor?Or do you think that using the word god to describe a non-existent entity is somehow logicalAnd how would one discuss non-existent entities without words to describe them? Should we stop calling Santa, Santa because he is non-existent? How would we discuss ancient mythology if all non-existent entities lacked names?Tell me what authority you rely on without question to determine "correct definitions"The dictionary.give me a clue as to the nature of the god you worship.I don't worship any god. I thought that this was clear. Did you not read the arguments above?No it's an attempt to sow discontent and self doubt. To expose worship under WHATEVER guise it may be hiding behindDoes this include metaphor worship?I don't describe god that way, a friend of mine does. You want to try telling me what groups X, Y, and Z believe, I'd like to hear what you believe.I believe calling everything God to assert the existence of God is about as logical as calling everything Unicorns to assert the existence of unicorns.You are attempting to define something into existence.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

I don't know what you're asking.Hmm. I am not willing to rewrite it.As opposed to? Fake reasons?Yes, people use words for reasons. I fail to see how this in any way demonstrates the existence of Deities.A deity is an imaginative construct that does or did exist.And how many metaphors do you worship?I try not to worshipHow many days have you set aside for metaphors?I don't feel like tallying it upAttend any services dedicated to a metaphor?I havePersecuted anyone because of a metaphor?I haven't. Question: Have you?And how would one discuss non-existent entities without words to describe them?You can't describe something that doesn't exist. You can however describe imaginary things.Should we stop calling Santa, Santa because he is non-existent?the phrase "he is non-existent" makes no sense whatsoeverHow would we discuss ancient mythology if all non-existent entities lacked names?The deities of ancient mythology were named so we don't have to worry about that.I don't worship any god. I thought that this was clear. Did you not read the arguments above?Not referring to an authority that you rely on without question [The Dictionary] as a god, doesn't make what you're doing any less worshipful.Does this include metaphor worship?YepI believe calling everything God to assert the existence of God is about as logical as calling everything Unicorns to assert the existence of unicorns.I'll relay that to him if I remember to. Him being the friend of mine (who calls himself a pantheist btw )who likes to define god as All That Which IsYou are attempting to define something into existence.I am trying to get you to think in terms of things existent. When someone speaks of god I think you should be considering the underlying reason they use the term. That reason is real and can be scrutinized. The non-existent cannot
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Hmm. I am not willing to rewrite it.Then, I guess you'll never know.A deity is an imaginative construct that does or did exist. I am not asking if the concept of God exists, I am asking if God exists. Why are you making this more complicated than it needs to be? I fail to see how the ability to imagine something makes it real.My earlier point was that if God was just considered a metaphor people would not worship him/it. People worship God because they think he is a real entity, which has influence on their lives (beyond their belief in him). So your statement that people 'Usually' regard God as a mere metaphor is false.You can't describe something that doesn't exist.Bullshit. Watch me.Typherdraken:-Has 30 legs with hooves-Has a Dolphin for a face-Has poisonous fangs -Has Wings made of ferns-A tail made of cheese-Eats the hopes and dreams of children.-Lives in your garageNot referring to an authority that you rely on without question [The Dictionary]As opposed to making up your own definitions, yes. The dictionary is an authority on definitions. If you want to make an argument for why I should not go to the dictionary to learn the definition of a word, I would like to hear it.I'll relay that to him if I remember to.Were you not using his statements as support of your own?I am trying to get you to think in terms of things existent.You need not try, I already do.When someone speaks of god I think you should be considering the underlying reason they use the term.Simply because you use God as a metaphor does not demonstrate that most people do.Do you even know what a metaphor is?A metaphor is when we use a real and literal thing to represent an idea. God cannot be a metaphor because he/it is not a real and literal thing. Calling God a metaphor is tantamount to representing an idea with yet another idea, which defies what a metaphor actually is.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Why are you making this more complicated than it needs to be?To frustrate you. :)I fail to see how the ability to imagine something makes it real.I am aware of that.your statement that people 'Usually' regard God as a mere metaphor is false.If you're going to call a statement of mine false, please quote it verbatim.Bullshit. Watch me.Typherdraken:-Has 30 legs with hooves-Has a Dolphin for a face-Has poisonous fangs-Has Wings made of ferns-A tail made of cheese-Eats the hopes and dreams of children.-Lives in your garageYou just described something you created using your imagination. I know you have trouble thinking of peoples imaginations as being part of reality, but with a little effort you will understand that thought is as real a phenomenon as any other.If you want to make an argument for why I should not go to the dictionary to learn the definition of a word, I would like to hear it.I won't argue against referencing a dictionary definition. I will argue that a dictionary shouldn't be considered the ultimate authority as to the meaning of a word. Meanings of words change and evolve over time. For me, the conversations I have with other people weigh more heavily than dictionary definitions.Were you not using his statements as support of your own?Not in the manner evidenced by the way you are calling it into the conversation.Simply because you use God as a metaphor does not demonstrate that most people do.I agree. I'm not going to spend any effort here trying to convince you of the metaphorical nature of language. Nor do I care to debate with you the definition of metaphor on this thread.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

To frustrate you. :)Truly, statements inconsistent with logic frustrates me.I am aware of that.Now that you are aware of it. Do something about it. Support your claims, they do not support themselves.I know you have trouble thinking of peoples imaginations as being part of realityOn the contrary, it is you who possesses the inability to distinguish imagination from the subjects being imagined. Imagination exists, yes. The things being imagined don't. Why this is difficult for you to comprehend I cannot say.For me, the conversations I have with other people weigh more heavily than dictionary definitions.And if those with which you converse are ill-informed, or misusing those terms?Not in the manner evidenced by the way you are calling it into the conversation.Then in what manner? Any manner which attempts to draws support, is unfounded.I agree. I'm not going to spend any effort here trying to convince you of the metaphorical nature of language. Nor do I care to debate with you the definition of metaphor on this thread.Then on what do you base your argument?
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Truly, statements inconsistent with logic frustrates me.It's pretty common to be frustrated by statements that don't agree with YOUR logic. You don't appear to be trying to understand my logic beyond attempts to make it appear ridiculous. I am used to that too.Support your claims, they do not support themselves.If I have convinced you of anything, I don't expect you to admit it. I expect nothing but pejorative comments, should this thread continue. I haven't said anything I feel a need to retract out of embarrassment.And if those with which you converse are ill-informed, or misusing those terms?Well I can cross reference with a dictionary, or I can converse with people like you, and see how compelling the arguments are. I cannot however escape trusting my own decisions.Then on what do you base your argument?On my observation that the problem of theism is better addressed recognizing it as a worship issue, rather than a believing in non-existent entity issue. There is more to my atheism than constantly reiterating that I don't believe in fairiesIf you don't agree that: "An imaginary problem is a real problem" then what can I say beyond that? I leave the texts between us to reflect what they may and offer you TLWNice to meet you Bohemian
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

It's pretty common to be frustrated by statements that don't agree with YOUR logic. You don't appear to be trying to understand my logic beyond attempts to make it appear ridiculous. I am used to that too.Contradictio in terminis is not just a violation of my logic, it is a violation of accepted logic.You don't appear to be trying to understand my logic beyond attempts to make it appear ridiculous.To say that something which is imaginary exists, does not require my input to appear ridiculous.If I have convinced you of anything, I don't expect you to admit it.Expectations are often false. Even if this were so, it wouldn't make your argument any less unfounded.On my observation that the problem of theism is better addressed recognizing it as a worship issue, rather than a believing in non-existent entity issue.Except that wasn't the question. The debate topic is "Does God exist" not "What is the primary issue with theism", which makes all of your previous posts entirely irrelevant. I stated this very plainly in my very first response to your post.You also have not address my point regarding the difference between imagination, and the subjects of such imagination.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Since you don't see how my points are relevant to this thread, and you seem at least slightly interested in exposing my stinkin thinkin, please do me the courtesy at the following new debate topic:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ An_imaginary_problem_is_a_real_problem#arg179797
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Well, are you going to address my points here, or not?
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

No way. It took me way too long to navigate to the end of this thread. However, If you don't mind briefly summarizing the contention between us under a new topic I will give a good faith effort. But for some reason I can't put my finger on, we just don't seem to get each others points!?I won't back down from the challenge, but I could just as well let the dead horse alone :)
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Because you are using terms oxymoronically.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: let's us reason

Or alternately I am calling to attention nuances in the meanings of the terms that you are not appreciating.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Using a definition that you made up for the sake of an argument is not a nuance.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

I never claimed that it was, but at any rate, thanks for pointing it out.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Contradictio in terminis is not just a violation of my logic, it is a violation of accepted logic.an appeal to "accepted" logic is Argumentum ad populumPointing out popular misconceptions comes across that way to almost everyone. There are plenty of situations where inadequately defined terms cause shallow thinkers to believe statements to be paradoxical or contradictory when they're actually not.You also have not address my point regarding the difference between imagination, and the subjects of such imagination.Ok so, if I imagine something that does objectively exist (say my truck), I am creating an image in my mind about it right? In this case the truck would be the objectively real subject of my imagination, correct?"logical traps are hard to expose without the aid of yeses and nos" ~atypican
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Pointing out popular misconceptions comes across that way to almost everyone.A rationalization of poor logic.Ok so, if I imagine something that does objectively exist (say my truck), I am creating an image in my mind about it right? In this case the truck would be the objectively real subject of my imagination, correct?Does God objectively exist independent of what people imagine? So you would first have to establish that God is an objectively and independently existing entity, before you could use such an argument. Do not beg the question.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

A rationalization of poor logic.Calling logic (especially such that one won't go to the effort of understanding) poor is another typical knee jerk response, common to people who are overly satisfied with themselves.Does God objectively exist independent of what people imagine?I don't think so says the guy who has absolutely no aversion to having flaws in his logic exposed, to the guy who seems to. OK I will reword the question to see if I can get a straight answer from yaIf I imagine something that has no existence outside of my imagination, then whatever it is (or isn't According to accepted logic) that I am imagining, is the subject of my imagination, correct?
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Calling logic (especially such that one won't go to the effort of understanding) poor is another typical knee jerk responseI don't concern myself over what is "typical", only over what can be defended rationally, and if this is the only defense of your argument is to call my response typical, then maybe you need a new argument.common to people who are overly satisfied with themselves.Ad hominem?I don't think so says the guy who has absolutely no aversion to having flaws in his logic exposedI didn't ask for what "the guy" says, I asked for what you say. Thinly veiled insults directed at atheists, do not constitute arguments.Furthermore there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting that your arguments may have fallacies within them. Interesting that you say this because you seem intent on denying the fallacies that you have made thus far.Also notice that you didn't answer my question.Does God objectively exist independent of what people imagine?If I imagine something that has no existence outside of my imagination, then whatever it is that I am imagining, is the subject of my imagination, correct?Is what you are imagining the subject of your imagination? Yes. Are the subjects of imagination always existent? No.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

I'd be happy to lay off the exchange of thinly veiled insults and adhoms. I'll follow your lead :)I don't concern myself over what is "typical"Yeah right.you need a new argument.I'm here blurting out what I think, in order that I might read some thoughtful response that jostles me astray from ways of thinking that too quickly become undesirable ruts. I don't think you are a low type person just because you can't reach me with your (what I think to be somewhat unsavory as well) style of rhetoric.Ad hominem?I'll tell you what.. If ever we do approach anything resembling logical debate, I promise not to be the first one to divert attention away from the subject at hand by making innuendos designed to make my opponent appear ridiculous.I didn't ask for what "the guy" says, I asked for what you say.I would prefer that you behave more respectfully too. :(Thinly veiled insults directed at atheists, do not constitute arguments.The truth is that as far as rhetorical engagement goes, they are some of the most convincing tools available. Try not to be such a sloppy thinker. Another truth is that many arguments consist of nothing but thinly veiled insults. It's debatable (and no I don't want to debate it) whether I'm any more guilty of it than you. :)Furthermore there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting that your arguments may have fallacies within them.I am not as worried about a few fallacies cluttering up my arguments, as I am of missing the point you are trying so patiently to make.you seem intent on denying the fallacies that you have made thus far.I wonder what (other than introspection) you're going on to make such an assumption.I'll cop to the ad-hominems, I use em when I see em on the table.Regarding the apparent contradiction in terms....I think there is something here that could use better articulating. "Real" and "imaginary" ARE often enough regarded as neat and tidy antonyms.Do you really want to debate it? Start a new thread please. Or dig in at the one I already started: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ An_imaginary_problem_is_a_real_problem Also notice that you didn't answer my question.No. You notice the one's of mine you avoided. Alas it's all too often our own stench is so hard to notice. I don't think I avoid your questions more than you avoid mine.Bohemian: Is what you are imagining the subject of your imagination? Yes...!.!.recovering from shock.... Noted. A little like pulling teeth but a slight logical basis is better than none.Are the subjects of imagination always existent? No.Everything exists.......You don't like thinking of that do you?Things evolve, change and become other things.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

an appeal to "accepted" logic is Argumentum ad populum{Laughs}Isn't Argumentum ad populum, itself accepted logic? I love self-refuting arguments.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

{Laughs}in hopes of replacing the current tone with a playful one, I'll laugh tooIsn't Argumentum ad populum, itself accepted logic?unfortunately! {wondering...will he know what I meant?}I love self-refuting arguments.I love being able to interpret words like god in more than one (especially archaic) way.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

I thought he said define it by your OWN standards, not someone else's?
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Supposed by who?...................................................
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

The debaters in this thread.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

The suppositions of the debaters in this thread vary wildly, as do those of any other group you might name.