azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Nice try, Darwin studied medicine and natural history, he was forced by his father to became Anglican pastor."Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.""-WikipediaSurprise me with your excusesAllow me please to quote a bit from Einsten's personal corespondenceAllow me to do the same: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. -Albert EinteinHe is not an Atheist and never wasI cannot be sued for stating obvious thing, There is no evidence that. Richard Kuhn ever did anything with that picture.Its practically just one click away
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

JackpotRecently our findings were confirmed when the Spanish-language magazine Proceso reported the results of a secret study of the Image of Guadalupe. It had been conducted - secretly - in 1982 by art restoration expert José Sol Rosales. Rosales examined the cloth with a stereomicroscope and observed that the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp or cactus fiber. It had been prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate), and the image was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a "very limited palette," the expert stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras"), reds (including carmine), and gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century regular picture...source (El Vaticano 2002)
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

You mean this source?It became a laughing stock in Christian forums actually"The article conveniently ignores virtually all the arguments going the other way and chooses to use evidence that I've seen effectively rebutted. Sorry I can't add more than that at the moment; I'm really mentally tired. Googling the tilma online will bring up some more articles for you though, rebutting many of these points and raising important evidence this article has completely ignored. Erg, never mind, I'll help a little bit. A couple points of evidence the article ignored: First, the tilma the image of Guadaloupe is imprinted on is made of a material that only can survive 20 years, yet this tilma has survived 400. The image also was kept of out doors for many years. People tried to recreate the circumstances of that with other images of Our Lady of Guadaloupe on tilmas of the same material, and they left their images outside, and the images were completely destroyed by the elements within one year, if I recall correctly. The article completely ignored those tests and the material survival issue. Also the fact that the image of Our Lady of Guadaloupe is in perfect condition aside from cracking they argue they can find along one vertical line. For crying out loud . Furthermore, virtually the entirety of the image has been shown to lack any brush strokes. Note that the article you brought up only mentions apparent brush strokes around the eyes. Very, very few parts of the image show any evidence of brush strokes. The only conclusion drawn by other studies is that the image is like that of a stamp. It appears to have been "stamped" or imprinted as one whole image, colors and outlines and everything, in an instant upon the tilma beneath it. That, of course, is completely impossible except for modern technology completely unavailable in the 16th century. The article has lots of holes and bias because it's trying to make a case for one position. It's conveniently ignoring the strong evidence going against what it's trying to say. I'm tired so I won't go into the other issues, but there are good articles online that say much more on the matters raised in that article."-http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=365043
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

My source is quoted from EL VATICANO issue of 2002, José Sol Rosales and Callaghan both stated that it is ordinary picture painted by brush...your answer to that? random forum blob from Catholic.com, which cannot even be taken seriously...Now there are two image/painting experts saying that it is ordinary picture...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

First off: Link?Second: You did not read the forum post have you?Notice how the article was made since 2002, and yet, Wikipedia remains on the side of the Guadalupe and the article did not received much views at all?Stop making a fool of yourself. You're an eyesore
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Wikipedia has no side, it is by people edited encyclopaedia if you check the editor forum under your so beloved bogus article about that painting you will see a lot of editing history and controversy.Both Callaghan and Rosales (whose finding were published by Vatican) stated that it is a regular picture, painting from 16th century.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Wikipedia sides the truth, actually. Guadalupe has been tested and proven true beyond doubtAnd now I ask you: where is your link?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

uadalupe has been tested and proven true beyond doubtYOUR OWN Callghan says that it is ordinary picture!http://www.invicchio.it/dimorarivotorto/ files/Guadalupe.pdf
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

An Italian article that uses Wikipedia as reference? Keep on dreaming.Wheres your El Vaticano 2002 article?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

El Vaticano is a magazine you have to pay to have access .
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Then provide me with a screen captureIm starting to think that your "El Vaticano" does not even exist. Can you lead me their homepage too?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

El Vaticano 2002 means "The Vatican" article archive 2002. I thought that you will now that system ...it's catholic so... Examination was sponsored and overseen by Proceso 2002 Number 1333 and 1334
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

So?Please provide me with a screen capture of your source.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

I gave you issue numbers, you have to buy paper copy of it or pay for archive access. Maybe your school have access and let you print it for free.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Here's a better solution:Scan your paper or take a picture. Then upload it.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

How would you know that what I send will not be fake like those you sent me? The point of paying few bucks is that you will have access to the original .
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Spare me the excuses. If you have the courage to make an argument using that, then surely you can prove the credibility of your source
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Proceso is unbiased magazine with no record of favouritism towards specific religion or cult. I gave you name of source and article number.Why you cannot give me one scientific journal (real science no magic or religions)? There must be so many of them, such "miracle" I am sure that the Nature has article about it :D :D
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

So from "El Vaticano", your source is now "Proceso"? :D"Nobody argues that Proceso is not a reputable magazine, but it is not a scientific journal, and the interview it gives with G-V is far from establishing the validity of what G-V's study is supposed to show. In fact there is no indication that G-V ever published his "study" (with or without the photographs he claimed to interpret). The Proceso journalist (Rodrigo Vera) was shown one photograph by G-V, but all he could make out was the date 1556 and the initials MA - which proves nothing since Vera saw no image on the photograph." :D :DHey, how long do you plan to avoid mentioning El Vaticano?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

This is over and over again, you are citing Wikipedia... that has zero value...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

This is over and over again, you are condemning Wikipedia though you have no evidence...kill yourself...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Do you even realize that you did not even sent Wikipedia article but citation from chat forum of anonymous people?Only thing I am asking all the time is to prove me that magic is real, you sent PDF with bullshit that you couldn't not prove, then you send Callaghan's summary that says "it is ordinary picture". In between you sent Jose "the employee", chat from wikipeda forum...WHY IS SO HARD TO PROVIDE real report, from real scientific journal (NOT religions, creation.., astrology REAL scientific journal)? Where are they? Why they do not exist? Because you stupid picture is obvious forgery... bullshit made up for primitives to make them pay.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Its not a chat forum at all. It was posted by the very authors of Wikipedia pages. They are well renowned for their intricate but neutral researches and they have a respected title in the cyberworld.The evidence are all against you. Its time to stop posting and accept the fact that science is no longer on your side.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

My medicine is starting to take effect. Ill see you tomorrow.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

What are you taking? Lithium ?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

I belive there is somehing there. Either God, multiple gods, or a goddess of some sort. I don't think they are quite fathomable either. Maybe we know so little in comparison to them.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

There is no evidence for anything being "there" so why believe that there is?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Name something unintelligent that has created (or given birth to) an intelligent being.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

I can't but I do not see how it is necessary. Nothing created anything. Organisms just evolved over time.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Whatever created us, had in it an implication of life and intelligence.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Nothing created us. We just are.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Nothing created us.You can't possibly know that.We just are.What are we?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

You can't possibly know that.Like how you can't possibly know that something did create us. I have no way of proving for sure that some all powerful creature created everything and controls everything but I don't need to because it is so ridiculous I don't need to in the same way don't need to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.What are weWe are what are minds labels the collection of our parts to be. The mind is the creator, nothing else.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Like how you can't possibly know that something did create us. I have no way of proving for sure that some all powerful creature created everything and controls everything but I don't need to because it is so ridiculous I don't need to in the same way don't need to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.Is he claiming that a specific God created us? Is he claiming we were created at all?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Like how you can't possibly know that something did create us.We all know for a fact that something created us... We just don't know what... Well, I think I have a pretty good idea, but you'll have to read my other argument to see it.I have no way of proving for sure that some all powerful creature created everything and controls everything but I don't need to because it is so ridiculous I don't need to in the same way don't need to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.You don't need to prove God's existence any more than you need to prove your own.We are what are minds labels the collection of our parts to be. The mind is the creator, nothing else.And the mind is intelligent, is it not? "The world being created randomly and accidentally, is like a monkey sitting at a typewriter and accidentally typing an entire encyclopedia."I'd like to extend on that though and say that at least the monkey is intelligent.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

I can't but I do not see how it is necessary.Hmm... So you can't name a single unintelligent thing on this planet that has created something with intelligence? Yet you believe that something unintelligent created the entire universe. Organisms just evolved over time.Evolution does not contradict a creator.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

I'm not saying anything created us, intelligent or unintelligent. It is illogical to say that an omnipotent being that could do anything would go through the long process of creating us through millions of years of evolution when it could of just created us from nothing instantly.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

I'm not saying anything created us, intelligent or unintelligent.So are you saying that we have always existed?It is illogical to say that an omnipotent being that could do anything would go through the long process of creating us through millions of years of evolution when it could of just created us from nothing instantly.Time is just an illusion.The earth grows organisms. It is not likely that a god would place humans on the earth, but let plants grow from the earth. We did not come into the universe. We came out of it, or rather, out with it. Life repeats the out, in, out pattern. You come out of your father and into your mother, then out of your mother, then into the ground (after living a life on earth of course)... And I personally believe, that from there the pattern continues.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

So are you saying that we have always existed?No we just came into being gradually as we evolved from single celled organisms to more advanced creatures without a creators guiding hand.Time is just an illusion.The earth grows organisms. It is not likely that a god would place humans on the earth, but let plants grow from the earth. We did not come into the universe. We came out of it, or rather, out with it.Life repeats the out, in, out pattern. You come out of your father and into your mother, then out of your mother, then into the ground (after living a life on earth of course)... And I personally believe, that from there the pattern continues.So you're saying that God didn't create us we just came from what God created (the Earth)? In that case if you can admit that God could have just let us come into existence and not have done anything to make it happen himself then surely you can admit that we could have come into existence without the help of a God at all?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

No we just came into being gradually as we evolved from single celled organisms to more advanced creatures without a creators guiding hand.So you are saying that the universe always existed?So you're saying that God didn't create us we just came from what God created (the Earth)? In that case if you can admit that God could have just let us come into existence and not have done anything to make it happen himself then surely you can admit that we could have come into existence without the help of a God at all?If you were to look at an oak tree, you would see what an acorn has become. They are not two separate things, but rather an oak tree is just a grown up acorn. And on that oak tree are leaves, twigs and more acorns. Those are not separate from the tree, but are part of the tree... They ARE the tree. Eventually acorns fall off and grow into oak trees themselves, giving us the illusion of separate trees... But if those acorns that are now oaks once belonged to a single oak tree, then they are still that one tree. It's like cutting a pizza into slices. You have different slices, but they are still the same pizza.Well, everything you see on this planet grew from this planet, just like acorns growing from a single tree. We as humans, grew from the combination of our father's sperm and our mother's egg. We ARE those things, and those are part of our parents. And everything in our universe came from a single point, the Big Bang, if you believe in that. That single point was the acorn from which everything in the universe came from.That creative force, whether it was from two atoms, God, whatever, is as much US, as an acorn is an oak tree. Everything in this universe is ONE. You see, we complain that there is no evidence of God... But as it turns out, if this theory is correct... Then we ARE God. Everything is God and we are everything. Religions have been saying this for thousands of years. Though, I would say that no religion is entirely correct, therefore there is no need to commit to a single one. So if you look up into the sky, you will see stars and planets that came from the exact same point that you did, the seed of creation. Those stars are not miles away from you, they simply are you... And so is everything else, because everything you see is just an oak that was once an acorn."Science and religion are two different languages telling the same story."
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

So you are saying that the universe always existed?No it came into being through the big bang. Well, everything you see on this planet grew from this planet, just like acorns growing from a single tree. We as humans, grew from the combination of our father's sperm and our mother's egg. We ARE those things, and those are part of our parents. And everything in our universe came from a single point, the Big Bang, if you believe in that. That single point was the acorn from which everything in the universe came from.That creative force, whether it was from two atoms, God, whatever, is as much US, as an acorn is an oak tree. Everything in this universe is ONE.How is this just a more poetic way of putting the Big Bang? Just because everything shares a same origin and in that sense is one and the same does not mean that what we originated from was God. Two atoms colliding would have been a random accident between two insentient things.Then we ARE God. Everything is God and we are everything.This is just a way of looking at the universe.This is pantheism which is just as Richard Dawkins says just is "sexed up Atheism".Science and religion are two different languages telling the same story.Religion tells nothing other than lies. It was just made up to control others.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

No it came into being through the big bang.Okay, thanks for agreeing with me.How is this just a more poetic way of putting the Big Bang?I never said the Big Bang didn't happen. I believe it did.Just because everything shares a same origin and in that sense is one and the same does not mean that what we originated from was God.Name something intelligent that has come from something unintelligent.This is pantheism which is just as Richard Dawkins says just is "sexed up Atheism".Richard Dawkins has a one track mind. You'd do well not to allow his thoughts to be your thoughts.Religion tells nothing other than lies. It was just made up to control others.Religions have taught for thousands of years that everything is one. Now science is agreeing with them. It is clear that the power of religion has been abused, but you don't have to be part of a religion to believe in a god... Plus, you're a Buddhist. That's a religion, whether you accept or not. Every time you slam religions, you sound more and more like a hypocrite.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

I never said the Big Bang didn't happen. I believe it did.And I never said that you didn't. I merely said you were just saying it in a more poetic way.Name something intelligent that has come from something unintelligent.Just because something has not happened since it did doesn't mean it never happened at all.Richard Dawkins has a one track mind. You'd do well not to allow his thoughts to be your thoughts. I am not just imitating what he says. When I first heard about Pantheism my thoughts were similar to that, he just put them into good words.Now science is agreeing with them.At least 80% of the time science disagrees with them. Plus, you're a Buddhist. That's a religionThat's arguable.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

And I never said that you didn't. I merely said you were just saying it in a more poetic way.That sounds kind of like a compliment. Thanks! lolThe Big Bang doesn't disprove God. In my opinion, it actually reinforces it.Just because something has not happened since it did doesn't mean it never happened at all.Then you can agree that the argument that we came from something unintelligent takes as much faith as claiming that God exists, because neither is observable to humans? If we were to base our theory off of the observable (as is done with most theories), then we would conclude that nothing intelligent has ever come from something unintelligent, therefore the pattern of intelligence must have started from something with intelligence. I am not just imitating what he says. When I first heard about Pantheism my thoughts were similar to that, he just put them into good words.Some pantheists believe in an afterlife. Atheists believe in neither a God nor an afterlife, so Dawkins' comment was ignorant. If it were the case that no pantheists believe in an afterlife, then you could not label me a pantheist... Although, I don't consider myself to be a pantheist anyways. I think that giving my beliefs a name is unnecessary. At least 80% of the time science disagrees with them.At least 80% of the time scientists disagree with them... Not science. Science cannot disprove the existence of a God, no matter how hard they try. God could be totally different from how religions describe him.That's arguable.No... It's not. You either are a Buddhist (religious) or not (non-religious).