Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

They have heard the answer, they just refuse to believe it. You will never find an answer inside the natural sciences. Look all you want, but you will never find it. For some people, 'magic' is not a satisfactory answer. You are trying to change the definition of atheism. It is a 'disbelief' or a 'belief' there is no God. You don't know if what you think is true, therefore you believe that He doesn't exist. Do you not understand how the dictionary works? The word has several definitions. Any of the definitions can apply to the word. But all of the definitions don't have to apply, for a particular instance. Belief and disbelief are antonyms, therefor your sentence takes on completely different meanings depending on which one you use to fill in the blank. Do clarify. Any reasonable person, religious or not, falls somewhere on the map of agnosticism. This includes atheists who recognize that God is unfalsifiable and unverifiable on the existing evidence. I choose to identify as atheist rather than agnostic because I do not think any religion is correct, and if there is a force outside of nature, it does not matter to it in the slightest if we know or care about its existence. So, I do not operate within the confines of any religion, and I do not operate as if there is a force out there that cares if I worship it or even give it a passing thought. The tag of agnosticism carries with it the implication of uncertainty, and until new evidence is presented, my uncertainty is only a token one, in the interest of avoiding absolute statements.I have already addressed this above. You are trying to change the definition of words here. It is a 'disbelief' or 'belief' there is no deity. You have faith that God doesn't exist. If you don't like this term, then perhaps you should reconsider what to refer to yourself. Looks like I will have to borrow from a debate that you bailed on, once again. "A quick lesson in the English language: when a word is prefixed with the letter 'a', the 'a' signifies a lack or absence of something. Examples include amoral, atypical, anaemic, abnormal. When we look at the word atheism, we see two components. 'A' and 'theism'. 'Theism' denotes the belief in a god, and the 'a' denotes an absence of such a belief. Ta-dah!"I have already addressed this above. You are trying to change the definition of words here. It is a 'disbelief' or 'belief' there is no deity. You have faith that God doesn't exist. If you don't like this term, then perhaps you should reconsider what to refer to yourself. You have missed the point. No matter how you define atheism, subjectively, it is not that much different from not believing in unicorns (or, believing in the nonexistence of unicorns, as you would probably insist on awkwardly phrasing it). Therefor, the act of believing in the nonexistence of unicorns would also constitute a religion. So would the act of believing in the nonexistent of Zeus, Ra, Spaghetti Monsters, Bigfoots, mermaids, and so on and so on forever. Each one of these would be a religion. You and everyone else would belong to most of them, which would be an infinite number of religions. This is a whole lot of conjecture here. What contradictions are you speaking of? I have addressed the ones you brought up before. Do you have new contradictions for me to review? http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html Not to mention the big ones like creationism and a young earth. I know you would like to believe these, because it means you can think the Bible is 100% true, but the available evidence simply does not support either of them. Until (and if) something new is presented, they will continue to be rightfully ridiculed when people attempt to pass them off as valid scientific theories. There is a good reason they receive no attention in peer-reviewed journals and other seriously academic forums. That's how naturalism operates, not necessarily science.When has science ever confirmed or denied the existence of something for which no evidence exists? Evolutionists or atheists (secular) start from the point that God doesn't exist.Evolution does not at all preclude the existence of God, it merely shows the errancy of the Bible. The two are extricable, even the case of a personal God. The secular world view has to ignore God, and will deny any evidence that leads that direction.Science does not deny evidence, at least not for long. What it does is refute and discard evidence that is faulty, which is all there is for things like creationism and a young earth. When I am confronted with evolutionary evidence I am very critical.So are scientists who support the theory, as they should be. Science is critical of every piece of evidence for anything, whether it is currently supported or not. Especially seeing how the vast majority of evolutionary evidence is either artwork or "loose" speculation.I have never debated anyone who both a) did not believe evolution a process was real and b) actually understood how evolution worked and what the evidence for it consists of. By making this claim, you have shown that you are no exception.