azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

If you had actually taken note earlier, I'm agnostic, not atheist. I actually don't care how the cake came to be, so long as I get a slice. Your aunt may have baked it, but I wasn't there. I think it tastes more like a shop bought cake, I don't think she cooked it at all. I don't care if the shop found it on the side of the road, or if the shop mined it, or if it came from the byproducts of crude oil. The universe is not a cake. I personally find chance a far more rational and likely explanation than a creator.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: not FOR nor AGAINST

Hahahahaha!! granted! Doubt away... how is that easier though? I personally find it rather unsettling to be suspended in a state of uncertainty about it all...
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

What I think that revkristine is saying is that why do you need to add god to the equation when we can explain so many things without him? And agnostics can be either agnostic atheists or agnostic theists, I have never met anyone that is exactly in between and I doubt that it's possible.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

That was an argument against Kinda's argument. Not against the existence of god. I was simply stating that because one feels something does not make it true - in what was meant to be a clever way :/
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Ok I see, but doesn't that argument also negate your view? Just because you feel something does not make it untrue either :)
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Well that's the problem with god debates. It comes down to feelings because there's no proof one way or another. However, I feel the lack of proof is more likely to mean a lack of existance, while the religious tend to feel this lack of proof means nothing at all - then they go further and take things that are not proof as proof.Ultimately I cannot argue actual existance. I can argue though that those real things the religious take as proof are not proof at all. That part is actually kind of easy.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

This debate has been quite interesting and yes ultimately it comes down to feelings or faith. You have faith in things that can't be proven all the time, but you choose to not have the ultimate faith, the father of all faiths.You feel that the universe just is, while others like me feel that it must have been designed. You say that it's more likely that it just is because you can't prove it otherwise. We say that the perfection of everything and how they work is proof.Unless some religious nuts out there, belief in God doesn't take the responsibilities of my life away from me. I don't simply say it's God's will or God will take care of it, or God will show me the way. It's how I admire the beauty all around me, because in my admiration I feel the need to think of a someone to respect. I guess that's how it works for me.I'm gonna ignore anything that claims to be a mixture of agnostic and atheist here. I find their existence utterly confusing, and at the end of it all there's not even a wow. It's like, woohoo we do or don't believe if we should or should not believe or not believe and even if we don't believe we think there should or should not be proof and that proof can't be obtained or provided and basically we're committed or not committed to this whole idea... Have I taken this too far out of context? Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure if I can or can't commit to that question...
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

I find the existence of theists very confusing because they believe in something that you can't even prove to exist. Why would anyone want to believe in something that is not even proven to exist? The world is so much more beautiful if you see it for what it is and actually understand why things are the way they are instead of just saying "oh god must have done it" and leave it.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Nothing confusing about it. I'll break it down for you:We see the beauty of the world and understand how it all works and say "wow, God is such a cool creator!"You see the beauty of the world and understand how it all works and say "wow!"Theists are humbled by the whole thing and feel the need to respect someone.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Why not respect it for what it is instead of making up mythological beasts that there are no proof of at all?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Because in the world of probabilities, the probabilities of someone having done it all is (to me) higher than the probabilities of it having materialized all on its own. Since both theories can't be proved, I'm going with the one that is more likely, the one that (to me) makes more sense!
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

And the fact that you feel good when you do believe, as the original argument was trying to suggest, is equally nonsensical.I felt great when I thought Santa was real. Should I therefore declare that "anyone who has felt the joy of Sanata would understand his existence"?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA.If you'd understood his presence like I had you wouldn't even dare to make such ignorant statements.It was as real as feeling the sun beat on my back. I don't see you dismiss that feeling.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

At Kinda:I downrated your argument and I'll tell you why:When you are debating, basing your entire position on a feeling is meaningless. Everyone feels something. Everyone's feelings are contradictory with each other. Basing your argument on a feeling in essentially a way of saying "I have no evidence for my argument but I will support it regardless."
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Don't confuse the feelings of 'joy' you have at a U2 concert with spiritual happiness.Until you feel it, you won't understand it. You won't feel it until you try to understand it. However you seem to dismiss it completely.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Don't confuse the feelings of 'joy' you have at a U2 concert with spiritual happiness.Until you feel it, you won't understand it. You won't feel it until you try to understand it. However you seem to dismiss it completely.Not even close to an argument on so many levels.Feelings don't make or justify and argument, or determine truth. You're already admitting that you don't possess any remarkable insight or truth by resorting to pure feelings as your sole argument.Secondly I used to have a spiritual side until I realised how silly it was and how I was just deluding myself. I woke up to reality and you're still asleep in touchy-feely-believy land. Nothing I can say will bring you out of it, because you want so desperately to believe in your delusion, and you'll use every mental trick in the book to hang onto it.Thirdly your entire statement could be rewritten as:Don't confuse the feelings of 'joy' you have at a U2 concert with santa clause.Until you feel him, you won't understand him. You won't feel him until you try to understand him. However you seem to dismiss him completely.And it would have just as much merit. But it really ought to be written as:Don't confuse the feelings of 'joy' you have with spiritual happiness with the joy you get watching a U2 concert or climbing a mountain, because they are one and the same.Until you under that, you won't believe it. You won't believe it until you try to understand it. However you seem to dismiss it completely.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Lol. Me on touchy feely land. Me.What a fucking cunt. Read a few of my posts on this debate alone. Don't even think of debating on my level till you read what I've written.I'll only reply once you've got something right.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Lol. Me on touchy feely land. Me.What a fucking cunt. Read a few of my posts on this debate alone. Don't even think of debating on my level till you read what I've written.You mean like these gems?Yes.Anybody who has felt at peace with God would understand His existance.I need to get back in touch with my spiritual side. That's when I was most content with life.HAHAHAHAHAAAAA.If you'd understood his presence like I had you wouldn't even dare to make such ignorant statements.It was as real as feeling the sun beat on my back. I don't see you dismiss that feeling.In other words touchy-feely woo-woo. I really don't care to get down to your level of insults, you're no threat to me because you seem to think that on an intellectual debate "feeling" something counts as a legitimate argument. It doesn't.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

What a fucking cunt...that's about the most sensible thing you've said.Don't even think of debating on my level till you read what I've written.Saying that you really, really, really feel like your imaginary friend is in the room with you doesn't cut it...especially on a debating site.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

I've got temporal lobe epilepsy. My hallucinations are as real as walking up to a person, shaking his hand, and having a three hour conversation with him. Quite literally. A lot of atheists and agnostics were once very heavily involved with churches. Often they felt the same types of experiences as continued believers do. I deal on a regular basis with people who are going through crises of faith, and I can tell you that they often come from a strong religious background. I hear the same stories over and over again. Losing faith in a religion is in general a traumatic time and requires great strength and fortitude, but afterwards people often find themselves in a more content and self-confident state than they ever were beforehand.Feeling is not necessarily actuality. If a schizophrenic came up to you and told you all about the big, purple, tentacled monster that followed you around and hid behind lampposts everytime you tried to look at it, you wouldn't believe them, even though they felt without a doubt that it was real. This is the problem with discussing faith with unbelievers. A feeling isn't enough to go on.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Hey RevKristine, I can't help but giggle when I read about your condition :) I apologize if it's a condition you'd rather not have. I find it quite fascinating! Anyways, back to the topic of gods. I absolutely agree with you that feelings are not actuality. I've never had a feeling that God exists, even when I'm in church or at a temple, or wherever, I wish I could have feelings like what your friend experienced at the U2 concert! So my faith in the existence of gods is then not based on any feelings at all.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

The condition is quite terrifying at times. It sounds interesting, but it's really quite intrusive and means there are a lot of things I can't do. So can you specifically tell me what your faith in the existence of gods is based on if it's not a feeling? And when I say specifically, I mean just that. I want examples which pinpoint exactly why you think the universe could not exist without the input of a god or gods?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Ok, the proof is specifically in everything around us. In the entire physical universe and all of its magical things. In the magic of cellular structures and life. EVERYTHING!!!
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Truly? That's what you're arguing? That everything happened by magic?Hate to tell you this, but magic isn't real. And saying "everything" is not specific. It's a generalist statement. The only actual specific thing you offered me was cellular stuctures and life. Neither of which were very specific... what about cellular structure points to a God or gods? What about life points to a God or gods?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Saying "everything" in any other debate might be a generalist escape, but we're not talking about anything else are we? We're talking about the Big Guy! So the word everything is not being used lightly here.You don't believe in magic just because you can't do magic. That's a fallacy.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Saying "everything" in this debate is a generalist escape, because you aren't actually pointing towards anything which I can actually reply to. The name of this website is "CreateDebate". When I come here, I expect to actually engage in a debate. Which means that when I ask for a specific example and you give me "everything" as a response, I'm going to get terribly frustrated, because it's an evasion. As for magic, if I took a flashlight back 2000 years, people would think I was doing magic. Just because you don't understand how something works, that doesn't mean that it's magic, it simply means that you don't understand it.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

My dear, we're talking about God, the one that created the universe or enables it to be formed. I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you because everything is how I see it. You keep explaining everything with science but you still don't grasp the concept that science is only how you explain things (this must be the 10th time I say this): Aerodynamics explain a bird's ability to move about through the air, but birds had been flying before we discover aerodynamics!!!Oh and just because you do understand how something works and it's part of your everyday normal life doesn't mean it's not magic! The flashlight is still magic now!!! It's light for godsakes (excuse the pun), and what's more: it's light on demand! You think it ceases to be magic because you can explain it by saying that it's photons or energy particles or whatever? Not a chance! It's nothing short of magic!
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

You need to define magic. Because when we're not using the same definitions we're obviously going to come to a point where we lose all understanding of each others arguments.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Ok, there are many definitions of magic. So I'm gonna go ahead and define it so that it will support all of my arguments that God exists... so here goes:Magic is what enables the creation of all things in the universe. (I reserve the right to edit this definition so that it will support God's existence). This doesn't sound fair but we're debating the topic, so unless there's a ready-made definition out there somewhere to support the existence of God, I'm gonna have to author it myself.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Please use source material when referencing definitions. I require either a dictionary publication reference, or a dictionary website reference, and I require it to be written in the dictionary's tems, not in yours. You are using a word which has accepted definitions. I need to know the accepted definition you are using, not one that you've pulled out of the top of your head. That's what defining something is. If you wish to use a term to support your definition that doesn't match accepted definitions, you have to create your own term, not redefine existing terms.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

So if I just replace the term "magic" with "G-stuffs" (G stands for god, obviously :)) then you'd be happy?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

I'm going to answer this with separate posts, since it makes it easier to rebut the separate points.You really don't need to go summarizing things and then taking snippets of arguments here and there to completely distort the truth about my arguments with labels such as "desperate flailing". Any independent intelligent mind here would see through all that and know that my arguments are logically sound.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Essentially, God is the creator of everything and if you keep insisting on specifics, then you're simply being belligerent about it. Go look up the definition of everything.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

In regards to the definition of the word magic, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, apparently the most trusted in America says:magic - an extraordinary power or influence...http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic Now, you describe childbirth as simply an astounding chemical process but I find everything about this chemical process extraordinarily powerful. Call me a simpleton if you like, but understanding all the sciences in the world doesn't make them less extraordinary or powerful (magical).By the way, if you said as a rule that God = this spoon, then I'd be fine with that and allow you to use the term “this spoon” wherever you want to replace the word “God”.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Supernatural? The word actually doesn't argue for your side at all, so you shouldn't actually use it.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural Exist? We've already established that something which can't be met or seen can exist. The dictionary includes the spiritual level as well, but I don't even need to explore that!http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Supernatural? The word actually doesn't argue for your side at all, so you shouldn't actually use it. I wasn't using it to argue for my side. I was using it to suggest that if you could come up with explanations, I would be happy to listen. This will be my last post to you. I have come to the conclusion that you must suffer from some form of retardation, as you seem unable to understand sentences.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

I know you weren't using it to argue for your side. You were using it in a sentence to discredit God's existence. I understood more than your sentence, I understood your meaning. Here's your sentence in full:"If at any point you can think of just one thing that specifically cannot be shown to exist without some form of supernatural force, then by all means I will listen" - Supernatural by definition involves ghosts or gods. You're actually saying to me that you won't listen to anything that can be done by forces of ghosts or gods. That's you accidentally saying God exists... Please, it's quite tedious for me to have to explain myself like this every time.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Finally, you call yourself an agnostic? I think atheist sounds more likely, I've looked up both terms in the Merriam-Webster and under agnostic were 2 definitions, both of which says that you're not supposed to be committed to the existence or non-existence of God. That's not you! Agnostic people by definition shouldn't even be here on this debate topic, where you actually have to commit to Existence or Non-existence! I really wanna see you get out of this one!
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

A number of places during this debate I've mentioned that fact. I have a direct link to my church on my profile. The Rev in my name is not just there for show. I am an ordained minister in the Universal Church Triumphant for the Apathetic Agnostic. I've not made a secret of it. Agnostic is actually compatible with atheist, even though there are numerous misinformed people who think otherwise. Agnostic is a philosophical stance, whereas atheist is a religious one. I can lack faith in a god at the same time as I say it is impossible to know. And I was showing the heart of the agnostic stance, I never once attempted to prove that god did not exist, I simply sought to show that the existence of god was not possible to support empirically.My stance is "no" because my default stance is that there is no valid evidence for a god. Unicorns and faries may exist, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence. I default to a "no" on those also. None of this negates my agnosticism. Before you take up another one of these types of debates, I suggest you do a crash course in philosophy and critical thinking. You need it. When you attempt to argue theism, there are some arguments that you need to learn how to counter in a rational way. You also need to solidify your own beliefs in order to present them in any meaningful way. At the moment you seem to have some form of monolatrism, pandeism or panendeism that you believe, but you don't seem to be very clear on what that entails. You claim to have no reason for believing what you believe, and you follow no pre-set religion that I can discern. From what little I could glean of your faith, you believe all gods to be real, but the one you follow is the sole precedent of them all. This brings a couple of questions to my mind. If there can be many gods, why is there/can there be only one precedent? And if your god saw fit to implement middle management, why do you feel the right to go around them to the head of the corporation? Don't you think he/she/it has better things to do with his/her/its time than deal with something as microscopic as you?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Ok, there's a few funny facts about your church that I'd like to point out:1 - Church by definition is for religious people (all the definitions of church points to religion or religious, which means faith is required), but since agnosticism is not a religious stance, why are you called a church? Shouldn't you call your organization a club, association, committee, union or guild??? I quite like the word guild :)2 - Your church's article of faith #2 says that if there's a god, that god seems to be indifferent to the universe and its inhabitants. How do you know that? Especially if you believe there's no evidence God cares or not!3 - Apathetic means having/showing little or no interest/emotions. Besides making your faith (sorry should I not use the word faith?) quite a boring one, I find that to be contradictory to your involvement. I mean you should be called the minister for the passionate agnostics :)Your involvement in this debate topic is still not justified because Agnosticism is all about "lack of conclusive measurable evidence" and this topic is not "Is there any conclusive measurable evidence that God exists?" If it was, you'd be arguing for the Negative side.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

kellogg said this somewhere in this debate:"either everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. nothingness cannot produce anything, ever, so the only option left is that SOMETHING must have always existed, and caused or created everything else"About why God would wanna deal with microscopic me? He doesn't. I don't need him to. Although, if he's created aliens I'd like for him to consider maybe allowing us to cross path with them soon... it'd be kinda cool :)
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Ok, you like equations? Check this one out:a + b = c, where:a is God b is magic.c is everything as we know it.M-theory? God created everything that damned theory is based on. Infinite regress of beings that made beings that made beings? So what? God exists, infinitely or not!
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Now prove your theory. You've placed it there for the world to see. Now you are required to come up with supporting evidence.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

The supporting evidence is in everything as we know it. Everything as we know it is the evidence that inferred the existence of God. The amazingness of it all.I feel like I'm debating with a child, not a minister of a church of the Apathetic Agnostic (initially I thought it was your FLE talking, but clicking on the website it appears that you weren't lying).
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

I could argue infinity doesn't exist, only constant expansion in every direction (both time and space)But each point within any dimension is a definite point, and that there are limitless points doesn't make them infinite points, or all points within the limitless points would themselves have to be infinite - which is self-contradicting and thus impossible.But exlaining that would take two semesters and half the class would fail anyway.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Oh it just occurred to me that you CAN do magic. When you conceive and have children, that's nothing short of magical. You may just dismiss it as simply science, but in fact science is only how humans explain it, it is magical how the chromosomes of eggs and sperms combine to result in 1 being.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Magical how? Basically, it comes down to a series of chemical reactions. I don't understand where the magic comes into it. If you can pinpoint for me the precise point at which there's magic, that would be great. Get as technical as you like, I've done university biology, so I'll be able to follow along.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

You can refer to where I mentioned: Magic doesn't cease to exist just because you can explain it.