azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Under War's Bloody Banner

The Nazi's atrocities were not religiously motivated; just as other 20th Century atrocities were also not religiously motivated: Communism under Mao and Stalin, Fascism under Mussolini.The idea that religion is the cause of atrocities is just wrong.“…it becomes apparent that those who make the claim ‘religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history’ may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. Further, this type of assertion seems rooted in anti-religion posturing…Men and nations have a history of warfare and the root of conflict is power and gain…Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion.”-Maj. John P. ConwayUnder War's Bloody BannerBy Carl Teichribhttp://www.forcingchange.org/under_war's_bloody_banner The French Huguenots were more than just good, they were exceptional. They risked their lives to save these people. And yes, they were motivated by religion. The French Huguenots acted sympathetically out of their own memories of religious persecution.People may be judged to be good or bad based on their ACTIONS, measured by some ethical or moral ruler.I am not arguing that religious people are innately good, but that religion is not innately evil. Intolerance to religion today is just as deplorable as the 16th Century Catholics intolerance towards the Huguenots.Who were the Huguenots?http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm?200929
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

It's like you're not even reading my argument!The Nazi's atrocities were not religiously motivatedI never said they were.just as other 20th Century atrocities were also not religiously motivatedOnce again, I never argued that every single atrocity was motivated by religion, and in fact the first sentence of the quote I gave was: With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.So stop putting words in my mouth. You're arguing against a strawman.I am not arguing that religious people are innately good, but that religion is not innately evil.Once again, I'm not saying that religion is innately evil. What I am saying is that religion can convince good people to do bad things because they think they're doing it in the name of god. For example:-Muslim extremists-Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics (or shoot doctors)-Christians who try and "convert" gays straightAnd I could go on.The French Huguenots acted sympathetically out of their own memories of religious persecution.Exactly! It was their experiences, not their religion, that allowed them to act in the nobel manner that they did.Who were the Huguenots?Thank you very much, but I'm very well versed on my European history. Appreciate the condescension though.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: KFC

sermon #3Religion vs The Colonel......................................."I agree with you. The goal would be to get people to start thinking for themselves. How? I'm not sure I have an answer, but getting rid of institutions that suppress individual thought might be a decent solution.(Please note that I am not advocating the abolishment of religion through any kind of violent means, but merely saying we should encourage people to question their assumptions)"Clearly you believe religion suppresses individual thought, and as such you advocate getting rid of it as a solution.By not advocating the violent overthrow of religion, you implicitly advocate the non-violent overthrow of religion;To overthrow religion would suppress individual thought, destroy religious thought and ideas; both good and bad, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.Why is it that when people act badly, you blame religion, but when people act in a good way, religion gets no credit. How can religion get all the blame and none of the credit. It can't. If you believe that "religion can convince good people to do bad things", then you must also accept that religion can also convince people to do good things too.Not all religion is the same, and not all religion is all bad all the time. There is no need to start a war against religion. If you object to radical Islam or any other harmful ideology, then resist that particular ideology,... don't make the leap of generality and denounce ALL religion. That's like denouncing all chicken just cuz you got sick once from a bucket of KFC.Talk about blasphemy.Who were the Huguenots? was the title of that weblink, and not meant in a condescending way.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Under War's Bloody Banner

I sense a little hostility towards religion.What do you think about that?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Well, what has religion brought us in it's thousands of years of existence? -Division, delusion, a repression of thought, and a whole bunch of fairy tales that adults use as justification for actions that would seem like the acts of a paranoid schitzophrenic under ordinary circumstances.How about modern science in it's 3-4 hundred year existence?-Well right now I can talk to you, despite the fact that we have never met face to face, and we are (at the very least) hundreds of miles apart. If I knew where you were I could get to you in a matter of hours. While on the trip I could watch a movie on a screen in the palm of my hand. If something happens to me on the way, and I get sick modern medicine will be able to take care of me in ways that would appear to be miraculous just 100 years ago.So when you say that I have some "hostility towards religion" I would argue that religion has some hostility towards people. It certainly has killed plenty of them, and I can't see any serious positive gains that religion has given us despite both its popularity and duration.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: peaceful coexistance

Religion gives people answers to things which science cannot: moral values, death and the afterlife, the meaning of life, and other spiritual issues. And while some choose not to follow any religious belief, others find great comfort, community and fulfillment in religion.The benefits of science, logic, and objective attitudes are wonderful. But these are not discouraged by religion today.At one time the Catholic Church did persecute people for their beliefs. Galileo is a prime example. They also burned books they considered heretical. But today, even the Catholic Church has acknowledged science, as in Darwin's theory of evolution.I use the example of the Catholic Church because of its history of intolerance to objectivity and inquisitions. But the misdeeds of the Catholic Church cannot be blamed on another religion, Buddhism for example. A disagreement with one religion is not cause for attacking all religion in general. And the misdeeds of the Catholic Church are not unique to that institution. The Nazis burned books too, and this is a modern day non religious example. And modern non religious wars have caused much more death than any war that might be blamed upon religion.But today religion and science can and do coexist peacefully. If people choose to follow religion, why try and stop them? Why try to get rid of something they find useful and fulfilling in their lives?I end with a quote I included before as a counter point to your saying that religion has killed lots of people.“…it becomes apparent that those who make the claim ‘religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history’ may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. Further, this type of assertion seems rooted in anti-religion posturing…Men and nations have a history of warfare and the root of conflict is power and gain…Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion.”-Maj. John P. ConwayUnder War's Bloody BannerBy Carl Teichribhttp://www.forcingchange.org/under_war's_bloody_banner
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: peaceful coexistance

The rejection of religion, atheism, is the rejection of that theology, and not the embrace of an alternative morality.Ideologies are used to justify atrocities, as exemplified by modern day Communism under Stalin or Mao, or of Fascism under Hitler or Mussolini; Both of which reject religion, and neither of which are moral, killing tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of people.Modern day religion doesn't hurt anyone, it serves a social need for many people. It is a free choice, and religion and science peaceably coexist. There is no problem. There is no need for a solution to religion, because it is not a problem.The Catholic Church is not a stand in for all the religions in the world. I'm sure many protestants appose the Popes actions in Africa. Each religion must be appreciated separately. For example, you can't lump together Lutheranism with Catholicism even though both are Christian religions.Religion does provide answers that science cannot, because science only deals in the material world. Science is a method, a way of learning about the physical world. It cannot deal in ethics because ethical values are not tangible. Does that mean ethics are not real? Of course not. Can other ideologies exist without an overtly religious character, but still provide a system of ethics? Sure, why not. But a code of ethics cannot be formed using science, because morality is not tangible. This is the great strength and message of religion; ethics and moral virtue.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: science cant give morality

Science cannot give you a system of morality, either directly or indirectly, because it can only deal in tangibles, and morality is intangible.Morality, ethics, religion or whatever you will call it all deal with the intangible world. If you get right down to it, you can try to justify the ten commandments using logic, but you will fail, because ultimately these rules are moral premises.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Once again, not science, logic and reason.It's pretty simple really: if something helps society, it's moral, and if it hurts society it's immoral.Obviously there is some ambiguity about what constitutes helping or hurting society, and that is what people should be debating because that type of debate is constructive.Debating what the Bible means is much less so.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: science cant give morality

If its simple it wouldn't need debating would it? I don't think anyone can determine a moral code using science, which is a method of learning about the physical world. And any use of logic to try to form a moral code must invoke the intangible. That is what religion does.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Wow, your as think as a rock.For the 50,000 time: Logic and reason, not science.And any use of logic to try to form a moral code must invoke the intangible.Bullshit. There is nothing intangible about the pain someone feels when you hurt them, or the psychological trauma from abuse. What it does require is some very basic assumptions. Just one example:-Human suffering is bad, and we should work to minimize it.And others like that. None of this requires religion.In addition intangibles such as love, happiness, and pain are really just names we give to biochemical reactions that occur in our bodies. To say that any of this has anything to do with religion, is... well just a little bit retarded.So let me repeat: Immoral = actions that are detrimental to societyMoral = actions that are beneficial to societyIf you want me to give you specific examples of how this works, then pick something that you consider immoral and I will explain rationally why that is so (or possibly why you're wrong).
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

Well a religious person once said- God is my rock.But anyway, I was just contrasting science which judges the material, with ways of judging the immaterial.And any use of LOGIC to try to form a moral code must invoke the intangible. That is what religion does.see? I did refer to logic. I responded to your point.That's all I was saying.But I'll assume you already read that.As for your example,Can you say WHY it is wrong to cause someone pain?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Well if you want to rely on quotes:"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on VirginiaSure, I can give you plenty of reasons why it's wrong to cause someone pain.We are biologically inclined to want to avoid pain. This is because pain is an indicator of injury to your body. When people are in pain they are significantly less able to function as a part of society. They cannot work, or go about their daily routines, and society suffers because of it.Maybe this will help you understand the concept of rationale morality better. Try to imagine a society in which something wasn't considered immoral, and then imagine what effect that would have on a society.When we do this it becomes clear that causing someone pain is obviously immoral because a society in which this wasn't considered immoral everything would fall apart.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

Collective rights stem from individual rights. Those individual inalienable rights are absolute. Logic, as in modus ponens, is limited by premises. This is true in moral issues too. Biology may or may not tell us directly or indirectly a set of moral principles.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Jesus was a schizo.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: French Huguenots

The French Huguenots, the first Protestants in Catholic France, sheltered thousands of Jewish children from the Nazis in the tiny village of Le Chambon-sur-lignon. So religion was a humanitarian force here.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

I don't have faith in science, science is based on evidence. Faith is belief in something without the support of evidence. I believe what science says because of the lack of faith that's required
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Al Gore

exactly..............................................................................................
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

Perfect! I'll confide my FAITH in God always. And I'll believe science once it is proven.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

Those of us who embrace a scientific worldview often fall prey to the same logical fallacies that devoutly religious persons do. One example of the popular appeal to authority: "Famous and Intelligent people have said X, thus X is more likely to be true". I often see atheists trumpeting quotations from famous scientists and thinkers which support their view. This is the same argument used by theists when they assert that since their priest or pope said X, then X is more likely true because that pope or priest has some supposed authority on the subject of divinity.My point is that you and I believe scientists because we trust their authority. We trust their method, so we believe that a water molecule is composed of a specific composition of atoms even though we personally have no empirical evidence that this is true. Unless you have personally examined a water molecule (which some of you may have done), you probably learned about its structure from a teacher or a book. Thus you have no more justification for your belief than does the devoutly religious person in his or her belief in the resurrection of Christ. He or she trusts the methodology of their religion, and so is willing to take the words of the clergy at face value without a careful examination of the facts.You may well counter that the methodology of science is obviously superior to that of religion, because it is based on rigorous observation rather than metaphysical speculation. I would challenge you to ask yourself WHY you believe that empiricism is superior? Why do you believe that the universe is composed only of physical objects interacting in a strictly causal fashion to produce events. If you are honest like I was when I asked myself this question, I think you will probably have to admit that it is because lots of other people around you also have faith in empiricism and materialism (the belief that the world is composed only of observable physical objects).So what is it that makes you ANY different from the religious person?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

It's not because of their authority that I trust scientists, I trust scientists because what they do has proven time and time again to be successful and correct (and, more importantly, if they're incorrect, they realize it).Sure, I haven't checked to see if water molecules are actually composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, but for all intents and purposes, I can assume that they are. Why is this? Because they act the way that they would act if they were made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I can take some water, freeze it, then observe that solid water is less dense than liquid water, which would be the direct result of the bonding between two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (and yes, I realize that it's possible to create solid water that's denser than liquid water, but that requires insane amounts of pressure, so let's ignore that for now, mmkay?)Secondly, the empirical method is superior to that of the religious method because of one simple fact: the empirical method produces observable results, the religious method doesn't. The religious "method" is based upon intuition for the most part. Back when I was religious, I believed in a God that was kind, had a sense of humor, and was exactly what I wanted Him to be. All of this was contrary to what was exhibited by the Old Testament, but fuck the old testament! I liked my God the way I believed in Him! Luckily, now I can look back and see "Oh, wait, I was basing beliefs off of OPINIONS, that's a no-no!"Science, on the other hand, bases beliefs off of facts. You can observe that Earth's gravity causes an acceleration of approximately 9.8 m/s^2, you can observe that if you create a closed circuit with the proper energy source and lightbulb, the light bulb will light up, you can observe that if you shape glass in a certain way, it can create lenses that can bend light in such a way that it'll compensate for poor natural vision. Science works! It's not fucking faith! The only "leap of faith" that I have to take is that what I'm interacting with actually exists, and I'm willing to take that jump.If you don't believe that science works, where'd that computer that you're using to debate with me come from? Where'd your house/apartment/whatever come from? God? Faith? Intuition? Prayer? NO! It came from science, it came from understanding the world around us in a way that is actually practical.What makes me different from a religious person is that I base my beliefs around fact rather than intuition and person opinion.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

The reality is that there are no authorities in science. No one is subscribed to on the basis of authority. No matter who they are or how illustrious their career, if they can't support their conclusions with objective evidence, then they're functioning as story-tellers, not scientists.As for the composition of water, one need only pass an electrical current through water and examine the resulting gases - hydrogen and oxygen. In most fields of science, you can perform relatively simple experiments, the results of which will support the scientific conclusion.One can do this to a lesser degree with religion as well. For example, noting that despite the large number of scholars, theologians, and researchers on both sides of the issue, no one has ever recovered so much as a single document making any mention of Jesus or anyone like him, from the actual time of Jesus, or for at least two decades beyond the biblical time of the crucifixion. This is readily admitted to even by those still attempting to promote the idea that Jesus was a real person, rather than a popular myth.I not only believe that empiricism is superior to religion, but can demonstrate that to be the case. If you drive a car and survive doing so, it's because you employ objective evidence in the driving decisions you make. Even getting up in the morning, every decision you make is based on objective evidence. Throughout your day, every move is based on objective evidence. You don't reach for the coffee, find no evidence of coffee in your cupboard or pantry, and continue going through the motions of making coffee, having faith that as you pour from the empty carafe, coffee will fill your cup. That would be a faith-based practice and we don't do that because we know for certain that it will fail every time.We only reserve faith-based actions for issues of religion, because we know that faith will fail in every other regard. And if you're adhering to the conclusions of science without doing any of your own investigating, research, or experimentation, then you're demonstrating a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: trick debate

... since "faith" by it's definition implies a lack of evidence.And science works with evidence.This is a trick debate.One doesn't have faith in science.Or knowledge of god.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Al Gore

Agreed................................................................................................