Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Actually you did... "Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself." third last argument you made... you really need to reread the thread.That is still within the same context of what I explained in my previous argument. I can see it being confusing, but it was just another way of saying, if you are interested, find your own reason. Don't wait on science or religion. No what you seemingly claimed to be wisdom was actually confirmation bias. You seemingly have forgotten, or you haven't been keeping track the context of the entire thread...I said that I call it wisdom, and then I went on to point out how what I consider to be wise, and what you consider to be wise, are opposites. Even when you said that it was confirmation bias, did I not say something along the lines of, "I call it wisdom... But I guess you could call it that." Have we gotten to the point where you are looking so forward to me disputing you, that you ignore when I agree with you?Yes, what I consider to be wise can be a little biased, but does wisdom only apply to a single thing? Can there not be wisdom in multiple fields? What I refer to as wisdom, is spiritually based... You would think differently.Supported my position with logic and reason.You can only go so far, then you reach a cliff. You can choose to take a leap, which is to leap into either atheism or theism, or you can decide to stay on solid ground and not form an opinion either way. If you decide to take a leap, you're really on your own. You can grab a few things as you are falling, but then they are falling with you. So, with that "logic and reasoning," how did you conclude that a "God" does not exist?yes it is, but to not believe we came from another being is totally logically justified. We can't assume that we have.Says who? The assumption police? You assume just as much as I do. If not, then show me otherwise.Not all beliefs have to be based on assumptions, though I am sure we all have assumed, but the goal should be to assume as little as we can.There's a fork in the road that we took. I took theism, you took atheism. Who is making more assumptions? I'd say neither. Unless, of course, you haven't gone either way. But I doubt that is the case, or else this debate would not have gone on as long as it has.Please tell me what you mean "implied within it"?The ability to do something. An apple seed has the ability to grow into an apple tree, and then grow apples. Water has the ability to turn into steam. Whatever was the starting point of the Big Bang, had the ability to create intelligence. Of course, all of these things need something else to make it actually come into existence, but that's the case with everything. To create a child, you need a mother and a father. For a seed to grow into a tree, you need soil and water, as well. Everything is brought on through a combination. Everything you see was implied within an initial point.you disputed meYou didn't have to respond.You made an argument against me, obviously (because we are on a debate site, and that you made yourself out as opposed to me) trying to challenge my viewpoint, which I have no problem with, as long as you have no problem with me challenging yours. Therefore my natural reaction is to make an argument against you.I have no problem with you disagreeing with me... But keep in mind that these debates come equipped with support and clarify, as well. Just because we disagreed initially, doesn't mean we can't come to an agreement. The only thing that really makes this a debate site is the dispute link lol.Yet, within those same arguments you were still attempting to refute other points I was making, and were still disputing me, having me assume that too was also a point against me.Why? I go point by point. If I had the option to choose either support, dispute or clarify for each individual point, I would. If my opponent starts becoming hostile, I react... But if the person debates with me civilly, then I treat them with equal respect. My point towards that, which is perfectly respectable, is that there are still logical grounds between belief and non-belief, and I have been arguing that non-belief is simply more logical.I just don't think that is a fair thing to say. Logic often implies scientific backing, and science does not make a conclusion either way when it comes to "God". The term in the sense that you are using it is subjective.Ignore religion for this... Why do you think non-belief is more logical than belief, in the context that I have been explaining it? I'm sorry I assumed that a piece of an argument against me, wasn't also against me, or rather within an argument disputing me, I was supposed to assume one singular point wasn't... I am so sorry about that... GeeshIt's no big deal. To me it seemed as though you were implying that both atheism and theism is on equal grounds logically, and I made an argument against that, it's a debate site, people will disagree with you.I've been on this site for a long time. I have been in plenty of debates... I know how they work, but my view towards things has changed, and I have realized that nobody gets very far by trying to pull other people down. A car salesman does not sell a car by trying to belittle his customers. Respect is key... And although I can still be an asshole, that part of me appears less often... And I'd really like to just get rid of that part of me completely. So, this doesn't mean we can't dispute each other, but doing it in a respectful way goes much further than trying to demean each other.When you said it wasn't a jab at my atheism, to be completely honest, I thought that you thought that I was personally offended, and by "jab" you meant offense, not an argument.Alright, simple misunderstanding. I should have known that the slang I use doesn't always translate over.How have I been uncivil? All I've been doing is making counter arguments.You may not have meant for it to be that way, but that's how it appeared from my side. I'm probably guilty of it too.How does any of this take away from the fact that our disposition towards life is subjective?I said this: "It absolutely is convenient. We exist! How can it be any more convenient? Have you experienced anything better? The ego is what makes people look at it as inconvenient."Your response: "A suicidal person whom hates their lives wouldn't agree, or better yet, some of those whom were tortured in the holocaust wouldn't either. My point isn't that the universe is convenient or inconvenient, bad or good, shitty or wonderful. My point is, our disposition to the universe is rather subjective, and thus not a good argument for a god's existence. In other words, just because you appreciate your existence, doesn't mean that a god exists, your appreciation for your existence, is entirely a subjective disposition"My response: "And are those not human faults? We as humans have the ability to make this world a fantastic place... But we don't. Our ego has gotten in the way."Your response: "The point I was trying to make is, the convenience of life doesn't contribute to logically justifying a belief in god, because the convenience of life is something that you feel towards life."My response: "I was pointing out how the holocaust was caused by the Nazis, so if the Holocaust were to have never occurred, maybe due to a more loving society, then the victims would not have actually been victims, and would have likely been happy. But then we go even deeper... Government, money, crime, racism, hate... All derive from humans, and they're all avoidable. We could unite and not have to deal with government corruption, we could get rid of money and share, we could accept everyone for who they are, and we could be kind to each other... But we don't do all of those things on a global scale, therefore we have unhappy people, and those very reasons are why people often commit suicide, which was your other example. Life seems inconvenient, because we made it that way."So, my original argument was to say that existence in itself is convenient, as opposed to not existing at all. Then you brought up how our opinion towards life is subjective, and I tried to point out that people dislike their life because they are unhappy, and they are unhappy because of all the negative man-made things. If life was at the maximum level of positivity, which is very possible, then it is unlikely that people would have a negative disposition towards life. I am not arguing that because I enjoy life, "God" must exist... But the fact that we exist at all is very convenient, and although our opinion towards life is subjective, any negative disposition is mostly our fault. It is usually the negative disposition that makes our existence seem purposeless, but that is not to say that there is a purpose... However, there could be. It's just another idea.If a theistic argument did work, I'd be a theist.Actually, there could be a multitude of reasons why you aren't a theist. If I can convince one person, but not you... That only means that the theistic argument did not work for you. That could be from a lack of understanding or a bias. It doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a valid argument. This would be similar to me saying that if there were a valid atheistic argument, I'd be an atheist. Well, something convinced you to be an atheist, but not me... So, you determining whether or not my argument is valid, is subjective.Or if by a theist argument can work, you mean that there can be arguments for the theistic position I agree, if you mean by work, you mean logically justify the belief in a god, I disagree. In either case, on a debate site, I'm going to counter you, if I disagree, or at the very least point out what I think is wrong with your arguments.Alright, no problem. But I am curious, which parts do you disagree with?