azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

A logical examination of the origins and sources of religion, as well as the benefits and disadvantages of religion, is unlikely to change the mind of anyone who is afraid to examine these concepts objectively.People who approach the subject of religion with apprehension or who cannot distinguish between reality and superstition, find it difficult to apply logic to their thought processes. It is much easier to believe in miracles and pseudo-science than to acquire facts and engage in incisive, rational thought. Many people of our society today that appear to be intelligent and rational in the pursuit of their daily life. However, on Sundays they go to their church or temple. There they participate in incomprehensible and irrational rituals involving magic, prayer and other activities demeaning to their rational minds. Their rational mind tells them that a god does not exist and yet, there they sit and pray to him. It has been suggested that religious people compartmentalize their thought processes in order to avoid otherwise inevitable and destructive conflicts. In this manner, rational and irrational thought processes can coexist in separate, locked compartments of the brain without connectivity. Yet, one wonders if there is some inevitable leakage from the irrational to the rational compartment, surreptitiously contaminating rationality. The Greek philosopher Epicurus illuminated this dilemma in 300 BC:If God is willing to prevent evil but is not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent.If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.Evil is either in accordance with God’s intention or contrary to it. Thus, either God cannot prevent evil or he does not want to prevent evil.Therefore, it follows that God is either not omnipotent or he is not benevolent. He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Life on Earth developed through billions of years of evolution. Evolution is a proven fact. We are all Children of the Earth. All life on this planet has a very similar DNA structure and we carry the DNA blueprint of our evolutionary heritage within our genetic code. I believe that religion and God evolved as a result of human evolution. As we began to talk and to wonder about our existence and the world we live in, we started to theorize about reality. In the beginning religion was an early attempt at science and to create order in society. Religions evolved into social institutions creating a conglomeration of ritual, science, law, and government. If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star was further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Consider this syllogism: Let “P” = any positive proposition. Let “B” = logically credible (able to be held as a belief/knowledge consistently). Let “T” = true Let “F” = false1. P has no proof (or otherwise justification) provided for itself.2. If P has no proof/justification, P is ¬ (T, F).3. If a statement ¬ T, then that statement ¬ B.4. P is ¬ T. (from 1 & 2)5. P is ¬ B. (from 3 & 4)This syllogism needs a bit more explaining of each premise and clarification of possible misunderstandings. First, it's important to point out that the definition of “B” provided is not meant to be subjective/relative. Although the words “logically credible” seem vague, I'm referring to the consistency of the belief. Essentially, that the belief, being the conscious recognition of truth, for example, does not recognize something as true while recognizing it as false. Not only is this logically contradictory and thus void of meaning or truth due to the nature of what a belief is in the first place, but psychologically impossible except within unstable and unhealthy defence mechanisms such as compartmentalization, reaction formation, denial, etc. Hence the third premise.Furthermore, while equally one could say ¬ F, it would not make sense for one to say “P is B” in the condition ¬ F. The reason for this is because P not being false does not necessarily mean P is true. And further reason for this is that some things are neither true nor false, i.e. not false, but also not true, because they can't be logically evaluated or because we cannot yet recognize them as either. Such as in this case where P is ¬ F and ¬ T. Thus, P remains ¬ B.The reason, then, for the second premise is that lack of proof/justification does not necessarily make something false even if it doesn't make it true (another example why ¬ F does not necessarily mean T).Despite all of this, because of the third premise, we must still consciously assume a lack of belief in P, or a disbelief in P. And there's your “proof” (or, more accurately stated, justification). The job of the negative atheist, therefore—the one that disbelieves P unlike the positive atheist—is just to constantly back up the first premise in the context of theism by refuting the attempted proofs/justifications of theists. And in this syllogism is summed up the “proof” (or, more accurately, justification for disbelief) reflected in these efforts of refutation. Hence why, while the burden of proof is on both of us, it is much more strongly on yours: in fact, by premise one, it is the theists ability or inability to cough up proof/justification that will determine the soundness of our second syllogism, by affecting the first premise. In other words, atheism or disbelief is the logical default position once the issue of God's existence is consciously recognized, and it is so because the justification of ¬ B is the absence of proof or absence of justification for P. Thus, negative atheism in that sense automatically fulfills the burden of proof, or burden of justification, insofar as theism does not.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

No! And I can't believe this is still going on?
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

There is no evidence to support it, so I don't see why anyone should believe in any deity. What with our advances in science and technology, I would have hoped us humans would have progressed farther than to believe in such things, but old habits die hard, I suppose.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

I personally like the majority of debaters on here believe that god does not exist. My beliefs are stretched out over a expanse of life experiences. I tried going to all kinds of churches and the feeling of the "holy spirit" never came over me. For the longest time while I was exploring religion I tolerated all the little nooks and crannies i.e. no R rated movies, no caffeine. But when I finally stopped thinking about it I decided that I didn't want to be part of it and that there was in definition no higher power to speak of...
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Were you raised Mormon?
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

creation did not need a god but we did need the big bang theory god is just a believe nothing more now jesus facturally exsited he performed miracle's if You believe a bible buttttt there Can not possibly be a god and science can prove that Fact,
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Technically you can't really PROVE either side, but there is enough logical evidence for the existence of the Christian God (if that is whom we are talking about) is fake.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

God is nothing but a petty being with base human needs that turns into a psychotic mass murderer when he doesn't get what he wants.God: Please love me! I want everyone to love me! Or I will send you to hell to suffer eternal pain!Don't you think that is a little petty?I don't like this "God" to define the universe and everything that exists because then the world and all of reality would be limited and boring. An Intelligent being that created the world? Geez, that is boring and shouldn't define our existence. Even I could think of something better than that! God. You are soo boring. Please make yourself interesting, because you are making reality not as infinitely brilliant as it's supposed to be.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

ask a theist for evidence of god and you'll get fallacy or philosophy, but one thing you certainly will not get is logical justification for god belief. i guarantee it.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

of course nothow can a living thing die and live again??its impossible
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Resuscitation .
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

If god exists hes not loving that's for goddamn sure lol, but good luck telling that to the Christians.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

If free will is given, it makes no sense to completely buffer out the consequence of having free will.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Right, but freewill was given by God with evil as a choice, so who's to blame?Heres a good example, I made an old post about it over a year ago, but anyways it goes something like this.If I create a robot and program that robot with artificial intelligence, in that program the robot had the ability to kill and do harm to others or do good and help others, learn and what not.Now if that robot decides to go on a killing spree is the robot to blame or am I for giving the robot the program to do such actions in the first place, even if gave the robot a choice?If you say I am to blame then you have to blame God, if you say the robot then you have to question what gave the robot the ability to even comprehend such actions in the first place so again you will have to blame me, the creator or God in our case.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

Because God gave man a choice we defect from him with our ability to think cognitively. Therefore in matters of choice we are on par with him and therefore can accept our responsibilities and actions. I have an analogy to match the robot one: I gave a man a spade to do masonry and he kills his wife with it. I had control over the spade and gave him it to do something productive however he chose to kill. I am not responsible for his actions and therefore I cannot be held accountable.The problem with the robot is this: despite its AI it will always be a robot. People will never see it with intrinsic qualities of humans and they will never be treated with equality like how God considered us equal enough with him to make us in his image. If you can convince me that the machine is essentially human (which it is not) then my view would change but because it is not and no matter how smart you make it will be as inanimate as a washing machine to me.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Again God/Creator gave us the ability to even act such a way, God/Creator is to blame, there is no way around it, God is to blame for evil, the devil and everything else, all our actions good or bad.If God wanted no wrong doing then the all mighty God should of never gave us the ability, the question is why? Why would a God create us with the ability to do harm? By you saying otherwise you are saying God is powerless to do something, and if so then why call God, God?However if God is powerful then one can not call God Good, nor can one call God Bad, it is only logical to call God neutral or balanced with no regards as to what happens one way or another, so in turn God is not the all loving God as many may think, All powerful God, I agree if I were to believe in a God but that besides the point, God is not Good nor Bad but powerful.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

Again I do not consider the robot human and therefore you must take responsibility for its actions. I cannot see where or when the robot became human and accepted the responsibilities of us, neither can I wrap my head around a human making another human. The analogies are flawed because God made us on par with him, you never made the robot human. Therefore we are capable of taking responsibility. For example dolphins and primates are intelligible creatures but since they word not made on par with God they cannot take personal responsibility for there actions. Humans can though, because we were made in God's image and likeness therefore since God can take personal responsibility, so can man.If God wanted no wrong doing then the all mighty God should of never gave us the ability, the question is why? Why would a God create us with the ability to do harm?Again free will is being taken into total account. God made man on par with him to sup with him and he cannot do that without giving us free will. He should not take any more responsibility than an 18 year old individual's parents should take for him because all parties are legally on par when it comes to decision making.By you saying otherwise you are saying God is powerless to do something, and if so then why call God, God?In other words, why would God make us able to disagree with his behaviour or him? The truth is, when he did this he wanted to give humanity the ability to stay with him or leave. We chose to leave, it is that simple. In reality, taking that away from us means we express no love or gratitude towards him and therefore the point of him making us is moot.However if God is powerful then one can not call God Good, nor can one call God Bad, it is only logical to call God neutral or balanced with no regards as to what happens one way or another, so in turn God is not the all loving God as many may think, All powerful God, I agree if I were to believe in a God but that besides the point, God is not Good nor Bad but powerful.I can argue that he is all good. For example, the Holocaust could have greatly upset him however if it was for a greater good he would have not stopped it. Good is never as cut and dry as one makes it. It is more emotional than good to stop something because it upsets you or someone because their actions make you mad.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

I can see that no matter how and what I say you are not going to agree, but as far as freewill goes well I would hope so, but that don't give god a pass for creating evil to begin with, was god bored? was he lonely or just a sick fuck that likes to create a problems then blames it on someone else, like I said if god hates evil why create it in the first place unless you are a evil being.Why even create existence at all if that was the case, only a sick twisted being would do such a thing and is the reason I don't believe in any biblical god, if a god does exist this god would more then likely be a deistic god creating a universe of balance leaving what we call good and evil to the society to determine.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

I do understand your perspective on the matter, however I am saying that man is inherently mature enough to take personal responsibility. Take God completely out of the equation, no religion or belief. Is it fair for a judicial system to blame the mother/father for the wrong doing of an 18 year old child? The analogy is only to point out that according to law, the parent is responsible for the child who's cognitive thinking skills do not equate to the parent. So when the child does wrong, the parent takes the disgrace and blame, however when the child is at the consensual age of 18 he is on par with his parents and is considered an adult. Same with the Biblical God, we are inherently "adults" and therefore are forced to take full responsibility for our.I disagree with the second paragraph. Why create things that will always agree with you? Isn't that a little creepy? To have something always agreeing, following, mindlessly worshipping you. That is sick and twisted, it sounds like a very concentrated communist regime.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

If he has the ability to interfere with our lives, why would he just sit back and let the Holocaust happen?
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

He didn't he intervened by helping the allies win the war and thus stoping the holocaust.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Really...? He couldn't have intervened earlier?
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

He can't internee in human affaires directly. So no he couldn't have.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Then how did he help the allies win the war?
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

By directly he means God jumping in with a billion angels and setting the Nazis ablaze, or something cartoony like that I guess.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Honestly, all God would have to do is give us proof of his existence in order to change the world.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

I honestly don't think it is that easy. I've met many people who are nasty to the core. They believe in God's existence wholeheartedly as they do any physical thing but refuse to change. That is just how people are.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Think of how many wars are fought over religion. What if God were to not only prove he exists, but explain to us how we are supposed to live? The vast majority would change. Violence would likely decrease depending on what God says (I assume he doesn't like violence). Sure, there are a few people who wouldn't change, but that's because they're crazy. They aren't the key figures when it comes to changing the world. As long as the majority understands that God is real; then the world will change.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

In the face of righteousness man is not guaranteed to turn. And that is the vast majority.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

It's worth a shot, don't you think?
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

He already gave it a shot but that blew up in his face. People believed he was real they just never liked him.Numbers 14:11The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them?Safe to say all that left a bad taste in his mouth. Also if he already knows the outcome will not work out well then it makes no sense to try it.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

I think it's kind of funny whenever a Christian quotes a verse from Old Testament, because the God in Old Testament seems drastically different than the God in New Testament. People were being punished for just about everything in Old Testament... and what signs? He performed "miracles" in front of a group of people, not the whole world. If he wants to convince everyone then he needs to give proof of his existence to everybody; not just a few people in the Middle East.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

He can set into motion events that will effect the mortal world. On other words he can indirectly effect human affaires. Basicly he was with the allied forces.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Yeah... I'm not buying it.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

He protected the allied solders in battle and hindered the axis any way he could.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

How would you know this? It isn't in the Bible.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

Because it was a monumental thing that happened therefor God must have been a part of it somehow.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

9/11 was monumental... was God part of that?
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

Well, I guess he was apart of it. There could be some practically in allowing 9/11 to happen, it showed that Islam is either being taught to an extremity to poor people who have no where to go but into an organised gang. So it brought global attention to the taliban and how they preyed on a poor uneducated people. It also raised questions on the dealings in America.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Well that sounds pretty fucked up if you ask me....
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

Yup, messed up actions to try and teach a messed up people.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

I guess that would depend on who you ask. Me I say no that was man made evil being perpetrated by man. And while it was I bide deal I wouldn't call it monumental. Monumental is wining a war on two fronts with two unconditional surrenders.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Are you trying to play devil's advocate or are you trolling? You are a great debater when it comes to gun laws and politics, but this just seems stitched together. Honestly, you thank him for the eventual win that went to the axis powers, but do not blame him for the evil that was Hitler? You don't think maybe the planning of the humans who were there helped them win, rather than mysterious divine intervention?
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

Of cours Patton and Montgomery were brillent people but I feel many battles just were too improbable of victorys like D-Day yes we tricked them into thinking we would attack elswere but still there are some pretty ridiculous story's like one brigade scaled a sheer cliff face under fire and still managed to capture the enemy's positions your going to tell me they didn't have help really?
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

I attribute the victory of the allied forces to God not the axis powers.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

My bad I don't know history, what I do know is a weak argument, I'm subject to quite a few, and that was a weak argument. I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying you've done lots better.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

I know. It's difficult to explain God because in many ways he is still a mystery to me. This is why I don't like arguing religion. If your an atheist you look like a dick and if your religious you look like a gibbon. But for some reason I keep getting sucked into these debates.