Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Italics mine, bold yours.I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. From here, it will be your responsibility to prove it.This one is a twofer! 1 You were never in the neutral zone, plenty of your arguments are on the other side of this debate claiming "there are too many unexplained things for their not to be a god." 2 I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position isI have not been shown evidence that a god exists then summed it up again after all my links showing my stance to not be what you say it is.I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing.Indeed, you started with a neutral view but your new argument:"You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread."Challenges mine as saying that there is an evidence that God does not exists and the Guadalupe is a hoax. Or have I misunderstood?You tried to use this to say this was me "bursting out that god does not exist"? I noted that the statement only challenges the painting and not god, another example of you making a claim that is unsupported by what is written by your opponents. I then brought issue with your continuation of this behavior of misrepresenting the stances of others.You consistently misrepresent my stances, misrepresent your sources stances, avoid any refutations I make or others make.Citation needed.Right after I showed where you did this exactly you ask for citations. Really! So then I show you, in the post you ask for citations even, that you do not understand what is written again and misrepresent what is written by your opponents.It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle.So...are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal?Wow, you certainly do not read things well. I clearly did not imply what you say I did at all. Hey... you only use the part where I note about the Lady of Guadalupe and not the sentence after where I note it does not say 'there is no god' as you claimed...wonder why you did that. Seems you are skipping any part that shows you misrepresent my stance even after asking for citations of that behavior being done by you. Heck you also claim I am missing things that I already answered.But you left the parts where you insists that the results of the poll would change depending on the usage of word.If my memories are to be exact, it is also the part where you kept on saying that I am wrong. Now, why did you skip it?Four posts up from yours I proved the wording changes results in the Gallup poll that states this explicitly, using the same terms even. Seems I didn't skip it you just keep ignoring it as it was the second time I posted it. One post up from there I linked where you claimed "there are more religious scientists now then Darwin's time". This is the third time I am telling you that claim is what I am refuting (Really we need go no further than your poll though that states this number is the same today as it was then!) but you keep straw manning my point to something different.I have shown your claim of 'more scientists now then Darwin's time believe in a god or higher power' to be in err, your own poll states explicitly that this is about the same now as it was then even and I pointed this out to you 3 x now. I have shown you clearly misrepresent my stances. I have shown you do not understand what I have written when it is clear. I have shown that a Gallup poll notes that using the terms 'higher power' and 'god' are not synonymous as you claim and in polls it changes the results (superfluous information as your claim was already debunked by your own poll used).Now you want to leave all that and 'discuss' something different? After about our 4th exchange read your other arguments with the other debaters and saw you misrepresent many of their claims as well. Same behavior you did with me and my claims you continued on them. If you are not being honest with your opponents positions you are not being honest with your own positions.I think I have done my job here. With how often you misinterpret the claims of me as well as others you are either; dishonest, mistaken or have a reading disorder. No reason for me to continue here. (Really this time, you are free to make up whatever you want without fear of me pointing it out again).I was here discussing evolution not your debate tactics.