azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

That's not wholly correct.If a child was raised by wild wolves, and made it somehow to an age where they could survive on their own, they would have knowledge of things like water and food because they have experienced them.It is a short step from there to develop a curiosity for these things you can touch and feel and experience, to where we are today studying things to discover their properties, trying to find out where things like water and food came from.The difference is science is born of study of real things, even vague things like metaphysics must follow observable rules of nature and the rules of math. They must be checked and studied etc.Meanwhile the child raised by wolves at some point would see his fellow wolves die and realize that life was not infinite.That would be from observation, but what would not be from observation is an ideal of immortality, then later that there is some being who will take care of wolf child when he dies - that indeed he doesn't really die.This is strictly the realm of imagination. It's pretty, and a nice thought, but likely not the least bit true. And certainly there is no means of observing this phenomenon of infinite life.I find it endlessly entertaining how those who choose to believe in a god assume that those who do not simply haven't thought about it, or forgot to ask them self one simple question.I have asked myself the very question you proposed.Like the vast majority of the Western world I was heavily indoctrinated in Christianity, and did not finally free myself from that silly superstition until well into adulthood. I doubt you have any questions I have not asked myself but feel free to try.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

"I find it endlessly entertaining how those who choose to believe in a god assume that those who do not simply haven't thought about it, or forgot to ask them self one simple question."I like your point, this really irks me too. You might be surprised to know that I myself am also a 100% atheist, who bases a significant part of my beliefs on scientific research. The reason I'm attacking my own side in this debate is that I see weaknesses in the way we atheists justify our own beliefs, and I think it involves a certain amount of hypocrisy with regard to the issue of faith.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

My faith rests with God while He tells my mind to pray that Science figured it out properly!
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

Thats exactly right, I don't get why people treat God and Science like they are the opposite.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

here's whyOr can one have a set of beliefs, then kind of mold them to fit around what science tells us?Like, okay so now we know the world wasn't really created in 7 days... so now that's a parable...But Jesus dying for everyone's sins, that's true...Unless somehow at some point through DNA evidence or something, we could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that that never really happened...Okay, so then it was symbolic I'm sure the faithful would say.Fine.But at some point it seems ridiculous to have a religion, if everyone within that religion picks and chooses what to follow, and what to believe, based on their feelings, and ideas, and knowledge. And that set of beliefs, stories, parables, is constantly being proved wrong, or even immoral.Okay, so then people say things like "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual."Well that seems to be the new trend.Which is far better I think than following mindlessly one creed created, and clinging to, a time long gone.But the whole thing seems a bit hypocritical to many. I mean, if one does have their own personal set of moral standards, why not call it that? Why call it god?And why, if it's so hard to find even two people that agree on every moral issue, is it so important to the hordes of the religious, that everyone drink the koolaid with them?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

Jesus dying for everyone's sins cannot be proven true. I'm sorry but I have to point this out. It's as if saying I died for everyone's sins. All I have to do is convince a majority that is my cause and get some very intelligent and philosophical "prophets", as you will, to come together to create a device, the bible, to steer people towards my beliefs as a just system. (easier said than done but I think you guys get my point) But yes, the symbolism is it's greatest power. Now what you believe is what you believe, this usually deals with faith. I'm not here to tell you you're right or wrong for what you believe in just to make a point that what's written in the bible does not have empirical evidence. That is where Science and Religion/faith/spirituality/etc. meet. My belief is that they go hand in hand because what is the point of science? You are either trying to find "God" or prove that "God" does not exist. Either way a whole lot of faith is needed in either. I'm more for science because I like what I can see, but I'm also not ignorant to the fact that something started everything and that something is what most of us title as "god". (I'm also more science based because I'm not at a point in my life to where I ask what's after death? Much of the reason why I believe most people turn to religion at some point in their life, plus the group setting brings you closer to your humanity) The truth is you already drank the koolaid! That is why you exist. You believe in something or else you would be dead, I mean why live? It can even be said that Science, in itself, is a religion. If you don't believe me check out the definition of religion. (for your viewing pleasure: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) )
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

Paragraph 3"Things are what they are, not what we make them.""Our survival, and continuing prosperity for years to come and even to the stars beyond, has 0 to do with a god or fate, and everything to do with us, and is solely Dependant on the decisions that we make."Is this a contradiction or did I just make it become that? It just jumped out at me and I've read it in the paragraph and it still just jumps out to me as a contradiction...
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

Wow, kudos for picking up on that.The first qoute is refering to the state of being. For example, the Earth rotates around the sun. Even if everyone thinks otherwise, it makes no difference, the Earth will rotate around the sun. I was refering to the idea that we give words meaning, and therefore it's taken on faith they mean what we say. My arguement is that words or not, faith or not, things are what they are.The second quote though, is not refering to a state of being at all. I do believe we have total control of what we do, (the example given is survive, even move out to space) but we do not have control over what things are. So while our idea of what things like physics (somehow this arguement got to that) are changes, physics itself does not change. Sometimes we understand it, sometimes we're wrong about it, but it stays the same regardless of what we're thinking. We on the other hand, are very capable of changing.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

As it has been several times throughout history.Church's regularly feed the homeless, help single mothers on hard times, take in orphans,all kinds of good stuff, and that's great.I thought I made it clear that religion does do good in some cases, and that I was saying that overall I believe it does more harm than good.That's debatable of course, and there really is no way of measuring it.I would submit this though, if a "religion" feeds a starving person, is it the religion, or is it the people within? Of course religion itself is an inanimate thing. So what is the reason the people within a religion do good things?1. they're just good people, in which case wouldn't they be good people still without religion? and so the starving person would have been fed by that good person with or without religion.2. they're not inherently good people, but are afraid of hell or what have you, or are looking to score brownie points with god. Okay, that's fine, the starving guy is still getting food right? So in this case, it was religion that is good, and not necessarily the person. So how can anyone know what's what? They can't, which is why it is my opinion.I have observed however, believe fervently, and am more than willing to defend, that people are people, they find a religion if they find one based on who they already are. If they change, it's not because of a religion, but something within them that was ready to change, and religion is conveniently their to take the credit, and they are all too happy to blame religion.If a person does something, I believe they were going to do it one way or another, based on what is within them, and their experiences. They then subscribe some meaning behind what was done, and often this has become religion. ie, if there were no such thing as religion, we would simply make one up,if there were no such thing as god, we would simply make him up.It's convenient.The crusades would have happened without religion likely, but under another guise. As with 911. As with the starving man being fed.Where I find fault though, is when a religion acts as an easy out for those who do not want to think on their own.Why think, when someone can tell you what to do?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Under War's Bloody Banner

The bravery of the French Huguenots of Le Chambon-sur-lignon are an example of religion being humanitarian.http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/saviors/others/le-chambon-sur-lignon.2468.htm 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.“…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 Teichrib http://www.forcingchange.org/under_war's_bloody_banner
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

That is flawed logic.Why do people keep trying to separate God and Science!? Give me one of Einsteins theories that goes against the belief of God.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Well I can't give you one Einstein's, but I can give you one of Darwin's...(against a literal interpretation of the Bible anyway.)
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Maybe the bible, but not the belief in God...really, there is no evidence at all against the theory of God, since God is a very vague term that goes beyond any simple understanding.not saying i believe in God, but philosophically wise, there's more to it.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

no thanks......
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_Darwinian_Evolution_be_proven_wrong
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

So what your saying is it's just a crazy theory, right? ;)
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

"http://wiki.answers.com/Q/ How_can_Darwinian_Evolution_be_proven_ wrong "Notice how there are NO citations on that page, or even uncited evidence to support:"The salt content in the oceans would be so high we could almost walk across themThe silt at the ocean floor would be much higher than it isThe moon woudl be so far away from the earth we would have no tides because the moon moves an inch away from the earth every yearThe moon would have much more dust on it than it does nowAll commets would be burt up"
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Why Einstein? If I might ask.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

What, cant you find anything? Don't try to avoid my challenge.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Fine, Jake...which God would you like me to debunk? Let's go with the Christian God. If you take the bible literally, the universe can only be about 6,000 years old (that's when most Christian theologians claim God created it). Einstein's theory of relativity says that light travels at a constant velocity for all observers. If the Bible is right we would only be able to see stars less than 6,000 light years away from us. Is this the case? No, in fact we can see stars billions of miles away. This means the bible, interpreted literally, must be wrong.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

In the work of the Creation, the Lord organized elements that had already existed (see Abraham 3:24). He did not create the world out of nothing, as some people believe. Those stars are older than the earth.And how about the earth being millions of years old: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_Darwinian_Evolution_be_proven_wrong
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

"And how about the earth being millions of years old: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_Darwinian_Evolution_be_proven_  wrong "I think I pretty much knocked this stupid argument out of the park in reply to one of your other comments. Please try to think about things for yourself before posting links to nonsense like that. It only adds to the thought you have absolutely no understanding of science.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Me making fun of you for being a tard

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJake I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. That is one funny site thanks for posting it....how funny would it be if people actually took those kind of ridiculous arguments seriously? I mean think about it...over a hundred years of scientific advancement in fields such as genetics, geology, embryology, anatomy, and the entire fossil record completely ignored. They even incorrectly use the laws of thermodynamics...classic!It's good there's not really people who believe this stuff. I mean imagine how brainwashed, or just plain stupid someone would have to be...It's incredible!I'm glad that you have a sense of humor Jake, because that post made my day.P.S. I don't think Xaenon got the joke. He thought you were serious! Haha
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

And what about my actual post? all you talked about was the link.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

What's so freaking funny? People do take those arguments seriously. It really made your day? Then why did you oppose it? "They even incorrectly use the laws of thermodynamics...classic!"How so?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

(I'll respond to both here)You're right, people do take those arguments seriously. That's whats so funny. Did you really not get the sarcasm? I thought that I was actually making it too obvious. I was making fun of you for quoting overused and flawed arguments (such as the thermodynamics one). If you want to know specifically why the argument is dumb look at xeanon's posts.As for the rest of your post, the church I go to doesn't usually doesn't talk about genesis (or I just don't pay attention). If you want to go with that interpretation, then I guess Einstein's theory of relativity wouldn't disprove your God. Not that it really matters. You could have said "God put the light to look like there were stars" and it would be the same thing.Going back to evolution, I hope that you are not one of the simple minded people who allow religious beliefs to interfere how they view science. In fact, plenty of Christians are able to come to terms with their faith and evolution (including the past three popes!). I may have fun making fun of religious beliefs, but in all honesty moderate religion is harmless, and sometimes can even lead to some good, but denying facts is silly.Below is a link to a youtube profile of a biology student who both believes in evolution and is a Christian. He makes a lot of videos debunking creationists. If you have questions, his videos are pretty informative.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

Of course i got the sarcasm thats why it pissed me off because i knew that you didn't think it was funny. "If you want to know specifically why the argument is dumb look at xeanon's posts." - i did, at least he can post for himself, i asked you about the thermodynamics part. I don't care what church you "go to" and i also don't care that you are to arrogant to even pay attention.No, I'm not simple minded I partly believe in evolution, just not Darwin's take on it. And I wouldn't know much about the last three popes considering I'm a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. But I'm sure that you will just try to tair my religion apart. "I may have fun making fun of religious beliefs, but in all honesty moderate religion is harmless, and sometimes can even lead to some good, but denying facts is silly."Why do you make fun of peoples religious belief's, or ANY beliefs for that matter. This is America, why do you even care about other peoples beliefs. It's one thing to argue against someone but to make fun of their personal beliefs is pretty messed up, and that is NOT what this web site is for or about. I think you are getting the wrong idea.I would rather be wrong or have trouble getting my point across than to be as prejudice as you are and mock peoples beliefs. I think you owe me and other Christians on this site an apology.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

You believe in evolution, just not Darwin's take on it? Then tell me, what DO you believe about evolution, then?Also, if you read Xeanon's post, why do you need the other guy to explain the thermodynamics part?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

I didn't talk about thermodynamics because I didn't feel like wasting my time on something that had already been addressed. But if you insist:The article talks about the earth as if it were a closed system, when in fact it is only a small part of a much larger system. If you look at the solar system you can see that the sun is actually becoming more disordered and is doing work on earth. Therefore there is no violation of the law of thermodynamics.Now that we cleared that up, I'm not going to "tair" anyone's religion apart. I decided to refute your god because you challenged someone to. Don't forget that, because it's important. If someone keeps their beliefs personal, then fine, but you asked if anyone could prove your beliefs wrong with science, and therefore I obliged. If you were going to get your panties in a twist about it, then why ask? (Oh and if you want to hear your religion being made fun of, I'm pretty sure there's a south park episode that makes fun of mormans).As for your final comments, I have always respected people's personal beliefs except:1) When people use religion as justification to discriminate against others2) When people deny facts and convince others to deny facts through religion (this would be where you fall)3) When people use religion as an excuse to kill others (a.k.a. religious extremists like the terrorists in the Middle East)This was my point about moderate religion. People who are religious, but do not fall into one of those categories are fine by me. If it makes you feel better, I am against any atheist who falls into these categories. So no I don't owe anyone an apology, because in America we have freedom of speech.Also, technically this is the internet, not America.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

Well, thanks for not going after my religion, and yeah I have heard alot about that dang episode of southpark, but I have never watched that show, however if your going by what that show says, I hear they also said that the mormon chirch is true. (;Okay, I will admit that I dont know all that much about evolution, even though I brought it up. I just get defensive. I will do more reseach next time. I hope we can move past this and find more stuff to agree on.But-What facts did I deny?, because im pritty sure evolution is a theory.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Actually the episode goes through the story of the foundation of the Church of the Latter Day states (or some version of it), while someone in the background sings "dumb du dumb dumb dumb." But south park makes fun of everyone, that's why it's so great!I guess technically, you didn't deny any facts but let me help you understand. There is an incredible amount of scientific evidence pointing toward evolution...so much that they can actually tell where every animal on earth came from and how they are related. Evolutionary knowledge is fundamental in medical research, which is one of the reasons I get kinda ticked when people say that evolution might not be true. If it wasn't for our understanding of evolution, people would literally die.Let me put it in perspective: let's say you walk into a room and you see a dead body. Standing above the body is a man with a knife. You look at the body and you see that there are knife marks. There is nobody else in the house, or even near the house. Technically, you didn't see the killing so you can only form a theory. If your theory was anything other than "the dead guy was killed by the guy with the knife" then you might need your head checked. This is what evolution is like. There is so much evidence and almost no real scientist who has looked at the evidence comes to any conclusion other than "the animals currently on earth evolved from more primitive creatures over millions of years."Hope that clears things up!
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

Thanks for helping me understand, im not fully against the idea of evolution just part of it, evolution is fundamental to medical research but is Darwinian evolution? I still have allot to learn. But thanks.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

People separate them because you have to separate them for them to be able to function. Science requires evidence, religion doesn't. Religion fills the gaps in our knowledge with a god, while science fills the gaps in our knowledge with facts and theories that are supported by evidence