azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

This is a manipulation of language.Perhaps I should break it down for you.Atheism is a specific doctrinedoctrines can be dogmas: to the point that they are synonymousand dogmas can be proclaimed by a churchbut when you juggle around so many different definitions, they no longer apply to each other. You are manipulating language in that you are taking several words with multiple meanings and tying them together. Here is one major crack in your train of logic.atheism is only a religion if you use the definitionsb (out of a,b)b (out of a,b,c,d,e)1c (our of 1a, 1b, 1c, 2)4 (out of 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4)that means that you had to pick through four levels of terms to arrive at the conclusion.under this many levels, words no longer retain the same definitions. synonyms are not identical.here is a thread on this you might want to read over.http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia37.html but, to demonstrate my point, i will yet again use your line of logic to prove a ridiculous concept true.hereDefinition of MONEY1: something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: asa : officially coined or stamped metal currencyb : money of accountc : paper money2a : wealth reckoned in terms of moneyb : an amount of moneyc plural : sums of money : funds3: a form or denomination of coin or paper money4a : the first, second, and third place winners (as in a horse or dog race) —usually used in the phrases in the money or out of the moneyb : prize money 5a : persons or interests possessing or controlling great wealthb : a position of wealth http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money so, money is a measure of value1: the supreme or ultimate reality: asa : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universeb Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality3: a person or thing of supreme value4: a powerful rulerhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god so, according to definition 3, G-d is a person or thing of supreme value.since money is a measure of value,and G-d is a person or thing of supreme valuethen, logically, G-d is a large amount of money.I am not manipulating words. I came to this definition in only two links, compared to your four.so, if this train of logic is correct, then I will accept that atheism is a religion, as well as that G-d is a large amount of money.otherwise, I reject both.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

First of all, you picked and chose random definitions. You didn't logically look at each definition to apply to atheism. Is that you atheists try to claim that God doesn't exist, yet you have no proof to make that claim. Then you say Christians are crazy for believing in Him. You have just as much (or less) proof to prove He doesn't exist as we do to say that He does. Therefore you claim your 'belief' on inadequate grounds. You can't say "I don't see Him" therefore He doesn't exist. That is dogma to have faith in what you can't prove. That's how atheism is a religious belief. You have faith without verifiable proof. That is the logic of your position. So you can make your inane exploitations, but they follow no logic. If you have undeniable proof that God doesn't exist, then you better present if not, then you are more stupid then those you accuse of it.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

How exactly would you suggest going about proving that anything doesn't exist? It doesn't have to be God, a patently unfalsifiable entity, just anything. A unicorn. The Spaghetti Monster. Mogwais.Hint: You can't. I addressed your statement that atheists claim there are no gods, by explaining that most of them realize there is no way to know for certain if there is or not, they just choose not to operate within any existing religion because of their hypocrisy, lies, and contradictions. If they do think they know for certain, then they are lying to themselves as much as you are if you say you know that God does exist. You ignored this, and continue to spout the point that was refuted, just in a different place.I suppose you would have to ignore that argument if you want to continue to tell yourself that atheism is a religion. Doesn't it make you a little uncomfortable to hold beliefs you cannot defend past a certain point?
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"Doesn't it make you a little uncomfortable to hold beliefs you cannot defend past a certain point?" I can defend my religion to any point that you bring up. "How exactly would you suggest going about proving that anything doesn't exist?" That is right you can't prove non-existence of God. But you and other atheists claim He doesn't exist. You can choose not to believe in Him. But you are a fool if you can 'for certain' claim He doesn't exist. You can shout your 'opinion' from the highest point in the world, but you can't state as a fact that He doesn't exist. That is what 'you' atheists here are doing. You prove your ignorance by saying "there is evidence He doesn't exist", because we know you don't have that evidence. "I suppose you would have to ignore that argument if you want to continue to tell yourself that atheism is a religion." I did not ignore the argument. I have shown all of you how the atheist ideal is a religious belief. You hold your 'beliefs' that there is no God. The fact is you can't prove He doesn't exist. The very definition of dogma and religion have to do with the belief in something you can't verify. Atheists think they are so intellectual, until confronted with the theory of the origin of the universe. Then they either ignore the natural sciences (big bang: matter created from nothing 'which violates both the law of cause and effect and thermodynamics) or they just say "I don't know we haven't found out yet", both answers prove the atheist dogma. "A unicorn. The Spaghetti Monster. Mogwais." I would ask what works have these 'beings' done? Do they have the testimony of thousands of people recorded through history? What claims are related to them? Does anyone testify to their works?
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

I can defend my religion to any point that you bring up.Then why repeatedly ignore statements that refute assertions you continue to make?That is right you can't prove non-existence of God. But you and other atheists claim He doesn't exist. You can choose not to believe in Him. But you are a fool if you can 'for certain' claim He doesn't exist. You can shout your 'opinion' from the highest point in the world, but you can't state as a fact that He doesn't exist. Okay, looks like I need to say this a third time. An atheist who claims they know God doesn't exist is being dishonest. So are Christians who claim they know he does exist. No one knows. We have all reached conclusions based on the available evidence, which amounts to nothing more than the Bible and for some people, this is pretty weak evidence. You are arguing a point of view I have never taken and will never take, because I would never say that God definitely doesn't exist, in the interest of being scientifically correct. Good job wasting your time basically agreeing with me that the existence of God is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Too bad it applies to you, too.I did not ignore the argument. I have shown all of you how the atheist ideal is a religious belief. A lack of belief is not a belief, and atheists lack belief. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Another point from a different debate that you failed to address: If atheism is a religion, then the lack of belief in anything else is also a religion. As there are infinite things not to believe in, then there are infinite religions, and we would all belong to the vast majority of them. If there are infinite religions and we all belong to an infinite amount of them, then don't you think that essentially cheapens religion into a meaningless concept?"Then they either ignore the natural sciences (big bang: matter created from nothing 'which violates both the law of cause and effect and thermodynamics)The Big Bang theory does not state that matter came from nothing, it states that it expanded from a singularity. Try again.or they just say "I don't know we haven't found out yet",What's wrong with being honest? If we don't know the answer to a question, why is the answer automatically God? This is a sad habit that humans need to grow out of. All throughout history, people have answered difficult questions with a supernatural force, and all it has done it impede the pursuit of the real answer. I would ask what works have these 'beings' done? Do they have the testimony of thousands of people recorded through history? What claims are related to them? Does anyone testify to their works?1. At one point, God could not claim any of these things either.2. Other gods in other religions can claim all of these things as well.3. How many people testify to something has no influence on its veracity.4. There is nothing currently known to humans that requires God in order to exist, therefor it is not definitive that he has done any works at all.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

You don't come on here and say "I don't believe",Yes, I do. instead you say "there is no God"I have not said this. I was trying to show you that you have no way to 'state as fact' that there is no God. I know this. This is why I do not do this. You have not refuted the assertion that if atheism is a religion, then religion is meaningless. You are as ignorant as the rest of the atheists on this site. The Bible is a compilation of books full of eyewitness testimony. Thousands and thousands of people witnessed the works of God. Over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus. There is evidence in the Bible. You just refuse to acknowledge the witnesses.Unsubstantiated eyewitness testimony does not carry a drop of water when it comes to science. Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, the gods of other religions, and the Loch Ness Monster can all claim eyewitness testimony, to varying volumes.The fact that we can through natural science prove there was a flood.No, you can't. There is, as of yet, no proof of God that actually withstands real scientific scrutiny. You just think there is because to you, answersingenesis is a credible source. There has been no real answer. The habit we need to grow out of is ignoring God. Just because you must ignore certain aspects of reality in order to preserve your faith does not mean they are not real. There are many things once attributed to supernatural deities that now have scientific explanations. It was a compilation of energy and matter. According to thermodynamics "new matter and energy don't come into existence". The law of conservation states that energy is merely 'recycled' but no new energy is created. Then the law of cause and effect says that "all effects have a known or unknown cause". So then there must be a first cause that started all causes. We know matter and energy can't create themselves. So then the Big Bang implies matter and energy came from nothing. In order for their to be something to expand, there has to be the 'something' first. Where did this matter and energy come from?The Big Bang, like evolution, only deals with the effects of something after a certain point. Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, and the Big Bang makes no claim about the origin of matter. These matters are dealt with by different theories and areas of science. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631" This source is quite entertaining. This contradicts the laws of thermodynamics "new energy does not come into existence". It is recycled through the law of conservation. They have no idea where 'photons' (light energy) originated from. They are still assuming that matter and energy can create themselves. The fact they know that the universe was warmer only substantiates thermodynamics. That all energy is decreasing, and no new energy is being produced. You still haven't answered where the original energy came from? "You have not refuted the assertion that if atheism is a religion, then religion is meaningless." Atheism is a religious belief, I have shown you this logic. And atheism is not a 'lack in belief', but specifically a disbelief in the existence in God. How would this make all religion meaningless? "Unsubstantiated eyewitness testimony does not carry a drop of water when it comes to science." What would it take for their testimony to be substantiated to you? Do you believe in Socrates? We have less evidence for his existence then we do for Jesus. The witnesses of God's works and miracles out number those of any other phenomena. These are real people testifying to what they saw. An entire generation of Israelites (over 600,000) witnessed God's miracles in Egypt. The crossing of the Red Sea for instance. "No, you can't. There is, as of yet, no proof of God that actually withstands real scientific scrutiny." This 'real' science you speak of is naturalism. Miracles of that themselves are 'suspensions' in natural laws. "You just think there is because to you, answersingenesis is a credible source." Discredit it then, show me how their scientific method is wrong. You can't say they are bias (which they are toward the belief in God), when evolutionists are bias toward the non-existence of God. "Just because you must ignore certain aspects of reality in order to preserve your faith does not mean they are not real." Your 'reality' is the bias world views of atheists. I don't ignore reality, in fact I use the natural sciences to support my world view. But I am also critical of evolutionists who make arbitrary claims based on a loose "hypothesis". "There are many things once attributed to supernatural deities that now have scientific explanations." For example? This does not change established scientific laws.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"For some people, 'magic' is not a satisfactory answer." Magic is deception or "trickery", this statement is purely opinion on your part. "Belief and disbelief are antonyms, therefor your sentence takes on completely different meanings depending on which one you use to fill in the blank. Do clarify." Do you remember the definitions I showed you? It is a belief there is no God or the disbelief in the existence in any deity. We have discussed this at length already. I was trying to shorthand our discussion, obviously I can't do that anymore with you. ".... my uncertainty is only a token one, in the interest of avoiding absolute statements." This does not change the fact that the atheist belief is a dogma. It falls into the category of secular religion. You base your assumptions from emotion. Your feeling is the only 'evidence' you can present. "Looks like I will have to borrow from a debate that you bailed on, once again." What discussion is this? "A quick lesson in the English language: when a word is prefixed with the letter 'a', the 'a' signifies a lack or absence of something." This doesn't change anything here. Atheism is the disbelief in any deity. To not believe in something you have to have some kind of way to disprove it. Especially, if you want to state as a fact there is no God. If it is just your opinion, then that is fine for you and your fool-heartedness. "No matter how you define atheism, subjectively, it is not that much different from not believing in unicorns (or, believing in the nonexistence of unicorns, as you would probably insist on awkwardly phrasing it). Therefor, the act of believing in the nonexistence of unicorns would also constitute a religion. So would the act of believing in the nonexistent of Zeus, Ra, Spaghetti Monsters, Bigfoots, mermaids, and so on and so on forever. Each one of these would be a religion. You and everyone else would belong to most of them, which would be an infinite number of religions." With atheism you are specifically saying you don't believe in God. This would not be an infinite number of religions. I don't deny the truth. I know God's word is the truth. He tells us there are no other gods but Him. Therefore, I know those other creatures don't exist. I take the word of God on absolute authority. His word is my evidence. I believe in His works in creation, and science proves many of the acts in the Bible happened (the Flood). You have no foundational belief. You don't have an answer for your origin. For whatever reason you refuse to recognize your Creator. I will respond to the rest of your post in another posting soon to follow.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

actually, people do support gods other than your own.they may not be unicorns, mogwais, or spaghettibut historically, people have prayed toFeathered Serpents8 legged horsesanimal/people combosall of which had a lot of followers
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"First of all, you picked and chose random definitions."no, i picked and chose whatever definition fit my intention- which in this case was to demonstrate how unreliable your frankenstein technique of defining atheism was."Is that you atheists try to claim that God doesn't exist, yet you have no proof to make that claim"lacking a belief is different than believing in something.I believe in the big bangI believe in evolutionbut i do not believe in the absence of a G-din fact, like other atheists I lack a belief in G-d.There is no unifying 'belief' of atheists.however, since you pick and choose your own definitions, you manipulate a belief to be anything without proofjust as I manipulated a value to be anything concerning money."You can't say "I don't see Him" therefore He doesn't exist"but I can say"there is no evidence for me to believe in him, therefore I do not believe in him"and, yes, the concept of"I believe in what I can prove"is a dogmaand possibly religiousbut the statement"I do not believe in G-d"is a rejection of belief. Not a belief in and of itself
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"no, i picked and chose whatever definition fit my intention- which in this case was to demonstrate how unreliable your frankenstein technique of defining atheism was." You still haven't disproved my point. And that is atheism believes on inadequate grounds (dogma), that God doesn't exist. Because like 'religion' this is a point that can't be proven through the natural sciences. All I have is God's word and His work in creation. I don't have a picture or a recording from God to prove His existence. I have the word that He gave to his prophets and the testimony of those who witnessed the various miracles. There are recorded 234 of them in the Bible. You have no testimony to the Big Bang. From what we witness in the natural sciences, matter and energy can't come into existence by themselves. What is your First Cause (of the universe)? How do you explain that the universe 'ages' so therefore it isn't cyclical? I have the written word of God as a testimony of our origin and that of the universe. Whether you believe it or not, at least I know that the natural sciences can't show how the universe was created.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"atheism believes on inadequate grounds (dogma), that God doesn't exist. Because like 'religion' this is a point that can't be proven through the natural sciences."The difference is that you are suggesting a possibility that G-d exists.that is your claim.and therefore it falls upon you to have proof.And the stories told in the bible are exactly the same as the stories told by scientists.Because nobody saw G-d create the universe.and of these 234 acclaimed miracles, how many are verified? We have nothing more than a single source that has no means of proof.Therefore, rather than believing in the absence of G-d, I simply find your lack of proof inadequate.And, without proof, your claim is rejected.That is not to say I know He does not exist. If for any reason I were to see proof, I would hold my (personal) dogma that"i believe in what I can prove"the only difference would be that G-d would now fit in this category.However, concerning religion, it would appear that no amount of proof could ever persuade a zealot that G-d does not exist.therefore, it is a belief that G-d exists, as opposed to a dogma of"I believe in what I cannot prove"because, were this your dogma, you would believe in everything, including the flying spaghetti monster that you obviously do not worship.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"The difference is that you are suggesting a possibility that G-d exists. that is your claim." And your 'claim' is that He doesn't. "and therefore it falls upon you to have proof." As it would be for someone to say 'for certain' that He doesn't. "and of these 234 acclaimed miracles, how many are verified? We have nothing more than a single source that has no means of proof." The proof is the eyewitnesses. It is not a single source either, the Bible is a compilation of books (book of the law and the gospels for example). Scientists speak from an observational assumption through the natural sciences. The theories and times they place on the world, have no evidence of evolution (transitional forms) or the origin of the universe. The prophets of God claim to have spoken to Him. Through the Holy Spirit or prophetic dreams. An eyewitness is a verifiable source. We use them in our judicial system. If you want to dismiss an eyewitnesses testimony you better be able to discredit them. You can't simply say "they are dead so we can't question them". Especially when they have written down what they witnessed. What do you want a picture or video? Don't be so quick to dismiss the testimony of eyewitnesses. "However, concerning religion, it would appear that no amount of proof could ever persuade a zealot that G-d does not exist." What evidence do you claim? "Therefore, rather than believing in the absence of G-d, I simply find your lack of proof inadequate. And, without proof, your claim is rejected." That is up to you to reject it. But what you can't do is claim He doesn't exist, that is atheist dogma which is prevalent in the discussions here.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"And your 'claim' is that He doesn't."no. my claim is that"you have no proof that he exists, so why should I believe you"An eyewitness is a verifiable source. We use them in our judicial system. If you want to dismiss an eyewitnesses testimony you better be able to discredit them. actually, this would all be heresy in court. Since these people were not under oath, they may have been exaggerating.Since these people are not available for the stand, they cannot be given credence (not only because they are dead, but any statement made by a person not at the trial cannot be used)So, no, these would not qualify in a judicial system. Any person who has ever taken a class in trials would note the many objectionable (in the legal sense) aspects of the bible "What evidence do you claim?"a trail of chimp to human evolution suggests that man evolved from monkeys, not made by G-d.fossil timelines suggest that animals appeared on land before they appeared in airCarbon dating suggests that the Earth was formed in 740 million years, not 7 daysphysical laws of gravity suggest that the sun emerged eons before the earth, not 4 days after itthe moon is found to not be a source of light at all (let alone a great light): it merely reflects sunlight.Many stars are much, much brighter than the sun (a 'great light')with so many holes in the bible, it can hardly be used as a reasonable book from which to observe anything as true.