Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

I assure you this is a very important statement in our argument.I will repeat myself; if the statement retains its meaning with the omission of the word, and if, instead of addressing the statement, you quibble over the meaning of the unneccessary word, you are nitpicking and avoiding the point. You still don't understand the concept here. Yes, God created everything. However we (all people) ruined the creation.Are you implying that God did not expect creation to be ruined? If so, then he is not all-knowing. If not, and God did expect creation to be ruined, then he created the world with the intention of having it play out as it did. You have said that the coming of Jesus was foretold even before the creation of the earth, and this is a statement that supports the latter view, so either your beliefs contradict themselves, or you are making pointless statements.I will attempt to explain this one more time. God created the first humans. God created their environment. They knew nothing but what he made for them, they had no thoughts that were not the product of the environment he put them in, they had no abilities or tendencies that he did not endow them with. Everything they did, thought, and felt, is a result of their experiences, and God engineered their experiences, completely and solely. This is just as true for them as it is for us.The problem with your point of view is that you want to blame someone other then the offender. We see this in our culture with 'passing the blame' to someone else. No one wants to 'own up' to their mistakes. We want to blame someone else for the bad things we do. Why do you accept this?As I am an atheist and do not actually believe God is responsbile for anything, naturally I have no one to blame but the perpetrator of any given act, whoever that may be. I am pointing out the implications of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator. There is no honest way to deny that the creator of the world, who made the decision to create the world as it is with complete knowledge of how history would play out, is not responsible for everything had happened after he created it. If he wanted to, he could have created an infinite number of alternate creations, with an infinite number of small adjustments or large ones. But he didn't. He made this one, and not the tiniest detail of it was an accident; it was designed to produce the world as it existed yesterday, and today, and as it will exist tomorrow and the next day. This means that everything is exactly as he meant it to be, and it always will be. If this is not so, then God is not all-knowing, because he could not accurately predict the future of his creation. You and Atheism as whole claim there is no God.Religion has made a claim that there is a God and atheists have decided the evidence as of yet is too weak to accept such a claim. There is a difference. We are not making claims, we are rejecting them, at least until something truly convincing is presented. If pressed, I believe most atheists would say that they realize there is no way to falsify God's existence. If they do not, and claim they know there isn't a god, then they are being as intellectually dishonest as Christians who claims they know there is a god. I would not waste time arguing the nonexistence of a supernatural force that cannot be falsified. What I do argue is ther personal God that had been constructed by Christianity.It looks like Definition 2 would fit really well.No, sorry. Atheism has no fundamental set of beliefs, no sects, or practices. They simply reject the claims made by others. There is a reason the word 'atheist' is synonymous with 'nonbeliever'.Exactly alternate definitions. That's why I listed the source for you. Are you really that ignorant?It is not ignorant to point out that your own sources make no distinction between the phrases 'believes there is no God' and 'does not believe there is a God', even though one implies the holding of a belief, and one implies the absence of any beliefs and when it comes to our disagreement, this distinction is a monumental one. Dictionaries are not written by people who are intimately familiar with the common points of contention in particular areas, thus there are many definitions that contain ambiguities and room for interpretation. Unfortunately, in this case, you are insisting on interpreting incorrectly. Where is this an acceptable definition of Atheism, or are you trying to change words to make yourself right?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. Examples include amoral, atypical, anaemic, abnormal. When we look at the word atheism, we see two components. 'A' and 'theism'. 'Theism' denotes the belief in a god, and the 'a' denotes an absence of such a belief. Ta-dah!Really, this is a credible source to you. I can go there and say "Atheism is the belief that purple is the color gray". This is not a reliable or verifiable source.And it will not appear on the page. The pertinent phrase is quoted from an external source, and the source is properly cited. In this case, the source happens to be the Encylopedia Britannica. This site you feel can better describe the English language then the Merriam-Webster Dictionary? Your ignorance knows no bounds. I take it you did not register the plain fact that this website was quoting from the Oxford English Dictionary. I wondered if I should point this out to you, then I thought, no, surely you could be bothered to read the bolded heading, or the first sentence. I suppose I was wrong, and I shall take pains to point out the obvious to you in the future. I assume you are referring 'owph the Hebrew word for winged creature. Where is the special exception here? You were the one trying to imply it only meant birds. I was simply showing you that you tried to confine Hebrew to your terms not it's actual meaning. And the translation was from the Hebrew to English Lexicon not the dictionary which you are claiming.I am not referring to this. I am referring to the fact that 'innocence' means something else when you want it to mean something else.From now on, when necessary, I will append my arguments with a list of the important points you have failed to address. They are as follows:1. An experimenter puts a rat in a box with a piece of food. Whenever the rat gets near the food, the experimenter shocks the rat. After repeated exposures, the rat no longer tries to get the food; in fact, it is afraid of it, and strenuously avoids it. The experimenter says, "Don't blame me for the rat being afraid of the food. He has free will." Does this sound reasonable?Now, pretend the experimenter is responsible for designing not just the box but the rat itself, all the way down to the most intricate functions of its brain. The experimenter knew that the rat would be hungry, because he created the rat to get hungry, and it knew exactly what effects the shocks would have, because he designed the rat's brain and nervous system. Do you see the comparison? Granted, the real world is far more complex, but in essence, there is no difference between humans and God, and the experimenter and the rat. Assuming Christianity is correct, God created us, and he created every single variable capable of influencing our thoughts and development from the moment of our conception. He had complete knowledge of every effect that each of his actions would have, even thousands and thousands of years from the moment he created everything. When he created the world in the way he did, and created people the way he did, he essentially set the world on a trajectory which it has no choice but to follow.2. 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?3. On a side note, what about infants who die of terminal diseases before they have had time to sin? (I am not asking this because I feel it is evidence of anything in particular, I am just curious how you explain it to yourself.)