azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

On a tablet so no quotes, sorry. Using a deity to fill in blanks is not circular reasoning it is non sequitur. The measures you are using are circular, they are predefined by you to be special so when you look it is self confirming. A deity just isnt needed to explain how we got here, the system works without it. You said we were special, so out off all gods creations it is about us? I disagree, thats the central thinking that drives your criteria. If my use of why men are better was wrong why isnt this form of that argument? Heck yeah both uses are subjective and focusef on itself as the measure of what is important. Darwin struggled greatly over his findings and his religion and he had far less evidence and scientific advances at his disposal than we do now.Religious people are happier because ignorace is bliss. Seriosly though this is a cause and effect claim. People that have some form of meditation , religios or not, have higher instances of happyness from endorphins released and lower levels of stress. Prayer falls under forms of meditationin many religions. No divinity needed.This is also a general claim about happyness as well. A non believer can be just as happy if not more than some believers and vice versa. It is not a limit to the amount of happyness an individual experiences.The religious need for nonconformists to be unhappy baffles me. There is tons of religious learning material that promotes this. Cults do this you know...if you leave it will get worse talk. ;)Also humans have been around waaay more than 10k years. It is closer to 200k years. Are you claiming a young earth or just miss a zero?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Using a deity to fill in blanks is not circular reasoning it is non sequitur.Considering the fact that it is an argument born out of ignorance, i must say that it makes sense.A deity just isnt needed to explain how we got here, the system works without it. And that simply brings us to the topic of human arrogance and narcissism. The ability to explain something does not refute the existence of a celestial being.First rule of religious debates: "God cannot be proven, nor disproven"Darwin struggled greatly over his findings and his religion and he had far less evidence and scientific advances at his disposal than we do now.And yet there is more religious scientists than Darwin's timeReligious people are happier because ignorace is blissThats a disappointing argument coming from you.A religious person and an atheist can be as intelligent as anyone.Now about happiness and religion; no, you cant compare praying with meditation. Meditation is simply the art of slowing down your mind so you can focus more attentively. Prayer on the other hand is to leave all your worries behind and have faith in the diety you worship.Go figure which one has a better effect.A non believer can be just as happy if not more than some believers and vice versa.Except when trouble arise, a nonbeliever will not have same advantages as the one who believesAlso humans have been around waaay more than 10k years.I was referring to the birth of civilization, not the appearance of Homo Erectus
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

My point was god is not needed to explain how we evolved, adding a creator to design is supurflous.How can you say he is not needed when you cannot direct the laws of nature into your liking?If it is impossible to disprove God, then it is impossible to say that he is not required.More religious scientists now than Darwins time? Not by the link you gave...it stated the percentage is roughly the same.>In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.>According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do notReligious having advantages over non believers when they are in trouble?I was simply referring to the psychological benefits that religion can bring. All psychologists agree that religion is a drug that can alleviate a person's pain but addiction can result into insanity and ruthlessness. (e.g Westboro Chruch, Old Earth Creationists and Muslim Extremists)Prayer and meditation are lumped together all the time, and prayer has no advantages over meditation.There is actuallyAs experts put it; Mediation is an enhanced form of listening, prayer is an enhanced for of talking. When a person is troubled, he seeks someone whom he can open his thoughts to. Similarly, prayer is the act of opening yourself and letting it go. Which explains why religious people lead the most fulfilling life.Your link simply stated their benefits, none tried to differ one from the other. But I can understand. They are both extremely alike.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

If it is impossible to disprove God, then it is impossible to say that he is not required.This is a false statement. If I can come up with a scenario where things can happen without God, God is not required. You actually have it backwards. Since it is impossible to prove that God exists, it does make sense to say that God is not a requirement. Since you can't prove He exists, there must be the possibility that He doesn't exist. If it is possible for Him to not exist, He obviously can't be a requirement for anything.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

The theory of evolution works with out a god, the onus is not on me to prove whether God is needed. I do not need to direct the laws of nature only show that the theory works within the laws of nature.Disproving God and saying he's not required are two different claims, one is not dependant on the other. I am not in the disproving god camp, I say I have no reason to believe in a god. I have not been shown that there be a need for a deity.The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared. The percentage says 42 percent believe in a personal god the next however states god or a higher power so it is using more inclusive language for other beliefs. It is mixing criteria that was left undefined in the first pollthus comparing the two is apples and oranges. When comparing polls you need to look at the wording of the questions as it changes the outcomes of the answers. Many polls will ask the same question different ways to differentiate the subtle differences in how people feel. The first poll has 20 percent un accounted for the second poll has about 10 percent for, this number could easily be sitting here.What we don't see here is the differentiation between those that believe in God and those that believe in a higher power. You claiming an increase would have just as much weight as me saying it has decreased based on those numbers, that is neither of us could make that claim using that poll because it is not explicit in the poll. We simply cannot tell from here if either group has waxed or waned. The fact the second poll mixes terms while the original does not makes this comparison at odds.In your example of prayer and meditation the Dr doesn't declare one is better than the other specifically she doesn't declare this in a peer-reviewed journal. She only illuminates the subtle differences between prayer and meditation in the user.Your claim of religious people living the most fulfilling lives is highly subjective. There is no objective way to measure this claim. What is most fulfilling for one may not be for the other all that you are doing is saying "I like this way you should too".
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

The theory of evolution works with out a god.And that brought us back to square 1. Evolution works by adapting to the ever changing environment. The rules of nature dictates that he who is most adaptable will win. But in a humorous feat, the one who sits on the top of the food chain are humans who are unrivaled in their intelligence.We are the only animals who can create a philosophy, record history and the only species with a sense of responsibility to protect the weak, no matter who or what.Like what I said before: you can dismiss it as random chance but I will not ignore the elephant in the roomI have not been shown that there be a need for a deity.This would be a big twist in our argument but we created religion for a reason.It is a place of haven for the troubled minds, a tool to mend chaos and keep a society united no matter how dim the situation is. Religion is a powerful weapon that when used for good, it can create harmony and peace. But of course, just like any weapons, it can be used for evil as well.The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared.I cant see much differences. There are still more religious scientists today than there were a few decades years agoWhat we don't see here is the differentiation between those that believe in God and those that believe in a higher power.The only thing that conflicts them are the forms of worship. Other than that, I see nothing else that would divide their definition.In your example of prayer and meditation the Dr doesn't declare one is better To be fair, both of them serves different purpose.Prayer is for the one who bears too much, Meditation is for the one who wanted to listen.Your claim of religious people living the most fulfilling lives is highly subjective. It's not subjective at all. It is common knowledge
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

There's no elephant in the room, the scientific community and many people who read up on biology can easily see how evolution explains the situation we're in. Your take on evolution is still slightly off. Evolution does not favor the most adaptable it favors the most fit for the situation, it happens that those who are most adaptable do well in many in many situations as they can weather many a storm thus have more chances to reproduce. Creatures that are highly specialized do much more amazingly than we can in their environment but cannot cope with large changes over short periods of time in their evolutionary forcings.Again you use non objective criteria is central to what being human is as your measure. If my why are men better argument is using subjective and flawed measures why isnt the other subjective and flawed?You assume these things were created for a purpose but in evolutionary terms they were left because they worked for our benefit. It may seem like semantics but semantics matter because it does change the meaning that is conveyed. When you're reading polls or apparently somebody's blog post you seem to read into some of the words more than what the authors suggest with their language. It is apparent in the polls that one is using more inclusive language and is no mystery to that poll had a slightly larger number with using said language. Again semantics matter.In the blog post the author said on average believers are happier in general. It also does not say anything about limiting a non believers happiness, a non-believer can you just happy or happier than a believer and vice versa, just as a believer can be as intelligent or even more intelligent than a non believer. You want to accept one but not the other you want to have your cake and eat it too. You are drawing conclusions that are not quite what the author suggest.We are going in circles I stated several times about your measures being inadequate you just say no then restate your measures. I am specific where I disagree and give examples you have not addressed. I am unsure if you are being academically honest with yourself with the reading in our conversation as well as others in this debate. For instance the polls have an obvious wording difference. Asking if you believe in God and then asking do you believe God or a higher power will net you different answers in population. I do not see why you turn a blind eye to this. Colleges offer classes in reading and designing polls as well as basic statistics, if you're going to do any postgraduate work these classes are a must.The difference in the word use can lead to the difference in the definitions of spiritual versus religious. You acknowledged a difference in those terms use earlier but you seem to lump the terms together in the reading of the poll. This would be similar to me lumping agnostics and atheists together and saying these people say there is no god, which would obviously misrepresnt one of the groups actual claim.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

In context with the debate I jumped in to clarify things about evolution, not to claim there is no god. Like I said I am in the camp of I have no reason to believe. I am also not claiming that in general the more educated people get the less religious they are as a claim there is no god, I was just pointing out that your poll acknowledges the educated are generally less religious. But just to clarify as we may be wasting time on a point that doesnt matter, are you saying a higher portion of scientists believe in god than in 1800 is proof of a deity or to say these smart people believe?While I still maintain the comparison of the wording of the polls matter I find further objection if that claim is your aim. Saying more or less of a group doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god either. That measure is simply ad populum. The claim also does not let us evaluate their reasoning on the subject which reaks of an appeal to false authority and is too general to carry much weight. The claim does not take into account that specific areas of science have higher instances of atheistic views such as biology. People who specialize in specific areas greater knowledge on the subject. Your claim of evolution not working without a creator doesn't seem too phase these experts any more than it has me. Greater weight should be given to specific areas that show relevancy than general blocks of non specific anything.Because of these reasons I do not understand what role your evidence has for your argument. It seems to only work in vague or general terms but does not fit well under examination. My other post is a bit rambly so thought I pre clarify.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Your take on evolution is still slightly off. Evolution does not favor the most adaptable it favors the most fit for the situation, And we still havent made any progress.No matter how you look at it, the body of a human being should have been doomed to extinction.>no claws nor fangs>no strength>no speed>low birth rateAnd yet, here we are now; trying to conquer the vastness of space.If evolution happens as a way to simply adapt to the ever changing world, then I see no reason aswhy nature would allow us to be the only type of animal that can create technology and question philosophies.Unless it is intended by an intelligent being.You assume these things were created for a purpose but in evolutionary terms they were left because they worked for our benefit.That's practically synonymous.created for a purpose = worked for our benefitIn the blog post the author said on average believers are happier in generalIn terms of happiness, yes. Everyone is on equal grounds. But when it comes to rising up after a fall, it is the religious ones who has the most advantage.The explanation is simple: A believer has someone/something to turn to"Asking if you believe in God and then asking do you believe God or a higher power will net you different answers in population"uhhh...what? Both words yield the same meaning. Correct me if im wrong, though.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

We are just going in circles, it seems you haven't addressed any of my rebuttals you just restate your position. Evolutionary speaking there is no mystery why humans did so well. I gave explanations to how these things arose through natural selection but you havent addressed them. For instance you keep bringing things like humans lack of speed as one of your criteria but ignore that biologists and anthropologists note we were persistance hunters.Your position can be summed up with the idea of synchonicity or apophenia. That is your stance is based on sources of evolution you like and coincidences. I contest that they are not coincedences at all but explained through evolution. In science terminology matters and the wording of arguments is deliberate. Of course semantics matter when evaluating and interpreting; polls, blog posts and peer reviewed material.Semantics matter, if you cannot see the differences you may not be reading critically. Example, created for a purpose and left because it was beneficial are non synonymous despite you claiming they are. One implies creation and predetermined intent the other implies neither but that something is a result of something that was beneficial. The first statement deals in the pre tense of the occurance the second statement is post occurance.Further example is your wording with the claim from the blog post you gave. The author saying in general believers are happier than non believers is not supporting the claim of a non believer not being capable of as much happyness as a believer.Of course the wording on a poll would matter more than a blog post, polls should be held to a higher scrutiny. Polls must have a good design to help weed out liars and to better guage the error in responses. You state you dont see a difference in meaning between do you believe in god  and do you believe in god or a higher power despite the second term using or which is an inclusive (in this usage)term. I still do not see the relevancy of this poll though in the terms of proving a higher power either. It is ad populum at best and too general for an appeal to authority.It is best to get your scientific information from scientific sources and your religious information from religious sources.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

We are just going in circles,Precisely.I already told you; "It is impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested"I do not mind if you are willing to explore the debate. But bear in mind that it will be an exhausting adventureEvolutionary speaking there is no mystery why humans did so well. Oh, but there is mystery as to why other animals were unable to match us.For instance you keep bringing things like humans lack of speed as one of your criteria but ignore that biologists and anthropologists note we were persistance huntersBecause being persistance hunters only lasted until we invented agriculture. T is to say; the birth of civilization and modern man.The Homo Erectus has met the extintion that is was meant to face, but the Homo Sapiens, didnt because it learned how to settle, make shelter and farm. Something that is unique in the animal kingdom.That is your stance is based on sources of evolution you like and coincidences. I contest that they are not coincedences at all but explained through evolution.Practically the same argument.Both of us believe that Evolution was the result of need to adapt. Only difference is that I believe that there is a divine being planning the future and you dont.Simple argument, isnt it? But then, since our stance cannot be tested, we will not be able to make any progressOne implies creation and predetermined intent the other implies neither but that something is a result of something that was beneficial. So...both cases involves the same results.Its merely the background of belief that differs it. In the end, both speaks the same words of changing for the better goodOf course the wording on a poll would matter more than a blog post, polls should be held to a higher scrutinySo...in what way is that any different?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Evolution is testable, creationism is not. To say our positions are untestable is innacurate. Creationism tries to stand with evolution but will never be considered a theory because unlike evolution, it cannot be observed or tested. I assure you the two ideas are not equal in terms of science or philosophy. If your goal was to say there is a god by showing a need for one with evolution your argument falls short. The argument you put forth depends on limited knowledge of evolution and innacurate framing of the scientific theory. To hold your stance yourself is fine but to convince someone else with it I think it falls short. Perhaphs I am not the target audience with my background and aim. My goal when debating is to find the best possible position, to do this you need to evalute all the evidence you can. You seem to be holding a position and are fine with it despite information at your disposal that says other than what you claim. Where you say there are mysteries there are evolutionary reasons to explain them. There is no need for divine intervention, evolution works without it.Not trying to be rude but your knowledge on evolution is limited and it hurts your argument. Having an untestable position is not strong, just untestable.Your continuation of neglecting the importance of semantics, especially in discussing scientific ideas, is problematic to your understanding of scientific theories. I noted the change in meaning the words conveyed but you insist the end result is the same. This ignores that only one of the statements is supported by evolution theory and thus evidence. Being designed or having predetermined intent is not supported by the theory of evolution. Creationism tries to piggyback on evolution but fails as unlike evolution it is neither testable or observable. Your statement does not hold true to what evolution claims. Framing creationism claims as the theory of evolutions does not lend credence to ID.It is best to evaluate claims using their specific wording or you run the chance of creating a strawman argument.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Evolution is testable, creationism is not.I agree. But that is not our argument.Our argument is Intelligent Design vs Natural Selection. It's an old debate that not once has ever made progress. And I doubt that it could ever be.No matter on which angle you look at, this debate will never amount to anything more than a play of words.I noted the change in meaning the words conveyed but you insist the end result is the same.So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Our argument is Intelligent Design vs Natural Selection. Natural selection is a process in evolution that can be observed and tested. Now you are comparing an idea (ID) to part of a theory in evolution.I actually jumped in because I saw some of your claims misrepresent evolution 'seeking' things. Even in your last rebuttal you seem to not understand evolution as you now claim it 'favors' something. Evolution is an idea that you seem keen on anthropomorphizing.We started talking about evolution and you insisted on ID being a better choice.So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result?I noted it changes the 'how' part of why it works. I also noted the tense of the examples, one being pre change with intent involved one being post change with no intent. Only one of the statements is supported by evidence the other is just a assertion with no proof. This is an example of the Gettier problem (tangent, not associated with our discussion).You are asking questions to things I have already outlined of why I disagree. This is just a continuation of you showing me you haven't mulled anything I said over. I have been pretty explicit where I disagreed with you and why, to which you have said nothing. You have not read applied my rebuttals to your arguments or you would not have kept restating them without addressing my points.Example is you talked about how humans should not have been able to outdo animals, then you just say animals should have outdone humans. My refutation fits both of your assertions as it is just the same assertion.You can reread all of our discussion if you want but I really see no reason for me to participate based on your lack of understanding of the criteria and your lack of critical reading of the discussion.