azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

Well I have to say the debate was poorly constructed, a lack f belief or being unconvinced can't be true or false, the reasoning behind not believing something can be (I.E. there is no logic or evidence to support it). I won't get nitpicky with the debate construction though cause I'd rather argue what he meant. Though I assume it means God's nonexistence is equally probable to God's existence, so if I were to bet money it wouldn't matter right? See this is how my point still applies it is unlikely that a god exists if the only reasoning is that God can't be disproven, because majority of things that can't be proven or disproven would contain everything that we could possibly imagine, that would refer to dragons, fairies, etc, basically if only a few of these things are likely to be true then God has a 1/X chance of existing, with X being a very big number. If I claim something completely out of the blue for seemingly no reason, Iam unlikely to be correct for the same reason they it would be nearly miraculous for someone to imagine a chicken before ever hearing or discovering a chicken (or anything closely similar). If I make up a creature, let's say the seven eyed purple monster, I'm unlikely to be correct. Same applies to bertrands teapot, their is no origin of this idea it unlikely to be true. Everything is unlikely until more evidence is introduced.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

Yeah I get your point.I thought the topic was pretty dumb as well when making my first post, but I was trying to come up with something that would appeal to the others lol. x)
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

It's funny I'm actually really well known on the topic of gods existence, though I am trying to get more involved in other topics sadly, I find myself really only having much to say on philosophy and thats it.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

I don't think it's possible to ascribe probability to these sort of things. For all we know there's nothing influencing the chance of God being there or not. We could assume that arguments change the probability of a supreme being, but then again, when does talk ever change the likelihood of an event? We don't know anything about a potential metaphysical plane where God supposedly 'lives', so it's inherently impossible to say anything about probabilities. From our perspective it may look like a 50/50 proposition, but that would be arguing from ignorance.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

I believe you posted on the wrong side?
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

Well neither side really represented my view. What I wanted to was deny the possibility of answering the question. I thought that sounded more like I was tilting towards the no side, but I don't know.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

I have a magical, wise dinosaur in my back yard that grants my every wish. Do you accept that claim as likely true as false? Can you prove I don't have a magical dinosaur?Well let's say you try.You ask to see the Dino and I say "He is right there on the lawn but only I can see him" , still 50/50 odds of being true?So you turn on the sprinklers to see if the lawn under the Dino stays dry but the whole lawn gets wet. "I say the Dino is not just invisible but also without substance" Still 50/50?So you ask if I am willing to tell the Dino to grant your wish of winning this week's lotto and I say "Yes I will tell the Dino to grant your wish". When you don't win I say "The Dino works in mysterious ways. He sometimes grants wishes in the future or does not grant the wish at all but he is wise and so knows best" Still 50/50?After many, many attempts like this with no proof of any kind you ask "How can you believe in this invisible, magical Dino when you have no evidence that he exists?" I say "When I talk to the Dino about my problems I feel better afterwards". You accept that but does it make the reality of the Dino 50/50?If you answer is that it is still 50/50 then you are really saying that you can accept anything that someone tells you so long as they are sincere in their belief. It means that antibiotics and a medicine dance are the same, so long as the person providing the medicine is sincere in their belief that it will cure your child's infection.It means that words and actions are equal. It means that the person who thinks they can fix you car but doesn't is the same as the person who actually fixes your car.When it comes to everyday things, people know that actions matter much more than words. They prefer the reality of a burger that tastes good over a burger that is advertised as "world famous". They prefer to pay the mechanics who actual fixes their car over one who does not fix it but says "I'm the best mechanic". They prefer to spend time with folks who act friendly rather than spend time with people who say they are your friend, but only rip you off.Atheism is poorly defined as "Not believing in God" when it should be defined as "I only believe in things with properties that can be observed". We don't have to understand how gravity works to accept that falling down hurts.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

atheism does not claim anything.................................
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

I don't understand your question. Atheism isn't anything at all, it's just used to describe a lack of belief in something, you cannot be wrong about something if you do not believe or disbelieve in it.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

My question was basicslly - God may as well exist, as he may not. If that explains it any better..
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

I'm guessing, with all the contradictions and logical conundrums of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god that he simply cannot exist if anything. Of course, I could be wrong.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

I never said a christian God .. simply .. a supreme being .
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Okay, so which one(s) of the four would that entail?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

I don't understand, what do you mean? Which four ?
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

1) Omnipotent2) Omnipresent3) Omniscient4) OmnibenevolentWhich one(s) define a supreme being?
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

Would this supreme being have to be one of those?He could be an evil, powerful (not all powerful, just powerful), mortal and forgetful being, or what?
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~That's why I asked you to define it for me.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

You didn't exactly ask that, but whatever :)
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What I'm trying to ask you is how you would define this supreme being.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

Why? I don't believe in it.I'm just saying there MIGHT be one, and if there is one, I have no idea how or what it is, so I'm not going to define anything.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Then it was silly of me to assume that you do :/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

Wipe away everything you've heard about the supposed god.Just think of being that created all of this and set it in motion.Nothing more nothing less. You would call this creator God.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

What logical conundrums?
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

lol, can god make a rock so big that he/she cannot lift it?
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

Can God do the logically impossible, such as making a married bachelor? If not, then there is nothing wrong, since omnipotence has classically had a maximum up to the ability to not do the logically impossible: that means that God cannot contradict Himself by making a rock bigger than He can lift. If so, then He can do the logically impossible and, thus, can make a rock bigger than He can lift and be able to lift it. So, tell me: what logical conundrums are there with God?
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shit, it looks like you win :D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

Atheists appeal mainly to science. Science has no actual way of proving that something without a clear definition does not exist.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

This is to put to rest the bullshit 50/50 argument im hearing. You cant even assign odds to this kind of thing but if you could it sure as hell wouldnt be 50/50 even. You can strip ANYTHING down to its bare either/or but that makes it inaccurate. in this video they use the example of winning the lottery. The chances of winning are 1 in 74,000,000. But you can just say oh you either win or you dont its 50/50 win or dont win. But that isnt even close to true because the REAL probability is 1 in 74,000,000. please watch
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

Script starting from 6:15 "What are the odds of it and how likely it is to there be an afterlife. One of the things we consider is what are there that can possibly live on after my death. Because as far as we know, every function of who I am and what I am and what I do, all of my thoughts and everything else which we know, dies.And in order for there to be an afterlife. There must be something there that is me. That is separate from the physical being. And theres no evidence there is no such thing exist""But there you have an example of something scientifically. If you really wanted to find the reality of this out, heres maybe something that we could live for and we could try to find that""If we did find something that would qualify as a soul or some entity or some good reason that could survive the physical death. Only then will the afterlife speak of something more probable. But as long as then, the probability of an afterlife is vanishingly small""As long as we can explain all of who we are and what we are with our brain then theres no possibility of anything like the soul and theres no basis to make any claim about anything like an afterlifeWhich is why I think the odds are low".The whole video gave no mathematical equation about the odds of an afterlife. Just a couple of atheist giving their message that there is no evidence for a metaphysical worldWhich as everyone knows...is a tired argument
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

There cant be a mathematical probability for this. My argument is against the fact that it is an exact 50/50. Nothing more nothing less. and this video illustrated it perfectly. Theres nothing more than pure faith that there is a god/afterlife, whereas science has actual evidence against an afterlife and against supernatural causation of the universe which gives us not proof, but at the very least good reason to lean in that direction, thus tilting the odds in favor of atheism/science and away from religion. Not 50/50.And how can you say that us saying theres no evidence for a metaphysical world is a tired argument if its never been refuted? Just because you might hear it alot doesnt make it any less true
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

If there is no formula for it, added by how we cannot study it, then I see no reason why it cant be a 50/50There is a difference between motion and moving. A rocking chair never leaves it place.-AnonymousIt is a tired argument when you kept on hearing the same things over and over without reaching any conclusions
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

If there is no formula for it, added by how we cannot study it, then I see no reason why it cant be a 50/50The first half of that statement is the reason why -_-
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

Its a reason why not to believe. I cannot see how the chances is not 50/50
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

Honestly I don't see Atheism as being more likely than Theism. I mean, unless you can concretely prove a god doesn't exist, I'm not about to hop on the bandwagon of sheep who claim to be intellectuals solely because they are 'enlightened'. And before someone thinks I'm dissing atheism exclusively, I've met just as many, if not more so, idiotic people on the religious side of the argument as well.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: True

I don't believe you believe what you just wrote. It is easy to say this, but can you live it in your real life? Would you buy magic beans from me if I told you they would grow into a new car? Can you prove they won't?You could buy them and plant them and have nothing grow, but that doesn't disprove that they will grow a new car. Maybe you didn't fertilize them properly, or water them enough, or maybe watered them too much. Maybe the soil has the wrong PH. I can provide an excuse for as many objections you raise and you still won't have disproved the magic beans.The point is that you wouldn't buy magic beans to grow a new car because you live in the real world and have learned that cars don't grow from magic beans.In the real world, where you have to choose to spend your money on magic beans or on other real things, you would require proof of my extraordinary claim. You would expect me to plant some beans so you could watch them grow into cars. And you would expect a refund if your beans failed to grow into new cars after following my growing instructions. Theism offers not poof and no refunds. So do you really accept things without any proof of them being real so long as there is no concrete proof of them being unreal?
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

Seems you didn't understand a word I said. Sorry for using big words on you.
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

not they do not, same as existence of smurfs is not 50-50 gods are not 50-50
Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

Equal chance? Hell no. No religion has any provable God, and the Atheist automatically wins in that regard, because he has to do nothing to be right.The only way to make an Atheist wrong is to change the definition around and claim that "God" is simply what came before "[X] known entity", thus being a "creator".Common accepted definitions make Atheism right by default, until proven otherwise.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Hate to say it but yeah. Think about it from our perspective. Its like being in a math class, and you're the only kid who understands 2+2=4. But every single other kid in the class does not. They keep asking questions and holding up the class, and many even assert that 2+2=5 or 15 or 167. It gets frustrating.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Your analogy is wrong both Atheists and Religous types think they are right but it is impossible to prove either is right or wrong apart from the odd point here and there.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I don't see how that makes my analogy wrong. I wasn't making it to show how things really are, but this is to show how atheists feel in the world, applying to the debate question of tolerance. I know that the analogy doesn't reflect how things actually are, it reflects how atheists feel in reguard to religious tolerance.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

It's because your equating believing an idea which as of yet has no more proof Behind it than its counter part to being the only one in a math class to understand some thing that can be proven. Simply put 2+2=4 can be proven "god doesn't exist" and "god dose exists" can't be proven therefor your argument is invalid.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

It was an analogy for how atheists FEEL, not what the argument is in reality.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Well I've meet a lot of theists (my self not included) that feel the same way about atheists so basically you jus admitted to being no better
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Good for you? And did i say we were better? Though come to think of it, we actually are. Because we can then back what you see as "snobbyness" with EVIDENCE, and LOGIC, and REASON. You know, that kind of stuff.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

EVIDENCE? What evidence? LOGIC AND REASON? It dose not seem logical or reasonable that given all the things that could go wrong that this world, the human race, and every thing else was created by complete random chance
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

So random natural processes are SOOOOO ABSURD. But a magical sky daddy poofing things into existence as well as every other ridiculous thing in the bible being true is more likely? Please. A god is illogical, therfore it is logical not to believe in him.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I'm saying that the chances that a planet will form that is able to support life are so astronomically small that it seems almost overly simplistic to just chalk it up to random chance. And the bible is historical account of actual events but written in a way that our ancestors could understand it given their relative lack of scientific knowledge when compared to us.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Let's say that the odds for any given planet are 1 in a billion, that does not sound very good. 0.0000001%But, if you have a billion planets, the probability that at least ONE has life becomes:1 - (999,999,999 / 1,000,000,000)^1,000,000,000(the fraction is raised to the billionth power)1 - 0.36788... = 0.63212So, despite the low odds for life on a single planet (one in a billion), the probability for life climbs to 63.2% if you have a billion planets available.For 4 billion, it becomes 98.2%astronomically small? Hardly. We KNOW there are billions of planets. Easy. There are billions of GALLAXIES for crying out loud. The bible is a historical account? Barely. It is very inaccurate in many ways:http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm And even if it was, so what? It tells us history, okay, does that mean that everything it said about god is true? Not at all. We know creation is absolutely false. Because of this it makes god obsolete. What's the point of a god if we know he didnt make us/anything? He becomes pointless. It is doubted jesus ever existed and even if he did he was a regular man, and at best, a wise man whos teachings were elaborated by man as things always are to the point that they became myth. That's it. Myth.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Jesus never existed? That statement is pretty well miss proven by the existence of Christianity why would there be a global religion about some one who never existed? Creationism is just a simplified description of intelligent design remember our ancestors weren't as smart as us. And the whole 1 in a billion and there are a billion planets thing dose not dissprove god if any thing it reinforces the idea because why was earth that 1out of a billion
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Wicca has no holy book yet it exists. So did Greek mythology, and Egyptian. People make things up. Creation could only be known BY god. He didn't tell anyone else. So how did people know anything about Adam and Eve and how he created anything? They couldn't have.Because we're lucky? Think about it, if a planet was naturally created through natural processes over time to the point where is has life. What would the inhabitants of such a planet be thinking? Exactly what you are. Trying to equate supernatural examination with things that naturally happen because the mind can't comprehend them. We could easily be on Zakglorg 7 or something if the Big Bang repeated itself. It's chance. But there are waaaay more than just 1 billion planets. There's trillions potentially, making the percent chance of just 1 having life sustaining characteristics 99.99999% guarenteed. There's probably hundreds if not thousands of planets like ours than can sustain life, were really not special.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Well you can say random chance as that is what makes seance to you and I will say god because that's what makes seance to me.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

This is my example. This is why "we cannot prove or disprove there is a god" is asinine. We have logic for a reason, we need to use it more.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

This logic is completely backwards. This is the exact opposite of how theists and atheists think. Religious people can't agree on what they believe. With all of the different religions, and all of the different sects of the different religions it is ridiculous to believe that everyone in the class believes 2 + 2 = 4
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Let me clairify. Lets say 2+2=4 is atheists. And anything other than 4 is theists. So they all can believe different things like 35, or 67, ect. But are all wrong.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

So by simple virtue of holding beliefs that differ from yours we now in effect can never be right? Wow that's a pretty intolerant thing to say. I mean considering how you are in fact excepting that god dose not exist with as little evidence to prove that he doesn't as we have that he dose. You guys can talk your shit about religion all you want but in reality your just like us.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

How is it intolerant? I dont care IF you believe this that or the other thing. Do whatever the hell you want. But if it is a supernatural belief in a deity it will be WRONG. Its that simple. I dont care if you believe it. I know i cant prove theres no god. But you cant prove there is one. The only thing that can be done is take a logical side based on what we can resonably say is more likely to be true based on evidence in which case NOT believing is more logical based on evidence against god and the LACK of ANY tangible decent evidence for him whatsoever.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I would consider your blatant rejection of my beliefs as illogical with absolutely no evidence to back that up as elitist and intolerant.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

My evidence in this matter is your lack of evidence. Atheism doesnt make the claim there is no god and neither do I. Theism on the hand (you included in that) does say there is a god. The burden of proof lies on you, not I. And it is your as well as the entire theistic communite's inability to provide such evidence that i can stand confidently on the atheism side of the religious question.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Theism is the belief in god atheism is the opposite of theism so there for its the senile of god