azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Ever consider that you're letting your emotional biases get in the way of critical, rational, and logical thinking? That tends to be the case with most religious people."Yes i have considered it.I try to look at both sides and see why that person whould say what they said.So no i am not letting my emotional biases get in the way of critical ,rational, and logical thinking. I have proof that is logical and rational so I know that God is real whether you believe it or not."You don't have all the answers so you take on the religion you were raised upon and conditioned from birth to allow yourself to believe that you do. Based on observation, you need some emotional crutch to get you through life by giving you a false sense of hope."First my parents are athiests so i was not raised from birth to believe this. The proof led me to believe this.Second, who has all the answers? I know you do not, and I know I do not. All I know is that it takes more faith to believe that God is not real then it is to believe that he is real. I also have proof that leans towards the side that he is real. Because I have proof, that means I am not using as you say it some emotional crutch. It has shown since you have not given me evidence, you are the sheep.So "my dear" maybe you are the one with the emotional crutch that has to get you through life by a false sense that God isn't real.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"I try to look at both sides and see why that person whould say what they said."Same." I have proof that is logical and rational so I know that God is real whether you believe it or not."I'm sure you believe you do. But being that you're female, you're more likely to give in to emotional thinking (opinion). You can never "know" that god exists. It's pure perspective. Some aspects of your bible may be accurate, but belief in god is nothing more than blind faith."it takes more faith to believe that God is not real then it is to believe that he is real."Quite the opposite. The most brilliant minds on planet, the true critical thinkers and geniuses, the ones that use logic and rationality more than any other mental tool at their disposal, have all turned out to be Atheistic. Coincidence? No"maybe you are the one with the emotional crutch that has to get you through life by a false sense that God isn't real."From your skewed perspective, maybe. But in reality, it's the opposite.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

This is really pointless because I "Know" what I "Know" and You "Know" what you "Know". "Quite the opposite. The most brilliant minds on planet, the true critical thinkers and geniuses, the ones that use logic and rationality more than any other mental tool at their disposal, have all turned out to be Atheistic. Coincidence? No"Have they really ALL turned out to be Atheistic? No. For example,Albert Einstein- Jewish and a great man. If you would like I can start looking up all the famous intelligent people in history that believed in God.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Have they really ALL turned out to be Atheistic? No. For example,I agree with you that he made a poor argument to say that all were and are atheistic. Absolutes are difficult to justify.However if you look at the statistics of religious affiliation and belief in god, you will find that the prominent scientists are a very high majority atheistic, or lean towards it.The conclusion therefore is either that knowledge and intelligence pushes away faith in the supernatural, or that religious thinking appeals to those with average intelligence more than scepticism and uncertainty, or both.Albert Einstein- Jewish and a great man. If you would like I can start looking up all the famous intelligent people in history that believed in God.It doesn't matter if you quote long-dead people who believed in god. As a matter of disclosure science is a relatively new enterprise and it has only been half millennium since the Church started to lose its grip over the minds and bodies of an entire civilisation. Listing people like Newton or Galileo is hardly appropriate because these men lived when very little was known that could rule out Church dogma, and besides this it was unfashionable to admit scepticism towards the faith in those days because you would either be ostracised from society or killed as a heretic or blasphemer.Albert Einstein was an Agnostic who believed in Spinoza's god of order in the universe.Oh, one other thing: it takes no faith to remain unconvinced of church doctrine. That is what atheism is, being unconvinced of theistic doctrine and dogma. It isn't faith any more than not believing in Santa is an act of faith.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"Albert Einstein- Jewish and a great man."Indeed a great man and a brilliant thinker. But was referring to the brilliant minds that are still alive today.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"This is really pointless because I "Know" what I "Know" and You "Know" what you "Know"."I agree. Almost all religious debates end this way it seems. Neither side is going to convince the other so why don't we just live and let live. I find it rather pathetic that people can't see past each other's religious views and how we let our religious perspectives dominate our lives. It causes nothing but dispute. We (as the human race) should be focusing on finding common ground and cooperating with one another rather than fighting over deities that may or may not exist. You do what you want but that's my 5 cents.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

" I find it rather pathetic that people can't see past each other's religious views and how we let our religious perspectives dominate our lives." Just how we let common theory dominate are life. Even though we cannot prove it we still let it dominate are lives. And I am talking about both of us.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"Just how we let common theory dominate are life. Even though we cannot prove it we still let it dominate are lives."Exactly. What use does it have in reality? Where does it get us? What does it obtain us? Nothing, it seems.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

When world being flat was proven to be wrong. Yet no one has proven the Bible to be wrong in all these years.Numerous things in the bible have been proven wrong, but most of the bible is unfalsifiable. In other words the bible contains statements that cannot be tested or subjected to verification.If you suggest inability to demonstrate errors somehow support infallibility you are either incredibly naive' or very self-deceptive. Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

You have committed the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum, or argument from popular appeal. What this means is that you claim your proposition, here the validity of the Bible, to be true because it is believed by a large number of people.This is similar to making the argument that Elvis is still alive because "fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong!" Because a large number of people believe something, this does not make it true. Many people believed the sun rotated around the earth, and now we know this is not the case. The amount of people believing a premise does not make it true.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

For centuries, people agreed that the world was flat, they were wrong.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

The bible is 100% true and all strong-minded people know it.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The bible is 100% true and all strong-minded people know it.There was no worldwide flood. We are related to animals, not created apart from them. People cannot arise from the dead or walk on water. Virgin births are not possible for humans. Stars cannot fall to earth. The earth is not flat. The earth is not resting upon pillars. God does not cause lightening. Demons do not exist to possess things.In other words, you're wrong.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

There was a worldwide flood their is an abundance of evidence for it. www.answersingenesis.orgWe are very different from animals i.e. societies, industries, relationships, and abstract thought. People can't walk on water, but Jesus can and did (Immanuel) God with us. A virgin can give birth when the Holy Spirit places our savior in her. The Bible says nothing of a flat world. Where are these fallen stars in the scripture?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

There was a worldwide flood their is an abundance of evidence for it.www.answersingenesis.orgAnswers in Genesis is not evidence. It is apologetics for theology which denies science. Calling it evidence is like calling Pravda "News."We are very different from animals i.e. societies, industries, relationships, and abstract thought.Those features are irrelevant to biology. Biology sorts life based on shape, genetic relationship, and sometimes geographic distribution. We are animals, we have animal cells, we eat organic matter to survive, we are able to move.People can't walk on water, but Jesus can and did (Immanuel) God with us.Jesus was a person and therefore could not walk on water. You already know this and are just repeating dogma to reinforce your beliefs because you know it's impossible.A virgin can give birth when the Holy Spirit places our savior in her.Parthenogenesis cannot happen in humans. This is impossible in human physiology.The Bible says nothing of a flat world.The bible implies a flat Earth when it says that there is a tree that one can see from any place on Earth, that a mountaintop can be tall enough to see all of Earth's societies, and that everyone will be able to witness Jesus' decent from the clouds on the second coming. It is rudimentary geometry.Daniel 4:10-11Upon my bed this is what I saw;there was a tree at the centre of the earth,and its height was great.The tree grew great and strong,its top reached to heaven,and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.Matthew 4:8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all thekingdoms of the world and their splendour;Revelation 1:7Look! He is coming with the clouds;every eye will see him,even those who pierced him;and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail.So it is to be. Amen.Where are these fallen stars in the scripture?Revelation.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Answers in Genesis uses the same science everyone else does. Read their reports (especially the technical ones). "Those features are irrelevant to biology. Biology sorts life based on shape, genetic relationship, and sometimes geographic distribution. We are animals, we have animal cells, we eat organic matter to survive, we are able to move." By this logic you are no different then your dog. Although a dog can't create a society with laws or travel to space. "Jesus was a person and therefore could not walk on water. You already know this and are just repeating dogma to reinforce your beliefs because you know it's impossible.""Parthenogenesis cannot happen in humans. This is impossible in human physiology."Like I said Jesus was God in the flesh, human restrictions wouldn't apply to him. Denying divine supernatural occurences does not defend your accusations of the Bible being incorrect. Daniel 4:10, 11 and 20, and Job 37:3. The Daniel passage is actually a statement by a pagan king, which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that view. And it is a vision, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s dream of cannibalistic cows and even cannibalistic ears of wheat (Genesis 41). And Job 37:3 hardly requires a flat-earth reading — it merely states that lightning occurs all over the earth. It is not his day in the first place. When Satan tried tempting Jesus, he offered Jesus something that was not his to offer (Matthew 4:8—all the kingdoms of the world). This is a symbolic vision not the reality. God is omnipresent so seeing him everywhere at once does not require a flat world. What verse do you refer to the fallen stars in revelation? As you should know revelation is a vision that John had, which has not yet come to pass.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Answers in Genesis uses the same science everyone else does. Read their reports (especially the technical ones). Answers in Genesis is pseudoscience, like flat-earth theory, geocentricism, HIV denialism, etc.All these bits of quackery masquerade as science but do not follow the scientific method.By this logic you are no different then your dog. Although a dog can't create a society with laws or travel to space. A dog has animal cells, eats organic matter, and can move. It is an animal. Try learning basic biology, particularly taxonomy, before you dispute it.Like I said Jesus was God in the flesh, human restrictions wouldn't apply to him. Denying divine supernatural occurences does not defend your accusations of the Bible being incorrect. If you need to resort to giving your item of dogma magic logic-defying and physics-defying powers then you have left the realm of rational discourse and have entered into insanity.In other words, you have proven the bible incorrect by giving characters portrayed in it impossible abilities.Daniel 4:10, 11 and 20, and Job 37:3. The Daniel passage is actually a statement by a pagan king, which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that view. And it is a vision, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s dream of cannibalistic cows and even cannibalistic ears of wheat (Genesis 41). And Job 37:3 hardly requires a flat-earth reading — it merely states that lightning occurs all over the earth.It is not his day in the first place. When Satan tried tempting Jesus, he offered Jesus something that was not his to offer (Matthew 4:8—all the kingdoms of the world). This is a symbolic vision not the reality.God is omnipresent so seeing him everywhere at once does not require a flat world. You are trying to discount the allegedly inerrant word of god. If it says that a you can see a tall tree from everywhere on Earth, then it is intended verily.What verse do you refer to the fallen stars in revelation? As you should know revelation is a vision that John had, which has not yet come to pass.http://bible.cc/revelation/6-13.htmAnd the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

You cannot site the bible as proof for the bible. That is like me saying "the sky is pink", and then when asked to cite a source, providing a story i wrote as a child in which the sky was pink.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

These things happen because of miracles by God so yes according to our faith people can walk on water etc. Also all creation comes through God, just because scientists have figured out how lightining works does not mean God does not decide when it will happen where it will happen. Stars probably just means meteor, they simply used the word stars, demons could posess things but are no longer allowed to, once the NT was completed, miracles of the "Miraculous" nature ceased to happen, things like walking on water etc. Now miracles all have to do with the saving of souls and other more personal things. This is supported by the Bible in case you're wondering.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

If you look on the other side of the page I have proof that there was a worldwide flood. People have heart attacks everyday and die and then come back again so technically people can rise from the dead. Also no where in the Bible does it talk about the earth being flat or the earth resting upon pillars so maybe you should READ the Bible before making accusations. So in other words, your wrong.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

If you look on the other side of the page I have proof that there was a worldwide flood.You didn't. You had speculation without evidence.People have heart attacks everyday and die and then come back again so technically people can rise from the dead.So these people are the son of god then? Death in my context means people who have undergone full body death, meaning the brain is dead as well as heart, and other organs. You cannot revive this.Also no where in the Bible does it talk about the earth being flat or the earth resting upon pillars so maybe you should READ the Bible before making accusations.It is implied in the text, when for example it describes mountaintops high enough to see all of Earth's civilisations, or a tree tall enough for everyone on Earth to see. Then one of the kings who described his visions, mentions that he rose above the dome covering Earth where god sits at the top. Then it describes that the earth has pillars, and is fixed, unable to move.You need to read your bible more. It is a flat earth, geocentric book.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"You didn't. You had speculation without evidence."That was evidence. "So these people are the son of god then?" No they are children of God like everyone else on this earth including me and you.(my opinion)"Then one of the kings who described his visions, mentions that he rose above the dome covering Earth where god sits at the top."First, give me the exact verse so i can explain it to you CORRECTLY.Second, there are many dreams to correct your term, in the Bible, that stand for something. They are not literal. Third, again no where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat.I read my Bible and I learn the about the dreams in the Bible because If you READ the Bible it explains in all the chapters the full reason of the dreams or "visions" as you say it.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Ace Ventura Pet Detective is a more believable story than the bible. Just because you were weak minded enough to be indoctrinated doesn't mean that the things you believe are true. You are not strong minded, you are the exact opposite, but you are stubborn...these delusions are so deeply ingrained that you will never accept you are being irrational. Even if it was 100% true...why would you want to revere your god? He is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

You obviously have never read a verse from the Bible. It is easy to say one who believes in a Creator is crazy. Yet you believe you were created from nothing. Who is crazy here?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Yet you believe you were created from nothing.No person of scientific disposition would believe that, as it blatantly contradicts the fact that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. We are matter, which is, simply put, energy waiting to happen. The atoms in your left hand, for example, consist of quantities of energy interacting with each other. This matter comes from the conversion of food which your mother ingested during her pregnancy with you. Thus, you were not created from nothing. This line of argument can only logically lead to you demanding evidence for the Big Bang theory, which I shall be happy to entertain in the morning. However, I anticipate that after I have evidenced Big Bang theory, you will ask what created that. I will say maximum potential. You will ask what created that. However, when I apply the same logic to your God ("If the universe needed a creator, so did God"), you will simply say MAGIC. The problem with my position is that it is rational, needing evidence to prove the fundamentals. Suffice to say, when you say MAGIC, I cannot simply say SCIENCE.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"No person of scientific disposition would believe that, as it blatantly contradicts the fact that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. We are matter, which is, simply put, energy waiting to happen. The atoms in your left hand, for example, consist of quantities of energy interacting with each other."We are not energy waiting to happen, we are energy in motion. This is true down to the atomic level. "However, I anticipate that after I have evidenced Big Bang theory, you will ask what created that. I will say maximum potential. You will ask what created that." And you say I believe in "magic" but you believe an unknown energy created matter. I will always challenge your first cause, especially since you merely speculate an obscure theory. "However, when I apply the same logic to your God ("If the universe needed a creator, so did God"), you will simply say MAGIC." That's where your wrong little one. God is beyond space, time, and matter. He is infinite and has always been. And with your logic, if something did create him that would mean something would have to created his creator as well. So, by your logic it would be a never-ending cyclical creation. To you this would make more sense? That is as ridiculous as creating life by random processes. All causes are connected to a first cause. If you want to change your scientific beliefs for the origin of matter that is your dispute. We will never agree on the origin of the universe. To say it has always been is absurd. Within science we know of the law of cause and effect. Science is factual and observable, not speculative. This is why we have laws. Theories are assumptions (apparently your favorite word 'of course that is an assumption') and much like the majority of your arguments obtrusive conjecture with no evidences. The only statement you have made with any valid evidence, is the fact your are mad.