azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3w-o1X4tLI&t=405s
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

I'm quite familiar with William Lane Craig and his arguments. Let me begin by pointing out that nearly all of his public debates begin with him stating that he will not attempt to support the Christian God, or the Bible. And yet, he identifies as a Christian. From there he can be counted upon to dive into the Kalam Cosmological Argument which fails from the very beginning, and thus provides a false conclusion. The argument begins by putting forth the following premises;1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;2. The universe began to exist;It is then claimed that the universe therefore has a cause. But the premises are faulty from the very start. Science holds that the universe - as we know it - began to exist about 13.72 billion years ago through an event known as Big Bang. But Big Bang doesn't begin with a state of nothingness. There are several flavors of Big Bang Cosmology, each of which starts with a singularity, or brane worlds, or the component of what we might consider to be "nothing", which gives it weight. And this weight property of nothingness has been fully confirmed. What has not been confirmed is that a true state of nothingness - devoid even of weight - can actually exist. Attempts at producing such a state have all failed, with virtual particles popping into and out of the produced void, at a frantic rate.Big Bang is not a creation event. It is a transformation event known as a "phase transition". Nothing comes into existence from non-existence and we have no evidence whatsoever of any state of absolute nothingness. This is an imaginary state which exists in the minds of theists, simply to allow them to proclaim that their God has actually done something. So Craig (who is borrowing an argument), is ignoring the fact that we have no examples of creation, no evidence of creation, and that creation itself would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.His argument - which you have borrowed - therefore fails the test of logic. It fails on both premises. Why must something have a cause, simply because it begins to exist? And how can anything begin to exist? It's nothing more than an appeal to magic. And why would this only apply to things which BEGIN TO EXIST? That's a bit of special pleading - which again is an appeal to a fallacy.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

We've got similar names, is that an indication we might have similar ideologies?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

That's not really likely. My name comes from an nick-name given to me by an old girlfriend (about 24-years ago). She called me "Beasttie", and it was meant as an affectionate term. When we broke-up was about the time Internet was becoming available and when I signed up, I needed a name as an online presence. So I shortened it to "Beastt" with absolutely no religious connotation. I was a theist at the time, as was she. But of course, when theists find they have no rational argument to the points I raise, they instantly try to point to the name, which makes as much sense as trying to associate the names they pick with comic book characters.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Oh cool, nice to know the history of your name, and I certainly get the last sentence of your argument.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Or we could just start off by addressing the obvious.https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

You're making a bad assumption. As I've explained, my online name has NOTHING TO DO with theism, and I adopted that name (or rather, it was given to me), by a theist when I was a theist. So perhaps you should try addressing the original points I made, and/or further arguments since that point.For example; the first challenge simply provided a video where William Lane Craig is borrowing the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It begins with the premise that all things which begin to exist have a cause.They do? How do we know this? What logic brings us to that conclusion? In reality, the only logical conclusion is that nothing begins to exist. It may transform, but it either exists to begin with, or it doesn't. So the first premise is based entirely on a conjectural condition, for another conjectural condition. It cannot therefore be considered to be logical, it's simply made up out of imagination. Everything else in the KCA unfolds from that failed premise, leading the entire argument to crumble.So perhaps I can entice you to respond to that, rather than inaccurate assumptions about names used as an online presence?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

I agree that this 'William Lane Craig' is a hair's breadth away from total lunacy, and when you see him debate you can not help hating the guy. You have to stop watching so that you can calm down enough to not want to slap him across the face with a stocking full of shite. Atheism is, by far, the most logical stance.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

And if you've watched enough of WLC's debates, you begin to notice that he's been using the same argument for nearly all of his debates, for more than 20-years. It seems to soothe the nerves of theists, but it's a failed argument from the very first premise. One has to consider that he's apparently intelligent enough to realize that the argument fails on the logical arena, and is simply continuing to utilize it because he has nothing else to offer, and it makes him almost a folk hero among theists who have no interest in the logic (or lack thereof), and focus only upon the bias he presents... which appeals to them.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

I don't know about WLC, but what is the problem with this argument?"Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.The universe began to exist.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence."The point here seems to be that if the universe did in fact begin to exist, it didn't just poof here out of nothing. So what is your problem with the first premise, that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"? You say it is a failed argument from the very first premise.So what is the problem with this premise?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Hello b:Being logical is like being pregnant.. You either ARE, or you're NOT.. Believing, all by itself, is logical.. It's what humans do. WHAT one believes in is another matter.. excon
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

To clarify, when we choose beliefs, they should be on the basis of the objective evidence - all known objective evidence. Theists, however, have been taught that they should choose evidence on the basis of their beliefs, rather than choosing their beliefs on the basis of evidence.And that kind of disingenuous methodology can lead to the support of any claim. As an example, they could decide that Christians are less likely to develop cancer. Since the statistics don't bear that out, they simply reject the statistical evidence. Instead they list a number of Christians they know personally who haven't had cancer, and try to find the names of some atheists who have. And because that selective evidence agrees with their pre-conceived conclusion, they accept it. This is exactly what flat-Earthers do, and they're nearly all simply cult-member spin-offs of Christianity. But that's another topic.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

To clarify, when we choose beliefs, they should be on the basis of the objective evidenceSo you say.. But, whether the evidence IS objective is the subject of another debate.. That one BELIEVES, no matter what it IS that they believe in, is what humans do, and is highly logical..excon
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

And yet science has no difficulty separating objective evidence from subjective evidence. Objective evidence is that which is demonstrably tied to that for which it serves as evidence. Subjective evidence is that which must have an interpretation applied which can be seen as either supportive, or non-supportive.Sadly, religion teaches people to adhere only to subjective evidence (unless objective evidence supports their stance), and to appeal to emotional biases above all else. That's really what "strong faith" is; holding to an emotional bias above all objective and rational arguments to the contrary. It's a vow to dishonesty and a lack of objectivity.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Hello again, Beastt:You're telling me WHAT they believe is illogical, and not whether believing it, in and of itself, is logical.. You're the one who set the parameters of the debate. I'm just trying to answer it...If you wanna start another one entitled, "Is religion illogical", then let's do it.. But, that's NOT what this debate is about..excon
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Yes humans believe all sorts of things , it doesn't follow that how they came about believing was through highly logical thought processses
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

I don't believe you can speak about all theists. Why do you attack the most superstitious of the theists? It is a reflection of your own superstition. This is what you think God is.The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God. There is nothing else you can be more sure of existing.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

That humans believe is not proof that it is logical to do so, anymore than humans being illogical would be logical just because it's what we do.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Atheists say there is no other material other than the physical. I only feel air(heavy enough to feel), you add hydrogen and it becomes heavier ; water, add colour it has more physical material definition.But are there substances lighter than air? yes.Well, is that the limit? who knows?I know. The faster a body radiates/vibrates,(such as boiling and evaporation), gradually it loses some amount of physical opaque qualities to translucent, transparent, then invisible.There are conscious intelligent beings radiating at high speeds even escaping light and they have their own light like a glow worm.That is the level of body speed they were made naturally.However, they have control over their speed.They can penetrate or stay in any slower radiating material like walls,trees, animals/human bodies, plastics, woods etc.If they slow down over 2000 times their radiation speed, we will see them. Yet they will still be stronger than us.Yes they also feel slow at times if they choose to ignore the human nature because they are able see each other too as in a state of solid enough for them to attack each other just like humans are slow enough for each other.I feel radiation in my body, don't you?It increases when you are usually angry.In this situation of faster radiation, you turn to be stronger, faster than how you usually react.You smash, lift,push etc heavy things you couldn't have if you weren't angryThe human body happens to be one of the most slowest radiating mateials in the universe. If light is faster than our slow radiating eye balls, how can we see what is faster than light especially if it's a concious entity of higher intelligence than man.The human body is an earth space suit.Human ourselves are like them but can come to self realisation if we achieve astral projection and we will be unlimited in abilities except to one, the creator with a stronger material.We penetrate and stayed in a slower radiating material we call our bodies(full of filthy sweetness that weakens our real selves)Our real selve strength tries to show up when we get angry.We should study light, and advancement of cameras.The more intelligent should further advance to astral projection.Atheism isn't logical
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Atheists dont say there is only the physical. They say there is only the NATURAL. So yes there are substances lighter than air. but theyre natural substances. We test these things with science. All you did was list off a bunch of natural processes and their natural properties. How is that evidence for the supernatural?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Ok you are arguing based on book knowledge which is mostly true(yaay!! mummy will be proud of you), but primitive to my experience(not me alone) and knowledge(i don't how many others know in common).
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

If by "book knowledge" you mean the entire wealth of human knowledge amassed to date then that is all there is. Prove theres such a knowledge beyond that. Youre just claiming anecdotal bullshit at that point unless you demonstrate otherwise.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Even before your book knowledge came into books, it was experimented and proven in the lab with the necessary factors available.Does createdebate have a laboratory?Why do you idiots keep asking for proof over a debate site?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Are you claiming that its not possible to cite the work of other scientists? What the hell are you even arguing at this point?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

If i cited a scientists work then isn't that book knowledge??....a scientist guided by traditional books doing regular traditional experiments....how special can his/hers be compared to the others!?!; that i would be wasting precious time boasting about here on CD?I am talking about experiences and observations i didn't know i will need accounting for in the future which is today(or tomorrow which never comes), so i didn't bother suming up/compiling hard material evidence(site, taste, feel etc) for and even if i had known i wasn't equiped, i couldn't have afforded and i don't even believe such equipments for that particular measurement has been invented(Necessity is the mother of invention)....
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

If i cited a scientists work then isn't that book knowledge??Yeah PROVEN book knowledge. You act like a fact loses its "truthfullness" as soon as its transferred onto paper as writing. Uh, no. If i drop this bottle i have then gravity will make it drop.Oh look it dropped. Me typing that didnt change that fact. ....a scientist guided by traditional books doing regular traditional experiments....how special can his/hers be compared to the others!?!;If by traditional you mean by the scientific method then why the fuck would you want it any other way?This statement shows me you have no fucking clue how science works or what the scientific process even is. that i would be wasting precious time boasting about here on CD?I am wondering why youre wasting precious time that could be spent researching what the fuck youre talking about.I am talking about experiences and observations i didn't know i will need accounting for in the future which is today(or tomorrow which never comes), so i didn't bother suming up/compiling hard material evidence(site, taste, feel etc) for and even if i had known i wasn't equiped, i couldn't have afforded and i don't even believe such equipments for that particular measurement has been invented(Necessity is the mother of invention)....I honestly read this twice and cant figure out what the honest fuck youre talking about. All i can say is not presenting hard evidence is a good way to have people doubt you. And theyd be right to do so. "book knowledge" from scientists that you previously complained about always has that hard evidence. Not only that but its peer reviewed and experiments are tested and re verified repeatedly. If what youre presenting cant match that then your beliefs can go take a fuckin hike as far as im concerned. Im trying to find out what is true and that requires rigorous testing and retesting and debunking. Not "i didnt bother suming up/compiling hard material" because "tomorrow never comes"whatever the fuck that even means
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

So what about God isn't natural? What about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality isn't natural?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

God is by definition supernatural. If you cant measure it, observe it, detect it, quantify it, ect. it aint natural. Also ive thoroughly debunked your "supreme and ultimate reality" concept. But yes, it is natural. Because its entirely indistinguishable from just "reality". And reality is the natural world around us. Which is by definition natural.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Saying you've thoroughly debunked something doesn't mean you've done anything.Anyone can say that. I say you're wrong. Does your word carry more weight than mine? You can claim to appeal to argument, but I could claim the same thing. I am not appealing to argument though, I am appealing to The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and there is no meaningful argument against this.The Supreme and Ultimate Reality obviously exists, and I believe this is apparent when you understand what those words mean when they are strung together. The essence of reality is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. If there is reality at all, God is necessary.You not being able to see this does not make it any less true.Saying "If you can't measure it, observe it, detect it, quantify it, etc." has little to do with being natural. In fact, one could argue that many of these processes are in fact ARTIFICIAL.So what are you disagreeing on fundamentally?You have an aversion to God because of how you see it being used. You have an aversion to God because you can't get passed things like culture and representations of things. Oddly enough, you claim to not have this problem with the concept of "reality" even though it has been misused in the same way.So what are we disagreeing about? I don't share your aversion. I don't share your aversion because I see how the aversion to God is actually worse than coming to terms with God. Homicide cures cancer though, right? You can treat dandruff by decapitation, right?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

"It does when I indeed have and we both know it."It is impossible from an epistemological standpoint for you to make this judgement.You're an idiot.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Atheists say there is no god. Everything else you've added is extraneous and not inherent to the position in the least.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning. In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily conducive to survival. In other words, truth only promotes survival under certain circumstances. I would add that a complex knowledge of physics and philosophy does not promote survival in any way. I would even posit that it does the opposite. So why should we trust our 'cogent' arguments? Maybe we should not. However, if we choose to trust our reasoning, it should be to reason that God exists, because the predicate for studying the stars was in order to apprehend God's works. Is it reasonable to dissociate our reasoning of the universe from the presupposition that God exists? I think not. After all, the scientific movement would likely not have happened without a religious foundation. Thus, reasoning would not have developed if not for theism. A common argument proposed by atheists is that the universe can be derived from nothing. I find this to be a straw man, because to make this argument, one must redefine nothing to mean condensed anti particles and particles. This is clearly not nothing. I would propose that God fills the role well as the first cause, because he, hypothetically, is immaterial and timeless. Only a being beyond time could create time, and only a being beyond space could create space. Moreover, the argument that something came from nothing creates the problem of infinite regression. What created that 'nothing.' If that can be answered, what created that? All of this being said, science should still be approached from an atheistic perspective, and values should not be imposed on large masses with little or no basis for the assumptions that they are founded on. But this is predominantly a metaphysical argument, and thus it goes beyond mere science.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoningYou laughable halfwit. Theism is predicated on reason in the same way that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are predicated on reason. Making shit up because you can't explain the reality you live in is the opposite of reason, dopey.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

In which religious book is santa claus?.....You are a really bad act at the pretence of an intelligent debater.Keep practising.......you might get there
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

You are so stupid.First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning.All reasoning is subjective. Humans arbitrate reasoning. All evidence points to this. There is no evidence to the contrary. In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. It isn't arbitrarily determined. Biochemistry naturally makes complex molecules.You are just rambling bullshit. All of it.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

While I'm sympathetic to your argument that, vis a vis an evolutionary standard, we may not always want to be reasonable... that does not mean that it is atheism is illogical. It just means that if atheism is logical then it may not always be in our interests to be atheists.As for your claim that reasoning would not have developed if not for theism, that's an incredible stretch. Reasoning is a separate cognitive process from the faith disposition, and while they may interrelate there's no inherent causal relation supported by any evidence.