azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Umm, no. You are trying to tell me that this PM is an intelligence that acts with intent. I am saying that we have no evidence of this, and am offering an alternative that is simpler and more open to investigative inquiry.Umm, yes. Your argument was rounding refuted, and you just moved the goal posts again. So I’ll just blow this nonsense off.  I'm not arguing that. Show me an atheist who is. What I'm arguing is that you jump a couple steps off the logical line by assuming additional traits without substantiation. Here's another question, to help highlight this: Let us assume that, yes, a God was indeed responsible for using the big bang to create the universe. Fine, then. But why is it imminently obvious that said entity still exists? What if it ceased to be during the Big Bang, or "died" at any point prior to now? How can you establish that he is still with us, influencing events by his will?Blah, blah, blah . . . what? Far as we can tell, the existence of energy is not subject to causality. Unlike matter, time and space and even the laws of physics, energy appears to have existed "prior" to the big bang. Energy, it seems, is at the core of everything that exists now. If we were to find God, it might be in energy. But energy shows know evidence of acting intelligently and with intent. Divinity is guessed at, not shown.Material energy of space-mass would arguably be subject to causality as physicists, philosophers and theologians have shown. But in any event, we’re getting into the realm of that which is unfalsifiable. We’re getting into the realm of metaphysics and the teleological. There’s no way of assessing whether or not any transcendent force/energy beyond the Big Bang were acting without intelligence or intent. Your statement is meaningless for reasons that apparently fly right over head.We can have an academic dick-measuring contest if you want, but we'd have to be reliant on the honor system, and you're better served by showing off your skills in rationality and persuasion than hiding behind ad hominems and bluster.That’s an incredible statement given that you think your atheism places you above the heads of ordinary mortals.You've been slinging around insults and being a multipurpose blowhard since before I jumped in. You've done a lot better on your first two responses to me, but your opening statements were seething with either rage or an exaggerated sense authority before I popped in. I'm just challenging you because it is good exercise, and have little emotional investment in the issue.No. I’ve just been laughing at the pseudo-intellectualism of atheism.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Umm, yes. Your argument was rounding refuted, and you just moved the goal posts again. So I’ll just blow this nonsense off. Bullshit. I didn't move the goal posts one inch. Long before you and I started this debate, or were even born, there was contention as to whether or not an intelligence was requisite for universal creation, or if it could have happened naturalistically without intent. Somehow you fail to identify that there is a difference between these two notions. If I had been arguing that the universe had arisen out of nothing, you would have more to stand on, but that has never been my contention. If you are arguing that intent is not part of the definition of God, then perhaps this conversation would better be served by you defining what you mean when you say "God". Blah, blah, blah . . . what?Come on now, this shouldn't be too hard to figure out. If you believe God is still alive and kicking, what is your reasoning? Your whole "irreducible primary (do you mean "primacy"?) of being" argument offers you nothing regarding God's actual nature. Again, if you are arguing a less-common concept of God than is usually presented, you should present your definition.  But in any event, we’re getting into the realm of that which is unfalsifiable.Oh NOW you care about falsifiability. Never mind that your whole belief system is plagued with unfalsifiability. There’s no way of assessing whether or not any transcendent force/energy beyond the Big Bang were acting without intelligence or intent.You believe this, yet repeatedly state that it is indisputably obvious that the universe was created by such a means. Has it never occurred to you how inconsistent your logic is? Your statement is meaningless for reasons that apparently fly right over head.If you are so sure of this, why not explain it. Your arrogance has yet to be supported by your displayed knowledge. That’s an incredible statement given that you think your atheism places you above the heads of ordinary mortals.No, I just think my thinking is clearer, more consistent and more supportable. By the way, have anything to offer regarding my other two responses?
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

“Long before you and I started this debate, or were even born, there was contention as to whether or not an intelligence was requisite for universal creation, or if it could have happened naturalistically without intent.”Right. Exactly. So what the beep?“Somehow you fail to identify that there is a difference between these two notions.”You’re out of your friggin’ mind. I’m guilty of no such failure. That’s precisely the distinction I made. Goal-posting again, eh? ”Your whole "irreducible primary (do you mean "primacy"?) of being" argument offers you nothing regarding God's actual nature.”No. I meant precisely what I wrote: “the irreducible primary of being relative to the problem of origin: (1) inanimateness or (2) consciousness. Period. The secondary concern of primacy would go to one or the other, depending on which of the two alternatives of the irreducible primary were the origin of all being. But you already know all that. You’re just goal-posting again, pretending not to understand, aren’t you? LOL! How lame. “Oh NOW you care about falsifiability. Never mind that your whole belief system is plagued with unfalsifiability.”Intellectual dishonesty. Fraud. Liar. Goal-posting. Behold the pathological depravity of atheism. I never argued that theological matters were subject to scientific falsification. You’re the only one who’s tried to argue that stupidity, albeit, to the negative. Theological considerations arise from certain axiomatic observations that reach beyond the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry. They’re not subject to the methodology of science. Instead, they’re subject to the universal rules of logic per the comprehensive expression of identity, and the ontological arguments of theology, which include the fundamentals of mathematical calculi and geometric forms, are not proofs of God’s existence, but proofs regarding the existence and the nature of the divine construct of origin, including the proof that the construct, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to infinite regression. The theological ontologicals are logically sound and cannot be rationally countered.”You believe this, yet repeatedly state that it is indisputably obvious that the universe was created by such a means. Has it never occurred to you how inconsistent your logic is?”Again, you lie. And you wonder why I treat atheists with such contempt. Recall. In that instance, you were speaking in the context of science, ya dolt. Hence, the context of my response is scientific. Non-empirical considerations about reality cannot be assessed scientifically. Such reside beyond the purview of science. If you’re not talking about empirical data, you’re not talking about science. The only one who keeps confounding this distinction is you, ya friggin’ retard. The logical inconsistency is yours, repeatedly yours, precisely because you can’t keep this obvious distinction in your mind for more than one brief moment at a time.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

So believing man was created from dust and women from ribs is perfectly rational?
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

LOL! We exist! So let's put things in their real context. Believing that a divinity exists, an intelligent Being greater than inanimateness, and is the Creator of all things apart from Himself is irrational, but believing that life magically arose from a non-living collection of mindlessness in the face of staggering complexities is perfectly rational, eh?Abiogenesis is pipe a dream, a fantasy. That’s your god. That’s your myth.http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/ 03/years-of-experience-have-shown-me-that_06.html
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

pipe a dream, a fantasy.says the person who thinks the earth become before the sun.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

LOL! And of course you’re talking about the near-eastern geocentric cosmology of the ancient Hebrews. Dude, Genesis is not a scientific treatise. It’s a theological treatise rendered in the ancient’s pre-scientific perspective of things. Yeah. Right. Like they would have had the first clue (given their primitive technology, which is to say nothing but their five senses) what God was talking about had He gone on about a heliocentric universe, the Newtonian theory of motion, general relativity, quantum mechanics, multiverse theory. . . . That’s a pretty lame comeback given that I obviously do not believe that. What are we now about 500 years into the post-Copernicus era? LOL! How's that abiogenesis (the new spontaneous generation of atheistic mythology) workin' out for ya?http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/ 03/years-of-experience-have-shown-me-that_06.html
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

atheistic mythologylooks like someone is trolling
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

you one of those people who think evolution isn't real because there is still apes?
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Are you one of those people without an argument? Looks like it.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Looks like you are one of those people.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

No. I'm not. I understand evolutionary theory very well. Do you have an argument beyond this point?
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Wrong. wrong and wrong again. we are not talking about deductive logic here pal. This is an a posteriori matter - it cannot be deductively solved! God's existence is not necessary. you're right - the possibility of his existence can't be denied. the same way that it can't be denied that a plane could crash into your home at any minute! the point is that it isn't likely! perhaps if you actually read what real intellectual atheists say then you will realise that they actually don't try to show that the idea of god is impossible. Only a fool would.Aside from you being utterly wrong, you've just gone way off topic. We're talking about Tolerance. Not stupidity.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Atheists lack common sense?Mankind, at it's birth, is alone and scared. The world is so large and they are so small, when they look into the night sky, they only see lights. They don't know what those lights are, either. Actually, they don't know a whole lot about anything.So, mankind decides, subconsciously, perhaps, to try to explain their world, define it. So, an idea from one, the idea that all mankind is protected by a larger force (God, for the sake of argument, because at this point in society, arguing that Zeus protects you is... outdated.) This force watches over mankind, says the man. People like the idea that their lives lie in the hands of a benevolent force, unseen and unheard, but always present. It gives them comfort. From there, many people spread the stories and as anyone who has every played "telephone" as a child knows, the stories get distorted through time until the same race that believed one thing so long ago now believe many different, but fundamentally similar, things (Christian vs Islam vs Judaism, essentially)Eventually, mankind's arrogance and fear come to a boil, resulting in wars over whose version of the same comforting tale is correct. Those men pray to their God for strength in proving their truths and slaughter each other over a story that was told thousands of years ago to comfort people.Fear bred Religion,We invented God.-common sense-edited for clarificationThat, by no means, implies that God is not important. I believe that mankind invented God as a place to house a Well of Courage that was, until then, inaccessible. For a time, God gave man strength. But, as a child will grow and leave the nest to make it on their own, I believe that mankind, as a whole, has seen enough and understands enough about our world to access the Well of Courage without the need for God to guard it. The time has come for man to take ownership of it's Well. It is time for mankind to be it's own Gods.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

You write: "We invented God."No we didn't. Common sense fail.The idea of God objectively exists in and of itself: it imposes itself on our minds in terms of origin without our willing that it do so. The irreducible primary of being is the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, and the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression. The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he denies there be any substance behind the construct.The idea of God is not a figment of human culture.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Do you mean to say that someone who was born on an island and had no contact with religion of any kind would believe immediately in God?I think not. The concept of a higher power is a construct of discussion between multiple people in order to explain the inexplicable.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

You write: “Do you mean to say that someone who was born on an island and had no contact with religion of any kind would believe immediately in God?I think not. The concept of a higher power is a construct of discussion between multiple people in order to explain the inexplicable.”Well, think again. And once again, this impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.Islands? Religion? Dialogue? 1. I exist. 2. The universe exists.3. Conscious entities, inanimate entitles.Any person of normal intelligence can readily apprehend the alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. There’s no mystery here.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

I can say, for certain, that before I was introduced to God through church, I had no concept of a God. Then again, I was raised on facts, produced by science. When i learned of God, I immediately and deeply believed He could not exist.When i learned that science couldn't answer all of the questions, I immediately believed it would, eventually.My mind wasn't poisoned by threats of eternal damnation until I was of sufficient mental maturity to see them as such. I was introduced to religion at an age when I was capable of deciding the truth or fallacy of it myself.Though i have always wondered HOW the universe came into being, I never once thought that a transcendental, all powerful being was responsible for it.The concept of God is a humanization of an unbiased natural force, the basest natural force whose identity can only be described as existence.When we humanized nature, we invented God.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Nonsense, the matter goes to origin. We did not invent God. Your denial of His existence proves that. You're being obtuse.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Please don't take this the wrong way but there is one little problem. Currently it looks like people, instead of taking ownership of the well, have decide to have government guard the well. They want the government to watch over them, protect them and take care of them. They see government as a benevolent force. Except that the government is not unseen and unheard, but it is always present. ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

The difference being that mankind's governments were invented as a way for the needs of the many to be looked after by a few individuals, who are also men. We have moved past the necessity of God's protection and begun to take care of ourselves.Perhaps my previous statement was too bold. I would like to retract to the point of mankind is on the brink of freedom and the time has come, in my opinion to take the societal plunge. We can protect ourselves now, we don't need daddy anymore. God has a way of telling mankind exactly what it needs to hear. We are now old enough to tell ourselves what we need to hear.Which, almost ironically, is how religion started. Man telling itself what it needed to hear.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

All I am saying is that:1. Government has replaced God.2. We need to get past the necessity of Government protection and begin taking care of ourselves.;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Damn right. Why the hell should I put up with their silly beliefs in my face all the time. If they want to go talk to an invisible man in the sky then fine, their business. But I don't want them in my self waving a Bible shouting "Repent!" I don't go around with a Darwin fish around my neck waving The Origin Of Species at people saying " No, THIS is the truth."
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

You should repent for that comment. Otherwise, you are going straight to hell. ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Of all the deciding things that will send me to hell, this is not even on the top 1,000 :) But being a perfectly kind human being, simply not following the laws of their silly superstitions can send you to an eternity of pain, shows you what a crap religion it is!Oh well, see you there Joe :L
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Damn right I'll be there. Who else can make your life hell. ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

But on a serious point, if you think, Heaven would be filled with the Ned Flanders type, however Hell would be filled with all the greatest rock musicians and party animals, not to mention all the great scientific intellectuals. Way I see it, all the good people go to hell. (Well, maybe not the murderers and rapists and Mou Mous but oh well..!)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

So do you think you'll fit in? You don't come across as the rock musician and party animal type ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

right atheists are not tolerant towards religion because we don't believe in religion and if you live in the US your constantly having god rammed down your throat or thrown in your face. its on our currency !!! Christians feel like atheists are not tolerant because they don't realize the overbearing qualities of their beliefs. if believers kept there beliefs to themselves Atheists would have nothing say hence no intolerance.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

It's just from what I have seen Atheists seem to have this need to disprove religion now I'm fine believing in what makes since to me and letting others do the same but why do atheists always feel that they have to prove me wrong just because I believe in god?
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Yes, most atheist don't like religion. I know I don't myself
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Atheists are intolerant, just as religious people are. It's hard to be tolerant when people say so many stupid things. The most tolerant people are the agnostics, because they have no side in this war.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I hate to say, but the ones I have met do have religious intolerance.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Well atheists shure don't tolerate Christians all that much. At least that's my experience any way.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

A vote down. Oh my did I strike a nerve atheists? troll face
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

I think, if anything, the religious community lacks tolerance for atheists. How many atheist groups are there in your area? Now how many church groups? Religious folks have national holidays celebrating their religion, church property everywhere and churches own many of our best universities. They get tax breaks because they are religious, when no atheist group has ever received these breaks, no matter how many people they help. There are armies of these guys running around our neighborhoods in cheesy suits asking people if they have found Jesus. Look what we tolerate. Are you kidding me?On the other hand, America is so intolerant of atheism that atheists have no voice in politics at all. There has never been a non religious president, ever. Even an agnostic could never be elected. People are allowed to base their beliefs in logic, not faith, without being labeled intolerant. An unwillingness to entertain non-sense is not intolerance. Wanting your kids to learn facts in school, instead of fairy tales about talking snakes, is not intolerance. Wake up and look around, brah. The intolerance is packed into all these churches every Sunday.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I've never argued with someone about my faith without them bringing it up first, and I'm not starting here, but to say that Theist people lack tolerance of Atheists is entirely false. I don't care if you are Atheist, but Atheist do not receive the benefits that organized religion receives because Atheism is unorganized. Also, Atheism is not necessarily based on a simple disbelief in God as many would argue, but instead a hate of religion. Atheism is more or less a Hate group, and for the KKK to receive tax breaks would be a horrendous mistake, and the same goes for Atheism.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Have you ever had an atheist knock on your door and try to convert you to their belief system? I haven't.So is atheism a "hate group" or is it "unorganized"? You should make up your mind.The KKK huh? The KKK is a protestant christian organization that does not have much tolerance for other belief systems, if you hadn't noticed. It's funny that you remind everyone of the extremely religious and violently intolerant Ku Klux Klan.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Atheism is an unorganized hate group. Now I don't mean that in a bad way ;)Atheists should get organized. Something along the lines of an atheist religion.. Before the Jews and the Christians, there were many Gods. They changed it so that there was one God. Now we need a new religion to change it again so that there's no God ;)And what better group of people than the ones that hate religion? And what better way is there to change religion than with a religion ;)You guys could go door to to door converting people ;)You can preach the opposite of fire and brim stone.You can keep pedophiles out of your religion.You can still thump the bible but only as a demonstration of your contempt for it ;)It's an idea whose time has come.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Welcome to the church of Judas.http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ The_church_of_Judas