Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Dude, we are making absolutely no progress. You appear to be disputing just to dispute. I could say the same about you.I think the main reason we aren't making any progress is because you are disputing definitions. As much as how and why seem like they can be used in place of each other, they actually can't... Not if you're trying to use proper English. When someone uses how, they are basically asking for a demostration. Using why, the person wants to know why something happened.No to ask for a demonstration would mean to ask for someone to visually show how or why. I understand their is a difference between why or how, but only in certain contexts, you need to differentiate between how and why, are you implying that why is about the intention behind something, and how is simply the way it happened? If so, the question why, as you are using it, assumes a belief that may or may not be true, that their is an intention behind it.I can see how someone could easily think of them as being the same, but they aren't, and if you were to answer a how question the same way you would answer a why question, then you are not answering them properly.Not always, they can though, you need to specify what you mean by why, and what you mean by how, without them being equivalent. The reason I typed up the difference between materialism and spirituality is because they are literally opposites. You seem to think that spirituality only applies to theists. Many atheists are actually spiritual, as well.We probably have different ideas of "spirituality" and perhaps "materialism" to but I am pretty sure our ideas on the latter have a good amount of common ground. Their is no accepted definition of spirituality, so you could define what you mean by it.Another thing, a belief cannot be objective, or else it wouldn't be a belief. Objectivity isn't related to personal opinion.Fair point, I will concede that beliefs in and of themselves are not objective, but our beliefs can be OF objective things, and subjective things.You also seem to be thinking that I consider my opinions to be facts, and you also seem to think that all opinions should be based on facts, or rather be facts... Making them not opinions.No, I don't think opinions should be facts, but I do think they should be based on facts. Facts don't worsen your opinion they only strengthen it, so the opinion with the less facts but same amount of reasoning, is more fallacious or unsubstantiated, or false.Also, this is related to our other debate, but you seem to think that to exist means something outside of presently being here and now, which can't be accurate unless you have created your own version of the word.That is not at all what I meant, but I actually concede to your argument that time is nothing, I think it is a bit controversial, but I actually agree with you, time is nothing, however it isn't an illusion. But I would like to point out that I was never trying to argue that everything that exited before and after exists now, I was arguing that the past's existence would be the existence of things having happened.It is one of those things that seems like it can work, just like how and why, but that would just be a misuse of the English language.I can not answer your questions unless you differentiate your two questions, in ways that are not equivalent, so that I can understand how they are different. If I ask how I spilled my drink, someone may say "because I knocked it over by accident" and if I ask why instead, I may get the same answer, and both questions would have been answered correctly. The only time Why means something truly different from how, is when an intention or purpose is implied.If this is going to continue the way it is, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree and move on.I am fine with that, we can do that if you like?