Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Like?an afterlife, a transcending soul, a higher power.So, you think God is a person?fair point.I thought you were implying it.You assumed that when I said superstition.I usually call it wisdom... But I guess you could call it that. Would trying to logically justify God's non-existence be "confirmation bias", as well?"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way."It's not confirmation bias to back yourself up via logic and evidence, it is confirmation bias to go out of your way and try to convince yourself something is true. Earlier I said, I don't believe in god, because I haven't came across a reason, then you said I simply haven't found one yet, and I said if a reason is provided I will believe in a god, to which you said "find a reason to believe in god". That's confirmation bias. If you are trying to convince yourself god exists, if you are going out of your way to look for a reason to believe in god, you are searching for evidence selectively and interpreting it selectively for the bias that their is a god. Confirmation bias. That's not wisdom, that is something you learn in basic psychology that gets the best of us, but is in no way a virtue or wise.No, it is a statement as to what we have observed. Would you have said that I had a bias towards the sun's light if I had claimed that all life needed sunlight to survive? No, until the 70's, that is what we had observed.If you ignored all the evidence to the contrary, or interpret information in a biased way, to confirm what you believe is true. Rather than looking at all the evidence before forming a belief and then coming to a conclusion. Whoa, whoa, whoa... That is something you are going to have to back up. This is stuff we have actually observed?This is stuff we have evidence for. If you want to plant an apple tree, you take the seeds from an apple... Which grew from the tree. We grew from the Earth, but why could it not have been that intelligence was implied in that initial point, just as apples are implied in the seed? The apple seed grew into a tree before apples came out of it.I don't see why we need to assume intelligence is necessary or implied.It is also observation at its finest. It can be falsified, though. Plus, I am not saying intelligence can only create intelligence as a fact, but as of now, that is all we have observed. Show me otherwise.All biological life being produced from the earth? Bacteria gaining intelligence and becoming more complex? We haven't observed an intelligence behind these, so far as we can tell, that is intelligence coming from non-intelligence. To simply say "you don't know if their wasn't an intelligence behind that" is confirmation bias. No I don't know, but I have no reason to believe all the life here on earth had to come from an intelligent being, we've found them come about without ever finding any intelligence behind it.I don't know why you keep bringing up the word "prove". I am not trying to prove anything. I am only offering up an idea.And I accept your idea, as an idea, and a possibility simply from not being disproven. So what is the point in continuing this with me?Oh, good grief, man! I am sorry that I am not convincing you, but we both know that you didn't come into this argument to be convinced. As that quote that Joe just posted said, when arguing, people tend not to listen to understand, they listen to reply. That is all I am getting from you. Even the stuff you agreed with, you have probably already forgotten.I could say the same thing about you, you didn't come into this argument to be convinced either, and it is in my opinion a lot more obvious with you than me. I'm rather pretty confident debater but your arrogance here, reading through the thread, has rather surprised me, with all due respect.No, it is as simple as saying, "Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else."How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do?It was not a jab at you for being an atheist. It was just me pointing out that there are reasons to believe in "God"... You just haven't found one. Is that really all that offensive?It's not so much offensive, rather than a tad annoying, not contributing at all, and makes you seem rather arrogant. What have I been doing this entire debate? I have been giving you several reasons and you keep coming back to this shit! If you don't agree, then so be it. I have found no reason to be an atheist, you have found no reason to be a theist... That does not mean I have not offered up ideas. If you don't agree with them, then fine.It's a debate site, what do you expect? Yes I am going to disagree with you... But when you keep saying "you just haven't found a reason" as if it contributes to anything, or means anything at some point I feel obliged to point out it doesn't. I have listened, and accepted all your ideas, as ideas, if that is all you want to argue with me about, fine you win, but you have not convinced me, if that isn't what you want, you don't have to keep arguing with me. And are those not human faults? We as humans have the ability to make this world a fantastic place... But we don't. Our ego has gotten in the way.LOL, and you accuse me of not listening to you. The point I was trying to make is, the convenience of life doesn't contribute to logically justifying a belief in god, because the convenience of life is something that you feel towards life. It is subjective, your feelings about being alive doesn't at all contribute to making god more probable..I don't even need proof to believe in a god, I just need something that at least makes god probable, not just a possibility, as I accept god already as a possibility until someone proves otherwise. I just need evidence, or one good argument that can stand up to scrutiny.