azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

According to theists. Atheists don't believe in god. That's your opinion.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Are you saying that there are atheists who believe in god?
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Atheists LACK belief in god so as far as belief in go is concerned Theists believe god exists (1) ANTITHEISTS believe god does not exist (-1) and Atheist/agnostics say "i dont know" (0)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

So now you are saying all Atheists have the right answers, and all of the theists are mad that the teacher likes good students
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

We have the logical stance on religion. We have evidence to back up our decision/stance/arguments.ect.We are usually more educated We're probably rightTheists are on the illogical, faith based sideThey have little to no evidenceThey're typically uneducated in the fields of theology and scienceThey're probably wrongAnalogy:Atheists did the math problem and although they COULD be wrong, they are confident in their answer.Theists took a wild guess and are probably very wrong though some are somehow confident in their answer.Some may be mad at the "teacher" who likes students who do their work.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

So you are right and everyone is wrong. Got it. .
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

No just you are wrong .
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Got prove, sweetie? ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Atheism is supposed to be simply the lack of a belief in any gods; nothing more. At some point, a doctrine of "and you've got to hate religion" seems to have been added into the picture. The obsession with religion is not atheism, that's New Atheism.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

If this were not true, atheists would stop arguing with theists and just let them be ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

If the theists don't want to argue, then they shouldn't be on a debate website.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Debating/arguing isn't the problem it's intolerance thats the problem, many Theists enjoy a good debate but why should they have to put up with being insulted for their beliefs
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I absolutely agree with you that they shouldn't have to put up with being insulted. I guess it would help if I looked up the definition of the word intolerance before speaking. I often hear people claim, "you are being intolerant" when you try to point of flaws in their logic, but after looking up the true definition I see that I was mistaken. The true definition is "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own;"
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

No problem, it doesn't help when you hear the word being used the wrong way it'll lead to false misinterpretations. I always try and keep an open mind about peoples views although that can be hard when you read some of the rubbish posted on here that people insist is the truth!!
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

A FUCKING MEN! TheAshman. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Theists aren't the only ones who are insulted with their beliefs you know. Atheists are insulted as well, but for our 'non' beliefs. Which isn't fair either. We shouldn't be told we are going to hell just because we don't believe in god, or jesus, etc. Personally I think everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want. And everyone else should at least respect it, they don't have to agree though.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

This is true and I agree with you, the reason this debate started though was because there were some Atheists on the site who were being very intolerant of other peoples beliefs, insulting people who had previously been debating politely stuff like that, if you browse some of the debates on religion you will see what I mean (I wouldn't blame you if you didn't though there's a hell of a of a lot of them). There are also some religious people who do the same, when I first joined the site the religious where the bolshier but it went the other way for a while.I believe people should be entitled to believe or not believe whatever they want and shouldn't be insulted for it but unfortunately there are a few from both sides (religious and atheist) who won't respect or listen to another persons point of view, its sad but can make for a fun debate!!
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Don't go telling people to be respectful and tolerant. If everyone did that, this site would die.. What we need is more ass holes like me that know how to apply just enough heat to keep people coming back for more abuse in the hopes of winning. ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I dont think me telling people to be respectful and tolerant is gonna change much, Jesus basically said that hundreds of years ago and look at all the trouble that caused so I think we're safe
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I think He was trolling us and has been for the last 2013 years ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

If he was thats trolling on an epic scale, Jesus the ultimate Troll. Can you imagine getting to the other side meeting God and him saying yeah Jesus was joking and i've grounded him it would explain why he hasn't come back
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I bet the late JC is just itching to get back here for the lolz and a little pay back for that crucifixion thing ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

So..., it's ok for theists to believe that you are going to hell but it's not ok for them to tell you? Can they tell everyone else that you are going to hell? ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Jesus Joe, you're getting better at this.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

takes two to argue . Your statement in its self proves your shallow thinking.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

You seem to be under the impression that I care what you think ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Upvote. .
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

you seem to be under the impression that your not a idiot
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Lol ;)The first letter of a sentence is always capitalized. There is always a period at the end of a sentence. It's "you're" not "your."Now who's the idiot ;)
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I think atheists think that anytime they get into an argument about religion with a theist, they are trying to push their beliefs on them. They have to go on a total defense of their beliefs. While the theist was not trying to offend
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Its true most atheists that I know don't have any religious tolerance there are some who do and I appreciate them for having that.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Asking an atheist to be tolerant of religion is like asking a working man to be tolerant of overbearing stupidity. Sure, they can; they just don't want to.At least that's the way I sees it.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

Not all atheists lack religious tolerance, but some do. Some theists lack religious tolerance.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

I agree there are some on both sides that show no tolerance for anothers beliefs, just recently though I have found Atheists to be more abusive about it. One thing I have noticed about both sides is that the most vociferous are also the most arrogant as if they know everything there is to know about life the universe and everything
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

What atheists lack is common sense. They reject rationality. Their intolerance just naturally follows from that.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

That can be argued for either side just because someone does not agree with you doesnt meen they dont have common sense
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

More evidence of atheism's lack of commonsense: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/ 10/a-mountain-of-nothin-out-of-somethin-or.html
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

No. Atheism is stupid. Period. One cannot rationally deny the possibility of God's existence. Period. Any such bald assertion as atheism is irrational. Period. Atheism is the fanaticism of blind faith. Period. There's nothing rational about it. Period.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 opens his yap and denies there be any substance behind the construct.It’s not logical to declare that which is indisputably possible to be impossible. Do you follow?Atheism is irrationalism. Who are the ninnies incessantly imagining that science can affirm or falsify the transcendent? Atheists! That’s irrational. If you’re not talking about empirical data, you’re not talking about science. Duh!Do not tell me that atheism is rational or commonsensical. It is not!
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Atheism is stupid. Period.It is stupid to reject a claim that is unfalsifiable, untestable, unconfirmed and unnecessary in multiple recorded instances? Does that mean that reliance on faith, which essentially amounts to believing something is true because you want it to be true, is some how a sign of intelligence? Question MarkOne cannot rationally deny the possibility of God's existence. Period. One cannot rationally confirm the possibility of God's existence. PeriodAny such bald assertion as atheism is irrational. Well, it sure appears as though you make enough bald assertions yourself that you should be able to recognize them from miles away. You are also redundant. PeriodAtheism is the fanaticism of blind faith. Please identify the fanaticism and faith that is intertwined within the definition of atheism. Polite period. There's nothing rational about it. Period.This is the third time you've made this statement. You should try to either type less or type different things. PeriodThe 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. Support this. Virtually everyone on the planet received their introduction to the concept of God from an outside source. The irreducible primary of being is the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy.Please elaborate.The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, The Department of Redundancy Department Strikes Again!and the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression.A) why would God not be subject to it?B) Energy is not subject to it. Everything is made of energy. The Singularity that preceded the Big Bang was composed entirely of energy and not subject to time. So it can sit in the "Prime Mover's" Chair just as easily as a God. The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he opens his yap and denies there be any substance behind the construct.Care to give an example?Do not tell me that atheism is rational or commonsensical.Atheism is rational and would be common sense if "common" folks had more sense, education and well-developed critical thinking skills. Also, why are you so angry about this topic?
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

You write: “It is stupid to reject a claim that is unfalsifiable, untestable, unconfirmed. . . .Hence, the limits of sensory perception/the limits of scientific inquiry are the limits of reality/human cognition? You continue: “. . . unnecessary in multiple recorded instances?”I have no idea what you’re talking about here.You write: “Does that mean that reliance on faith, which essentially amounts to believing something is true because you want it to be true, is some how a sign of intelligence?”Faith has nothing to do with the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. It’s self-evident. It's at the base of knowledge. It's derived from reason, not faith. I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the bald assertion that God must be whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of the universe, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism.You write: “One cannot rationally confirm the possibility of God's existence. Period.”Oh, yes, one can! That’s the irony of it all. The positive affirmation that God must be does not violate the imperatives of logic while the flat-out denial of God‘s existence does. See the above and think about it.You write: “Well, it sure appears as though you make enough bald assertions yourself that you should be able to recognize them from miles away. You are also redundant.”These assertions are the logical imperatives of ontological realities. One cannot rationally deny the existence of God. By definition, God is not an empirical entity. Essentially, all the atheist is saying is that God doesn’t exist because God is not an empirical entity. Wow! Just wow!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. I’m not saying that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. I’m simply saying, for the sake of argument, that neither of these potentialities can be rationally denied. Period.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

you know you can use 2 Asterisk on both side of words you want to dispute to make it bold like so
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

[continued . . .]You write: “Please identify the fanaticism and faith that is intertwined within the definition of atheism.”I already did. Twice. There’s no rational foundation on which you can stand and baldy deny God’s existence. One may arguably say within reason that God may not exist, but that’s all, and the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry have no bearing on the matter whatsoever.You write: “This is the third time you've made this statement. You should try to either type less or type different things.”Well, I can’t help it if atheists are thickheaded.Rawlings: “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.”You write: “Support this. Virtually everyone on the planet received their introduction to the concept of God from an outside source.”Dude. Zoom! Right over your thickhead! No. We do not get the construct of ultimate divine origin in and of itself from some “outside source”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. What idea of God are you denying? Rawlings: “The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied. . . .”You write: “The Department of Redundancy Department Strikes Again!”No. The Department of What’s-That-Universally-Self-Evident-Construct-of-Origin-You-Keep-Denying Redundancy strikes again! Rawlings: “. . . the idea God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression.”You ask: “why would God not be subject to it?”Uh . . . this has to be explained to you? Seriously? By definition, God is the transcendent, immaterial, eternally self-subsistence entity. He doesn’t need a cause. Even Hawking et al. understand that. That’s why they attempt to irrationally argue the nonsense that the gravitational energy of the vacuum/singularity of quantum physics, which is quite obviously a material something of mass without matter, namely space, is a metaphysical/existential nothingness. Uh . . . excuse me, but plenty of physicists have a serious problem with Hawking, Krauss et al.’s semantic hijinks too, and Hawking, Krauss et al. know bloody damn well that they’re not talking about a metaphysical/existential nothingness. They are in fact talking about a material cause, the origin of which remains subject to the problem of infinite regression.
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: True

[continued . . .]Speaking of which. . . .You write: “Energy is not subject to it. Everything is made of energy. The Singularity that preceded the Big Bang was composed entirely of energy and not subject to time. So it can sit in the "Prime Mover's" Chair just as easily as a God.”Precisely! And you just brought us right back to what I’ve been telling you all along, haven’t you?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. That is to say, the alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy is inescapable. Rawlings: “The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he opens his yap and denies there be any substance behind the construct.”You write: “Care to give an example?”Every time you open your mouth and deny. . . . Dude! You just affirmed it again: “[s]o it can sit in the ‘Prime Mover's’ Chair just as easily as a God.” Just so! The inescapable alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy . . . only, ontologically speaking, your space-mass energy is still subject to the issue of causality due to its materiality, and the notion that it exists outside the dimension of time is strictly asserted relative to our cosmological notion of time. Relative to a divine cause of eternal transcendence, it would still be subject to a definite, albeit, undeterminable, beginning from this side of the limits of general relativity’s explanatory power. That’s all.You write: “Atheism is rational and would be common sense if ‘common’ folks had more sense, education and well-developed critical thinking skills.”LOL! Well, I’ll take the commonsense of common folk over the delusional sense of intellectual superiority of the arrogant, self-appointed prigs of the new atheism any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. As for education, mine in regard to the history of ideas and events, and, subsequently, in regard to philosophy and the classic rules of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression are clearly beyond your intellectual background. And I’d willing to bet that mine in regard to mathematics and science is more advanced as well. As for the unexamined product of your critical thinking skills, it has been utterly routed, and that is clear to anyone with an IQ above that of small rash. Indeed, you repeatedly, albeit, unwittingly, prove my point again and again by your very own words.You write: “Also, why are you so angry about this topic?”Angry? LOL! Projecting?
Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Precisely! And you just brought us right back to what I’ve been telling you all along, haven’t you?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. That is to say, the alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy is inescapable. 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? only, ontologically speaking, your space-mass energy is still subject to the issue of causality due to its materiality, and the notion that it exists outside the dimension of time is strictly asserted relative to our cosmological notion of time.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.  As for education, mine in regard to the history of ideas and events, and, subsequently, in regard to philosophy and the classic rules of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression are clearly beyond your intellectual background. And I’d willing to bet that mine in regard to mathematics and science is more advanced as well.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.Angry? LOL! Projecting?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.