azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

My point is that even if God doesn't actually exist, and God is nothing more than a figment of people's imaginations, God still has power through people to do God-like things... such as not-exist but still change the universe as if he does. Even the tooth fairy does this, and Santa Clause. They might not actually exist, but the belief in them causes changes in reality that suggest they do exist. Teeth under pillows, cookies by a fireplace, letters to Santa.This statement is so wrong that it takes the words out from me.People exist. They operate based on ideas. Their actions do not make their ideas real. It's as simple as that. You're conflating the imagination with people. People are not proxies of what is imagined.I think that's enough to merit the existence of something, to see the effects of it's existence. Scientists do this all the time... "There's a distortion of the path of light from this cluster of stars, as if the light is bending around some sort of super-massive object that doesn't emit light itself... I believe it's a black hole because of the effects of light around this point in space."I'll refute your argument in a simple proposition.Imagine the following:9-3=57Now draw it in real life.As expected, you are wrong. Your imagining of this equation did not make it real, reality instead asserted itself upon you and refuted you.You can try it again.Imagine throwing a rock and as it leaves your hand it stays motionless in mid-air.If you try this in reality it will fail.Reality refutes your imagination again.Science works by observing reality and making inferences based upon reality and how it behaves. It does not concern itself with the imagination because the imagination is by definition unreal.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

i believe brad meant in a philosophical sense, or a mental sense, but i believe were meant to be talking about physical proof, so his statements are unrelated to this debate, i could be wrong though and i apologies if i am
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Damn did you misunderstand him DIFFERENTLY.If God is only a figment of imagination He has more power over billions of people worldwide (including you) than most REAL objects. Something so powerful in the minds of man should have some grounding in reality.IF God is a figment of imagination.To those who search for the Truth, we know He does exist.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

You are right about one thing, the meme "God" is quite powerfull and polarising. But one of the center descriptions of God is that he is all-powerfull. I would say the idea of God, compaired to the idea of lets say... Sex :) http://www.google.com/trends?q=God,+Sex would suggest: God is a loooserBut then take a look at God Vs Science Index :)http://www.google.com/trends?q=God,+Science&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 and you see that God is gaining ground on ScienceJesus and God are having a similarly strong effect these days but Pizza has been skyrocketing over themhttp://www.google.com/trends?q=Jesus,+God,+Pizza&ctab;=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 For paranoid Christians you will be glad to know that Satan has seen better days of trendyness.http://www.google.com/trends?q=God,+Satan&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

god does not exist. It is figment of someone (who wrote the fairy tale called the bible)'s imagination. And he told his fairy tale so graphically that people believed it.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: Yes

One, that is not an argument, but an arrogant, blind opinion slagging off people who have had broken hearts healed by a loving God (and don't do the whole 'natural disasters, starving childre' thing its really boring.) Another point how can someone write a 'fairy tale' so historically accurate in that time, so similar to the big ban gin Genesis when they had no idea what the heck happened exept God. And, it was written by LOADS of people. Not just one.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

I think you're saying something more along the lines of "The belief in God exists".
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

There is no evidence that god exists. Seeing is believing. If he exists then why doesn't he come down to earth and show himself to us. If he exists then why does he allow millions of innocents to be killed. If he exists and has all these majestic superpowers, then why doesn't he do something about wars. Instead, he, if he exists at all, just sits around and treats the whole thing as an over elaborate joke. If he exists then why doesn't he do something about poverty and suffering. If he exists then he would care and something would be done. Nothing has been done. Therefore not only does he not exist but is also a mass murderer and an implacable nazi sadist. god does not exist. End of story.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Theists: I believe God exists.Atheists: I believe God doesn't exist.Both rely on belief. Thing about theists is they look beyond what they can see. Beyond what's right in front of their eyes.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Theists: I believe God exists.Correct.Atheists: I believe God doesn't exist.Whoops. Wrong. More like "I don't believe in god."Both rely on belief. Thing about theists is they look beyond what they can see. Beyond what's right in front of their eyes.Theism relies on belief (without and in the face of contrary evidence). This isn't meritorious, it is gullibility and foolishness.Also, using your "logic:"Unicornians: I believe Unicorns exists.Aunicornians: I believe Unicorns don't exist.Both rely on belief. Thing about Unicornians is they look beyond what they can see. Beyond what's right in front of their eyes.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: Yes

Atheism: The BELIEF that there are no god or gods. .
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Well if unicornians think unicorns exist.. they have more proof than aunicornians saying they don't.Athiesm relies on belief. You BELIEVE there is no God. You have no proof.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

I'm actually more inclined to side with the Matt Dillahunty school of atheism - as I think it's the most apt description of atheism, in practice. That is, atheism is not the the opposite of belief: disbelief. It is only the rejection of a claim.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

When you disbelieve something, however, you are rejecting its claim.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

When you disbelieve something, however, you are rejecting its claim.Yes, no and not necessarily. I'll use judicial proceedings as an example. If you are a juror in a criminal case, in which a defendant has been charged with murder. Is it possible for you to believe the prosecution's claim of guilt and reject the claim at the same time? Yes, if the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond doubt the guilt of the defendant, you, in fact, have to reject the claim regardless of your belief in its truth. Think of the OJ Simpson trial in the mid 90s.I can also disbelieve a claim I simultaneously accept. Same OJ trial. I disbelieve that he was "not guilty", but I accept the claim because there was insufficient evidence to actually find him in guilt. So, I can both believe a claim I have rejected and disbelieve a claim that I accept. Granted, I can certainly disbelieve and reject a claim just as easily.Because there is insufficient evidence to support the claim: god exists, I have no grounds to accept it and must therefore reject it.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Wow, you're right. I didn't think of it like that. It's refreshing to be wrong.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Hmmm I guess that's true. But then that just means that theists are accepting a claim....
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Exactly. So now that we agree, the question is, why accept a claim that doesn't pass scientific scrutiny, or is by definition unable to be proven?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Why reject a claim that is by definition unable to be disproven? ---------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Why reject a claim that is by definition unable to be disproven?Because we do it all the time, it's just they we've been conditioned to grant "god" a special place above critical thinking.If someone tells you that invisible ghosts are attacking him, do you not dismiss his claim?If someone says that invincible space pirates are coming to earth, do you not laugh at him?If someone told you that a mummified hand he has grants wishes if you ask it to in prayer, and really really believe in it, would you not reject his claim?So why should you grant the benefit of the doubt to the claim that some abstract god exists that creates universes? The person should either present evidence or be dismissed. Put up or shut up as it's called.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

If someone tells you that invisible ghosts are attacking him, do you not dismiss his claim?No, I wouldn't.What is there is the 0.00001% chance that he's right?Sure, you may not believe in the existence of such, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.There have been many thousands - perhaps even millions - of people who have claimed to see a ghost. Psychical societies have volume after volume of sightings; there have been many an odd occurrence which has been attributed to poltregeists.Sure, you may say that eyewitness testimony is unreliable; but, if 1,000,000 people witnessed a murder and identified the killer, he would be convicted.If someone says that invincible space pirates are coming to earth, do you not laugh at him?No, I wouldn't.Hundreds of millions of people have seen what they could only describe as a 'UFO'. That's a pretty hefty portion of the earth's population; are they all delusional? From the perspective of a person who does not believe in aliens, then those hundreds of millions of people are. However, that does not mean that those hundreds of millions of people are wrong simply because one is so pigheaded as to think that he knows more than those millions of people.While 'invincible space pirates' may seem far-fetched, that does not mean that they are invincible or that they are pirates. That may be the only way the person has to describe it.Put up or shut up as it's called.Then enough of these 'does God exist' debates.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

No, I wouldn't.What is there is the 0.00001% chance that he's right?Sure, you may not believe in the existence of such, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.Right. So did he provide you with evidence that made his claim credible?There have been many thousands - perhaps even millions - of people who have claimed to see a ghost. Psychical societies have volume after volume of sightings; there have been many an odd occurrence which has been attributed to poltregeists.Maybe, but did he provide evidence of it applying to him? People attack each other all the time but if a person comes to you saying that people are attacking him, you validate the claim by seeing if anyone is coming after him, if he is breathing heavily, if he has bruises, etc.Hundreds of millions of people have seen what they could only describe as a 'UFO'. That's a pretty hefty portion of the earth's population; are they all delusional? From the perspective of a person who does not believe in aliens, then those hundreds of millions of people are. However, that does not mean that those hundreds of millions of people are wrong simply because one is so pigheaded as to think that he knows more than those millions of people.So did he provide evidence of his claim? Anything tangible that doesn't make him appear delusional? For example photographs or video of the aliens (not a alien, but the aliens coming to earth as per his claim).While 'invincible space pirates' may seem far-fetched, that does not mean that they are invincible or that they are pirates. That may be the only way the person has to describe it.Correct, I was using language to make it unlikely.Then enough of these 'does God exist' debates.Tell that to some hundred million or so people who demand them.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Right. So did he provide you with evidence that made his claim credible?What evidence could one collect for a ghost? They do not leave forensic evidence, if that's what you're asking, only sightings.Maybe, but did he provide evidence of it applying to him?Sightings and photographs is all one can expect from an apparition.So did he provide evidence of his claim?Pictures and eyewitness reports.Anything tangible that doesn't make him appear delusional?Nearly everybody is delusional, according to your beliefs.For example photographs or video of the aliens (not a alien, but the aliens coming to earth as per his claim).I was theorizing.Tell that to some hundred million or so people who demand them.Yet you participate in them more than most others, shaming people for their beliefs.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

What evidence could one collect for a ghost? They do not leave forensic evidence, if that's what you're asking, only sightings.If they can be seen, then they operate within the rules of the electromagnetic force, and spectrum.Therefore they must leave some sort of footprint behind.Sightings and photographs is all one can expect from an apparition.So he can't capture one?Pictures and eyewitness reports.Similar to the above, these must meet standards of scepticism.Nearly everybody is delusional, according to your beliefs.Sad isn't it? Imagine having to reflect on that for a moment, that most of the society you live in is in some way mentally unsound.Yet you participate in them more than most others, shaming people for their beliefs.Call it boredom. Call it fascination at really bad reasoning.Of course, I remember your perspective, and how unreasonable a person like me appears to that mindset. The biggest feeling I had back then was this sense of "why isn't it [our evidence] good enough for you?" followed by "you explain away all the mystery of life using words like coincidence and hallucination."
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

If they can be seen, then they operate within the rules of the electromagnetic force, and spectrum.Perhaps they are not of this dimension? Perhaps, they got 'caught' somehow partially in their dimension, partially in ours? (this would be a non-supernatural argument for their existence).If they are caught between dimensions, would they be on earth enough to leave a footprint?So he can't capture one?Tell me how.Similar to the above, these must meet standards of scepticism.Even for hundreds of millions of eyewitnesses?Sad isn't it? Du bist wahnhafteImagine having to reflect on that for a moment, that most of the society you live in is in some way mentally unsound.Perhaps there is no such thing as mentally sound, but rather normalcy. Anybody who goes beyond society's expectation of normalcy is, therefore, insane and delusional.Clint Eastwood made a film, based on a true story, called Changeling. The woman was sent to a mental facility (cf. nuthouse) because the child they gave her was not her missing son, but a different child altogether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders). Now, the only person who actually knew what they were talking about was sent to a psychiatric ward !What makes you think that the people who are there now deserve to be there?You seem to be of the belief that only stupid people can possibly believe in God. Therefore, I must ask you, were the following people idiots?Robert BoyleJohann Wolfgang von GoetheWilliam James SidisCarl JungIsaac NewtonGalileoMichelangeloJuhann GutenbergJames WattBlaise PascalAlexander FlemingBeethovenOne of the most common arguments against religion that I find on here is that people who are religious have lower IQs.Then, why is it that most of the smartest people to have ever lived believed in the existence of a God? While not all in the Christian God, such as Sidis, many did believe in a higher power.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

So I wouldn't advise making ad hoc explanations involving extra dimensions. At this stage you'd need to provide mathematical theory supporting the idea, and hypotheses which could test for its existence in the LHC.I was simply trying to give you a possible non-supernatural explanation for ghosts.I can't. The object isn't defined in a way that would allow me to make such predictions.Then don't expect me to.Mass hysteria, and hallucinations have occurred. Individual reports have a reputation of being unreliable. So therefore if you're prepared to investigate eyewitness accounts, you have to wade through them.Individual reports. What about cases where an entire town sees something?Luegen! Der Welt ist verrueckt.The sign of a crazy man.This reminds me of what my Sociology instructor said nine years ago "We all have dysfunctional families, what matters is how dysfunctional."I've said the exact same thing on other sites.If the world agreed that sacrificing a child every Tuesday was sane, that wouldn't make it so.Who defines sanity?I imagine that I am unqualified to give an opinion, being that I'm not a psychiatrist. However since I don't want to cop out, I imagine that each person in the institution gets there by being a threat to himself.Or a threat to a corrupt cops by showing the society that the police is corrupt. If you have the power, you can do anything you want to anybody - no questions asked; which is what I believe Eastwood has been trying to show throughout his career. I haven't any idea how he stumbled on to a real-life example, but I am glad that he did. By doing to, he had exemplified what I've long tried to convince people.The people you listed were not stupid, but they all had wrong reasons for believing.Says an atheist.That's incorrect. The case is that statistically religion is associated with lower IQs but that is for populations, it doesn't mean a religious person is unintelligent, but instead that they will tend to not identify as religious.PungSviti always makes the 'religiosity and intelligence' claim.I don't really think you can make such a claim.I just did.Besides, it misses the point that smart people believing in something doesn't make it so.I did not say that, it was a rebuttal to the common 'religiosity and intelligence'.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Individual reports. What about cases where an entire town sees something?I expect you'd interview the town and look for inconsistencies in their reports. Then you'd look for an explanation that fits their description.The sign of a crazy man.No, a crazy world. Pray you never have to see it. It's really really sick.Who defines sanity?I suppose the sane people would, wouldn't they? Where sanity describes a healthy mind and insanity describes a dysfunctional one. A dysfunctional one being a mind that is troubled by problems that don't exist, for example.Or a threat to a corrupt cops by showing the society that the police is corrupt. If you have the power, you can do anything you want to anybody - no questions asked; which is what I believe Eastwood has been trying to show throughout his career. I haven't any idea how he stumbled on to a real-life example, but I am glad that he did. By doing to, he had exemplified what I've long tried to convince people.That's an important life lesson. Our rights and liberties as individuals are only conditional on whether the reigns on the powerful and corrupt are being held.Says an atheist.I would have gone with "says reality" actually.PungSviti always makes the 'religiosity and intelligence' claim.I don't however. It's not a very useful argument, because if you're trying to call a person stupid for believing, it doesn't work (population versus individual) and if you're trying to say that religion makes people stupid, it doesn't work (stupid people are drawn to religion, not the other way around).
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I expect you'd interview the town and look for inconsistencies in their reports. Then you'd look for an explanation that fits their description.Truth is subjective. Everybody will have a different story because everybody sees things in a different manner. While some people may remember that a thief has green eyes but can't say his hair color, others may remember his hair color and not even his gender.No, a crazy world. Pray you never have to see it. It's really really sick.Pray? Now you are encouraging my theism?You are crazy. My family is crazy. My neighbors are crazy. Every person in the world, with the sole exception of myself, is crazy.However, who gives the 'authorities' the power to institutionalize those who differ from normalcy?I suppose the sane people would, wouldn't they?How do they know that they are sane? Why does their idea of sanity need to be the only one?Where sanity describes a healthy mind and insanity describes a dysfunctional one.What if a dysfunctional mind is actually the most functional?Take the stereotypical 'mad genius'. One would theorize that his extreme memory/knowledge has become to much for him, resulting in 'insanity'. What, then, is insanity? Surely such a person as this is intellectually superior to his fellow man, but what if that intellectual superiority breeds mental superiority - rather than the supposed inferiority?A dysfunctional one being a mind that is troubled by problems that don't exist, for example.What if the problems actually do exist?I don't however.Good. I like you better every day.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Truth is subjective. Everybody will have a different story because everybody sees things in a different manner. While some people may remember that a thief has green eyes but can't say his hair color, others may remember his hair color and not even his gender.I think you mean to conclude that truth is objective, but our accounts are subjective.You answered your question, by the way. This is why personal accounts are almost never accepted as scientific evidence. Way too unreliable.Pray? Now you are encouraging my theism?You are crazy. My family is crazy. My neighbors are crazy. Every person in the world, with the sole exception of myself, is crazy.I don't think I'm crazy. I may maintain contrary perspectives at the same time, shout at myself, and laugh in public places spontaneously, but that's eccentricity not craziness.Of course, like you, I still find everyone else crazy, mainly because they disagree with me and I'm usually right.However, who gives the 'authorities' the power to institutionalize those who differ from normalcy?We do, as citizens and tax payers.How do they know that they are sane? Why does their idea of sanity need to be the only one?Generally it helps to have consistent definitions, and remember that as a non-psychiatrist this is a hard question to answer. I would guess that having a view of reality that is inconsistent with reality is the sign of a start towards insanity. I could be wrong however.Take the stereotypical 'mad genius'. One would theorize that his extreme memory/knowledge has become to much for him, resulting in 'insanity'. What, then, is insanity? Surely such a person as this is intellectually superior to his fellow man, but what if that intellectual superiority breeds mental superiority - rather than the supposed inferiority?I believe insanity would be the point when he makes a replica of his deceased daughter and dotes over her, or when he constantly thinks someone is out to get him, or that inanimate objects are talking to him. These types of things. We can't fault a genius for being exceptional, it's the breaks from reality that are disturbing.What if the problems actually do exist?Then the mind isn't dysfunctional.Good. I like you better every day.Scary, I'd better ask my tetraodonts how to proceed with this....They seem to think you're okay, but demand more worms.