- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
You make me sick.
I haven't actually seen Solo yet, but the other nine, from best to worst:
1. Empire Strikes Sack; easily the greatest sequel in movie history and near flawless in every respect, 9.5/10
2. New Hope; just a classic story, 8.5/10
3. Force awakens; it did steal a lot from the original film, but all in all a good experience, 7/10
4. Return of the Jedi, Ewoks ruined star wars and much of the film was dull, but the duel at the end was good enough to salvage this movie for me, 6.9/10
5. Last Jedi, better than I expected, but not very compelling. I've forgotten most of it already. The casino scene in the middle was horrible. 6.75/10
6. Attack of the clones; it did alright I guess, Dooku was underdeveloped, if he'd had a presence in the previous film he could have been quite interesting. Obi wan was the saving grace of this movie and the other prequels. 6.5/10
7. Revenge of the Sith; there were at least 5 light-saber duels in this movie, which was ridiculous. Again, Grevious was underdeveloped. Barely a 6/10
8. Rogue one. Just boring. Characters were all awful. A couple good Vader scenes, but that's it. 6/10
9. Phantom menace. Jar Jar Binks plagues my nightmares. Enough said. 5/10
Naturalism can explain non material things like the concept of a president. This is explained by humans evolving, and then creating the idea of a president. Another example of a non material thing is a number like 4. The number 4 is a concept that describes natural material things.
"No, moron, naturalism is what I said. Materialism is the denial of all non-material things”."
But you seem to think naturalism is the denial of all non material things. You earlier said: "Your naturalism cannot account for it either. The fact that you admit things exist that are not material is a refutation of atheism [naturalism in your eyes]."
"Atheism = naturalism"
What about Buddhists? When did we go over this?
Your link doesn't really support your argument, and considering that the guy was using the word in everyday language, it should be interpreted that way, not in a strict mathematical way.
"I don't need to Google the definition. Round means circular, and circles exist in 2 dimensions. When you go around something what do you do? Do you traverse it in a circle or do you traverse it in a sphere? If King Arthur's round table had been a sphere I imagine it would have made meetings quite difficult."
The context of the usage of the word matters, none of that proves the word round is exclusive to 2D objects. Words can have multiple meanings.
"Naturalism is the believe that all of reality can be explained by natural means alone, so yes it is, mental midget."
You are confusing materialism with naturalism. A non material thing, such as a concept like being president, can arise naturally. Materialism is the thing that says everything is material.
"And since atheism denies the supernatural as an explainariom, it is left with naturalism, making all atheists naturalists."
Atheism is not a belief, and actually doesn't deny the supernatural as an explanation. For example, most Buddhists are atheists because they do not believe in any deity.
"Take Philosophy 101 and, until then, shut up."
:) Actually, I have taken philosophy 101, and I can tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Nothing could exist unless it exists in Truth, so God is clearly omnipotent, that is, the source of all influence, and thus the creator of all things."
Could you explain this reasoning more clearly? I don't see how the it follows that God is clearly omnipotent if nothing could exists unless it exists in truth.
"The Truth is the highest good, and all good things come from The Truth. God is clearly omnibenevolent, the source of all good."
Why do you say that the truth is the highest good?
Can this "Truth" hear people's prayers?
That's a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of natural things we can't test in a lab. It doesn't mean they don't exist. For example, I can't provide a lab test that demonstrates Donald Trump is the president of the US.
What proof would you accept of somebodies intelligence over a website anyways? I can't take you to a physical lab so that you can watch me take an IQ test or something. Tell me exactly what I should do to satisfy you.
I have already provided you with some solid evidence (which would be to look at my previous posts on this website).
You're being kinda ridiculous. I don't know what lab experiment would prove it, but I am convinced by reason, you may even be able to find examples of that on this site, and hopefully you'll be able to decide whether or not you think I'm intelligent by reading other arguments I've made.
Why are your questions posed only at atheists?
It seems obvious to me that all of our 'decisions' are predetermined, for multiple reasons, and in this sense I don't believe in free will.
One could take a more 'compatibilist' stance (I think that's what it's called) where we choose a more relevant definition of free will: This definition could be something along the lines of "Having free will means that if you wanted to to do something else you could have." Basically this means that we behave in the way we want to, so for all intents and purposes we are free.
This is an interesting way to think about it and I haven't made up my mind yet as to whether this is an acceptable definition. One of my problems with it is that I want a definition of free will that allows people with free will to be morally responsible for their actions (assuming objective morality exists, etc), but I also don't think someone who is criminally insane should be considered morally responsible for their actions, and I'm pretty sure under this definition they would be.
Also, I'm not sure fatalism is what you're arguing for. It's hard to define, but fatalism might be described as the view that you cannot escape your destiny no matter what you do (even if you have the freedom to choose your own actions, circumstances will conspire so that something specific will happen to you no matter what you do.) I don't think it's really a respected academic view.