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

Why should I have to do that???????????????????????????????????????

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?

I don't see why it needs a capital letter. To me that implies a religious affiliation.

I no longer have any idea what you're talking about..........................

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.

Round is not exclusive to 2D. You need only google the definition. I think "round" could even apply to an oblate spheroid, as it is shaped like a sphere.

When I sad "some sort of being" I meant some sort of self aware or conscious being, not just something that exists.

"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.

To say something is known to truth or heard by it implies that the truth is some sort of being, and I see no reason to believe that on the basis of what has been said in this debate so far.

That is not naturalism, I suggest you do your research before making wild claims.

Atheism is also not the same thing as naturalism.

I believe the truth exists, and that it is no more than the way in which things truly exists. There are true answers to questions etc, but this definitely has no weird implications that there is something out there that hears your prayers.

"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?

This Truth/God that you speak of, is it akin to an omnipotent or benevolent creator of the universe?

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?

I am a rational and somewhat intelligent atheist! Not sure if you want me to somehow prove that.

I don't know truth from fiction for sure.

I base my beliefs on science and reason, but at the end of the day I can never be absolutely sure my beliefs are true.

May I ask how you rationally know truth from fiction?

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.

"Without space, time does not exist. Hence, time is part of space."

That reasoning is wrong. Take this example: Without humans, laws do not exist, therefore laws are a part of humans. This is clearly bad reasoning.

So far as I know, time is not a dimension of space, it is its own type of dimension. Space and time are linked, but they are not the same thing.

Coming from a first year physics major who knows a bit of special relativity but not much else.

Well hey, if you want to play me you can find Mackapaka on chess.com . I suggest playing against the computer a couple times first to familiarize yourself with some basic tactics. It tells you how good your moves were and what better moves would have been. It's quite a fun game to get into.

That's probably true, and I can imagine some people on here cheating. At least the winner will know if it was fair and square or not. Still, if anybody wants to play me I'm game.