- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.