(March 2, 2021 at 8:48 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(March 2, 2021 at 8:43 pm)Seax Wrote: Yes, I came here expecting a somewhat rational argument & all I've gotten is snark. I suppose I am rather precious & naive.

You got what you gave.  Start something, expect something.

I gave three paragraphs arguing my basic position.

I've gotten not even one arguing against it.

(March 2, 2021 at 8:53 pm)Seax Wrote:

(March 2, 2021 at 8:48 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: You got what you gave.  Start something, expect something.

I gave three paragraphs arguing my basic position.

I've gotten not even one arguing against it.

Try writing it again after you take that giant chip off your shoulder.

And the thread title isn't winning you many friends either.

Get over yourself.

Hello new entity.

Can I interest you in an introduction thread so that we can get to know you better.

At this point all I know is that you believe that you are smarter or better than the rest of us lowly heathens. And that you and I seem to have a difference of opinion regarding what is rational.

You want argument, I reject your conclusion that the laws of nature are "Gods will". You have provided no concrete evidence that a god(s) exists, therefore no gods will exists. Attempting to argue a god into existence is a waste of my time.

(March 2, 2021 at 9:02 pm)brewer Wrote: Hello new entity.

Can I interest you in an introduction thread so that we can get to know you better.

At this point all I know is that you believe that you are smarter or better than the rest of us lowly heathens. And that you and I seem to have a difference of opinion regarding what is rational.

You want argument, I reject your conclusion that the laws of nature are "Gods will". You have provided no concrete evidence that a god(s) exists, therefore no gods will exists. Attempting to argue a god into existence is a waste of my time.

Is an introduction thread mandatory? I'd rather not, to be honest.

I am not talking about some anthropomorphic deity, that is just a spook. I am talking about the purpose inherent in nature.

(March 2, 2021 at 9:06 pm)Seax Wrote:

(March 2, 2021 at 9:02 pm)brewer Wrote: Hello new entity.

Can I interest you in an introduction thread so that we can get to know you better.

At this point all I know is that you believe that you are smarter or better than the rest of us lowly heathens. And that you and I seem to have a difference of opinion regarding what is rational.

You want argument, I reject your conclusion that the laws of nature are "Gods will". You have provided no concrete evidence that a god(s) exists, therefore no gods will exists. Attempting to argue a god into existence is a waste of my time.

Is an introduction thread mandatory? I'd rather not, to be honest.

I am not talking about some anthropomorphic deity, that is just a spook. I am talking about the purpose inherent in nature.

Nope, not necessary.

Then defining nature/natural processes as "gods will" on an atheist forum is simply poking the bear for no real purpose other than to get a reaction.

Congratulations.

(March 2, 2021 at 9:11 pm)brewer Wrote:

(March 2, 2021 at 9:06 pm)Seax Wrote: Is an introduction thread mandatory? I'd rather not, to be honest.

I am not talking about some anthropomorphic deity, that is just a spook. I am talking about the purpose inherent in nature.

Nope, not necessary.

Then defining nature/natural processes as "gods will" on an atheist forum is simply poking the bear for no real purpose other than to get a reaction.

Congratulations.

So then believe you that nature is just purposeless, meaningless? That it has no direction?

(March 2, 2021 at 9:13 pm)Seax Wrote:

(March 2, 2021 at 9:11 pm)brewer Wrote: Nope, not necessary.

Then defining nature/natural processes as "gods will" on an atheist forum is simply poking the bear for no real purpose other than to get a reaction.

Congratulations.

So then believe you that nature is just purposeless, meaningless? That it has no direction?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Consideration of purpose, meaning and direction means little without context.

(March 2, 2021 at 8:53 pm)Seax Wrote:

(March 2, 2021 at 8:48 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: You got what you gave.  Start something, expect something.

I gave three paragraphs arguing my basic position.

I've gotten not even one arguing against it.

No, sweetie, you didn’t argue your position. You stated your position and said were all stupid because we don’t agree with you, a charge you made without knowing whether we agree with you or not.

Tell me WHY I should take pantheism seriously. Don’t tell me what it is (I already know) and don’t tell my why YOU accept it (I don’t care). Tell me why I should agree with your position - THAT’S an argument.

Boru

(March 2, 2021 at 9:20 pm)brewer Wrote:

(March 2, 2021 at 9:13 pm)Seax Wrote: So then believe you that nature is just purposeless, meaningless? That it has no direction?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Consideration of purpose, meaning and direction means little without context.

Believe you that nature is deterministic? If so, then surely most everything outside the control of organisms with advanced brains & free will has been fated, no? Even these things are deterministic, because whether an organism survives and passes on its thought patterns depends on how much those thought patterns align with its environment and give it a survival and reproductive advantage. I want to be very, very clear that I am not trying to invoke the God of the gaps, or 'haha there is a gap in empirical knowledge here, atheists BTFO' or any such silliness. I am talking about the ultimate consequences of natural laws, by which I mean the direction in which they cause the universe to move towards.

Obvious troll is obvious.