(January 23, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 10:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Simple. Purely physical processes just happen; they are not directed to any goals. If your life was a purely physical process then it could not support purposes and meanings.

Would you care to support that statement at all, rather than just asserting it?

I don’t need to. There’s this little thing called burden of proof. My point boils down to this: I see no evidence that physical processes alone are responsible for intentionality. If you have evidence for the positive claim that a purely physical process can have intentionality, then it’s on you.

(January 23, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Because I see no reason why a sufficiently advanced brain, composed as it is of physical processes, could not self-determine its own purpose and meaning.

Simply “seeing no reason” is not the same as coughing up a solution. It’s like me saying I see no reason why there cannot be a God, therefore God.

(January 23, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And please don't insult us both by demanding that all purpose and meaning needs to be externally derived, as I'm fairly sure you're going to; covering for one assertion with a second assertion is hardly good argumentation,

You hating it when you think people put words in your mouth doesn’t seem to stop you from doing so yourself.

(January 23, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: …plenty of human inventions began as additional purposes assigned to objects that didn't originally serve them once new properties or uses for those objects were discovered.

Apparently you cannot distinguish between artifacts and naturally occurring substances? Plus your example is impotent since the functions of artifacts are externally assigned.

I think he meant externally from humans.

(January 20, 2015 at 7:29 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(January 20, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: There is no such thing as a good argument for Christianity. Such a thing has literally never existed.

My son.. don't you know god loves everyone and he loved everyone so much that in a state of idiocy he died for himself to please himself and then realized how stupid it was and decided how stupid of a idea it was and is embarrassed because of it and still to this day and the future?

Exactly. That's why the Second Coming and the cRapture will never happen. Jboy is too embarrassed to ever show his face on Earth again.

(January 23, 2015 at 2:54 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Would you care to support that statement at all, rather than just asserting it?

I don’t need to. There’s this little thing called burden of proof. My point boils down to this: I see no evidence that physical processes alone are responsible for intentionality. If you have evidence for the positive claim that a purely physical process can have intentionality, then it’s on you.

Ah ha ha, no. See, you made the declarative statement, in the post I was responding to, that physical processes cannot support purposes and meanings. That's a positive claim on your part, which has its own burden of proof. For my part, I and the others here already have purposes they have self-determined, and meaning in their lives that is individual, yet still present. Therefore, physical processes are sufficient for meaning and purpose.

One response to that might be that those people aren't solely physical processes, that they have souls, and that is where their purpose comes from. I would expect that a man who just made an argument about the burden of proof would know better than to make an argument like that without first satisfying the burden of proof that souls exist, and that any given person has one... oh, and that this is the source of purpose and meaning. I don't think you're going to be able to do that, which leaves us with... physical processes, that are readily demonstrable to everyone.

Quote:Simply “seeing no reason” is not the same as coughing up a solution. It’s like me saying I see no reason why there cannot be a God, therefore God.

Hey, you're the one making a whole host of unsubstantiated assertions, it's not my problem that I can't fool myself into seeing them. Like I've pointed out earlier, I have meaning and purpose, I don't believe in a god, and the only demonstrable parts of me, and of any human being, are the physical processes that compose us. You're saying those aren't sufficient to establish purpose and meaning, and are hence claiming the existence of something else, which you haven't demonstrated to exist.

Remember what I said earlier about not covering for one assertion with a second assertion? Your entire position is based on doing exactly that.

Quote:You hating it when you think people put words in your mouth doesn’t seem to stop you from doing so yourself.

I was trying to cut out a poor argument early on, to save time. I wasn't telling you what your argument was going to be, I was predicting a potential rebuttal based on what I know of you and explaining why that won't work. Christian apologetics are terribly predictable; if you're going to make a different argument be my guest, but if you can't see the difference between "atheists believe X!" and "if you're thinking of using Y argument, don't because..." then that's your problem, not mine.

Quote:Apparently you cannot distinguish between artifacts and naturally occurring substances? Plus your example is impotent since the functions of artifacts are externally assigned.

What's the issue? Naturally occurring substances and artifacts both are objects that have been given multiple purposes based on their properties in the past, there's little need to distinguish between the two in this context. And wouldn't you then be implying that human beings are artifacts, given that your position hinges on the idea that their purpose is externally derived?

(January 23, 2015 at 3:27 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 12:14 am)Godschild Wrote: God's will cost Him a terrible price but, it was one He was willing to pay and paid it for all mankind.

GC

Jebus didn't pay any price if he's undying.

Keep in mind obviously we (atheists) don't care because we don't believe Jebus was a gawd or there is a gawd to rebel against, so no original sin. We just don't care. Also vicarious redemption is insane.

I greatly appreciate His salvation, for if He hadn't accomplished it I would be in the same boat as all unbelievers. If you expect any further response form me you could have enough respect to spell Jesus and God correctly. I for one do not find it funny, but suck up to those others if that's why you're here.

GC

(January 23, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Godschild Wrote: I greatly appreciate His salvation, for if He hadn't accomplished it I would be in the same boat as all unbelievers. If you expect any further response form me you could have enough respect to spell Jesus and God correctly. I for one do not find it funny, but suck up to those others if that's why you're here.

GC

So, the misspelling of names that aren't even yours is offensive... but the threat of hell there isn't? Not to mention all the times you've directly insulted the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you?

You have a really selective sense of what's respectful, dude.

(January 23, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 3:27 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote: Jebus didn't pay any price if he's undying.

Keep in mind obviously we (atheists) don't care because we don't believe Jebus was a gawd or there is a gawd to rebel against, so no original sin. We just don't care. Also vicarious redemption is insane.

I greatly appreciate His salvation, for if He hadn't accomplished it I would be in the same boat as all unbelievers. If you expect any further response form me you could have enough respect to spell Jesus and God correctly. I for one do not find it funny, but suck up to those others if that's why you're here.

GC

Why are you even here if your skin is that thin? I don't get it. I don't go to christian forums and bitch about Christians not being respectful to atheists and making fun of atheists. If Christians want to make fun of atheists in their christian forums that's to be expected and more power to them. I bet it's cathartic for them as much as it's cathartic for me to mock Jesus, so I leave them be. You've been a member since 2010 if you aren't used to atheists being disrespectful to Jesus then I don't know what to say.

Quote: If you expect any further response form me you could have enough respect to spell Jesus and God correctly.

But I don't expect any further response from you so Jebus Crisp, grow a thicker skin.

The correct spelling is JesusHChrist (with the modifying "in a sidecar!" optional).

I would appreciate it if you would all stick to the correct spelling of JesusHChrist (in a sidecar!) from this point forward.

Otherwise, I shall have no choice but to complain to the management.

(January 20, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: There is an obvious difference between saying "All arguments for Christianity are flawed" or "There are no good arguments for Christianity" and saying that the phrase "Christianity's greatest thinkers" is an oxymoron (it's not, and all of Western civilization was practically developed by thinkers either Christian or sympathetic to it, with a few obvious exceptions) or that theosophers have nothing more intelligent or insightful to offer than the "most intellectually challenged back-woods hick preacher." No one can seriously think that who has taken the time to read some of the greatest and most influential thinkers in history.

"Influential" doesn't mean intelligent, insightful, or correct.

---

(January 22, 2015 at 10:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(January 22, 2015 at 3:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: If there's no God then what's the point of life? Never understood that one.

Simple. Purely physical processes just happen; they are not directed to any goals. If your life was a purely physical process then it could not support purposes and meanings.

Please read The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennet, then come back and apologize to the members of the forum for your shallow thinking.

(January 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Chas Wrote: "Influential" doesn't mean intelligent, insightful, or correct.

Of course. Though I meant influential in the sense of influencing progress. It's that many were intelligent and insightful that I meant by "greatest."