(March 20, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: That's another problem...no sense of humor.

---

Good grief I put the smiley face in to give the clueless a clue it was a joke...and still you don't get it.

Wow, looks like you get a lot of flak from us here. Sorry.

Why are you apologizing? Have you wronged him?

(March 20, 2015 at 11:20 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 20, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Delicate Wrote: Wow, looks like you get a lot of flak from us here. Sorry.

Why are you apologizing? Have you wronged him?

A bit, yes.

(March 21, 2015 at 1:38 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(March 20, 2015 at 11:20 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Why are you apologizing? Have you wronged him?

A bit, yes.

Maybe quote the post where you believe you wronged him instead of speaking for other.

(March 21, 2015 at 2:13 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(March 21, 2015 at 1:38 pm)Delicate Wrote: A bit, yes.

Maybe quote the post where you believe you wronged him instead of speaking for other.

Are you quite happy to bully him and pick on him because he's a theist?

(March 21, 2015 at 1:38 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(March 20, 2015 at 11:20 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Why are you apologizing? Have you wronged him?

A bit, yes.

I guess I missed that.

(March 20, 2015 at 7:05 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Watch out! He's going to sneak in another argument from design!

I would only do that to annoy you...

---

(March 20, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: That's another problem...no sense of humor.

---

Good grief I put the smiley face in to give the clueless a clue it was a joke...and still you don't get it.

Wow, looks like you get a lot of flak from us here. Sorry.

Actually this is one of the more reasonable places to have such a discussion. Other discussion boards have been far more hostile and personal attacks are just the order of the day.

(March 21, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(March 21, 2015 at 2:13 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Maybe quote the post where you believe you wronged him instead of speaking for other.

Are you quite happy to bully him and pick on him because he's a theist?

Wow. Load your questions much?

Whether I am or not is irrelevant to the fact that you quoted Mister Agenda and myself, then apologized for our actions. All I ask is that you not presume to speak for me. If I feel an apology is due someone, I'll make it.

(March 21, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(March 21, 2015 at 2:13 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Maybe quote the post where you believe you wronged him instead of speaking for other.

Are you quite happy to bully him and pick on him because he's a theist?

Can't speak for SOW, as for me, yes.

Ha ha ha

Snakeoil

Quote:You claim you were making a joke. So, does that mean you finally recognize there is a difference between claiming there is no gawd and claiming not to believe in one? So far, I've seen no evidence that you understand the point.

Still not sure what you mean by gawd...is that just a disparaging way you spell it or do you mean something else.

Whether there is a difference depends on whether the person who states there is no God is making a fact claim or just stating an opinion. If an opinion built into that is the possibility they are wrong and God may in fact exist. If you claim not to believe in the existence of God it would be presumably because you don't believe God exists. I'm pretty confident no one claims to not believe in God yet thinks God does exist.

Salesman,

Quote:A volcano eruption, natural or something else?

I'm still waiting for your definition or demarcation that distinguishes something natural from something supernatural. I think any criteria ends up being a moving target but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Quote:A mind is not supernatural.

I've argued with other atheists (not you obviously) who reject the notion that humans are sentient beings who can volitionally choose to do things and are free will agents. The very reason being because that would make our minds 'supernatural' at least in their opinion. As a result they spout the notion (whether they really believe it or not is another thing) that the sensation we have that we choose to do things is just an illusion. In fact they subscribe to a deterministic point of view that our decisions are just a result of variables over which we have no control. I then point out if so, there decision to believe in atheism has nothing to do with the facts to which they immediately balk at such a notion even though it comports with their belief...go figure.

Quote:You and I are both using our natural minds to communicate through other natural mediums. The kind of things you have posited (a mind that poofs universes containing natural minds who create video games) that is supernatural, and it requires evidence. Notice that what you've said no longer supports your car argument because when we take out the straw man, its obvious that cars are natural creations inspired by human minds who act upon other existing stuff. But, that's not at all what we've been arguing about.

I was looking at your argument as a premise...

1. Any object that can be explained by an appeal to the laws of physics has a natural cause.
2. Cars and the universe can be explained naturalistically.
3. Therefore both cars and the universe have a natural origin.

Correct me if I'm wrong but by natural you meant by non-personal forces that didn't intend to create anything. Would it be fair to say that whether through a supernatural mind (whatever that is until we define it) or a natural mind you don't believe either caused the universe to exist and in part you offer as evidence the fact we don't need to appeal to anything but the laws of physics to explain how the universe works. I suspect but I'm willing to be corrected that you no more believe the universe was purposely created and designed by a supernatural mind then by a rogue scientist from another universe even though that would fall into the natural category true?

Quote:The default position is that the universe we see is entirely natural, and since there is no evidence for supernatural, the default position is that this is exactly the universe we would have that could be created by mindless forces.

This is from another post but I haven't addressed it because we really need to define supernatural first. You say the default position is what we see is entirely natural. At best that is a tautology. We define natural (in this case) by everything we have observed so far. And note that you say mindless forces...whether natural or not. I suspect then you mean you believe the universe wasn't created by mind whether natural or supernatural. If so then supernatural mind is just a red herring. In spite of having no definition suppose the universe came into existence caused by forces completely different from the laws of nature we are familiar with. Since those forces caused our universe to exist (in this hypothetical) and are different from the laws of physics we are familiar with and are transcendent to them...would they not be characterized as supernatural?