Schrödingers cat doesn't decide if it lives or dies regardless of whether or not free will exists or not. I'm not sure you understand that thought experiment. See, the cat gets *KILLED* by a *RANDOM* event. Free will plays no role whatsoever.

So your point is that since Object A is built out of Object B, Object A can no longer exist? Wow, just... wow....

Methodological naturalism, of course. You should at least learn the terminology before you decide to classify what is and isn't "basic", as again, you clearly lack a grasp of naturalism.

It doesn't actually dispute what I said in any way.

See, the decision in your brain gets *MADE* by a *RANDOM* event. Free will plays no role whatsoever.

My point is that if Object A is built out of Objects B, then it is nothing more than a collection of Objects B, and has no more meaning or relevance than any of its individual components

Methodological naturalism is a cop-out for intellectually lazy deists and agnostics and/or a mechanism for soft-peddling ontological naturalism to theists, and as far as I can tell, irrelevant to a serious discussion of worldview. If you can give me 3 valid reasons why someone would hold to methodological naturalism without also holding to ontological naturalism I might take that claim a little more seriously.

Except for your earlier claim that you haven't held contradicting viewpoints.

*whoosh*, my point went right over your head.

Obviously you can't, because the resulting structure of those materials is more important than the pieces it is comprised of.

No it isn't. Methodological naturalism is the logical choice for someone who believes in god but isn't an idiot.

That says nothing of my personal beliefs, however. I could be a creationist for all you know

Actually, you illustrated my point brilliantly. Thank you. I'm not sure how you thought that making a point about the randomness of quantum phenomena was in some way arguing against me.

Importance. There you go claiming random particle interactions have importance or meaning or something like that, again. In what context is importance meaningful when discuss purely natural processes?

Your definition of idiot seems to be anyone who believes that God is actually active in the universe. That leaves us with deists, agnostics, and atheists. Deism is intellectual laziness for people who don't care enough to resolve the conflicts between their moral traditions and a naturalist worldview. If belief in God does not in any way impact your understanding of how the universe works, then why does it matter in the first place? Any form of non-temporary agnosticism (as in agnosticism that's part of a slide from one of the belief spectrum to the other) is generally either more intellectual laziness, or atheism with a fear of making commitments.

If you want to keep claiming that your viewpoints are un-contradicting go right on ahead; however, I think that most intelligent beings reading this thread will read something like this:
Me: you've held multiple contradicting viewpoints.
You: no I haven't.
Me: yes, look at them.
You: nope, how do you know I wasn't lying about some of them?
.....

I have *NOT* held contradicting viewpoints during any of our discussions, both in this thread and in others. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, I'm going to go off of the assumption that you "believe" I have, and that you think because you "believe" it that it must be true or significant (you know, like creationists believe that their beliefs actually matter, when they don't)

You're both wrong; this is what really happened:

</thread>

You have dragged this to the bloody, bitter, soul-crushing end, as I expected you to.

That wasn't a chuckle of a picture, that was me reminding you that it's time to go outside and help all these purported homeless and orphans you worry about so much. Writing these miniature essays takes you away from valuable helping time.

And better I get an official warning for actually having a go at you rather than we respect your egotistic raging and quietly edge around it. I will choose to defend myself and be banned for it, rather than take crap from people who cannot keep a straight tone while arguing on the internet.

Honestly, people like Kalphiter and Jimmg off the Retail forums make for better conversation than you as they have the ability to argue without attempting to deride the opponent. This isn't a presidential debate, its a close online forum!

If you don't like the thread, then GTFO. Seriously, not hard.

And, with this, you have neatly proved that it is you with the issues of reading comprehension. I did not say I didn't like the thread, I did not like your method of argument as it is crude and intended to have slight barbs to readers.

A good debater would be able to (like Elfprince) remain impartial and neutral to the argument, not dress their points to offend readers.

Please, go ahead, find in my argument, anywhere, me claiming that "I do not like/approve of/enjoy/care about this topic". I wouldn't still be here if I didn't.

And you do worry. One does not break out their favorite pirated copy of Photoshop, find an image to copy off Google images and think of something vaguely witty and meaningful to scrawl all over it complaining about Christianity without having a motive.

Activists don't send mail to newspapers when they content, and I sure as hell don't argue when I am satisfied. Its not rational to be arguing and disagreeable and then flip around and claim that you don't care and you are not worried. This isn't a 8th grade debate, my friend, you haven't been handed a topic and forced to speak on it, you have actively done research, invested (significant) amounts of time and effort to produce arguments to attempt to win over the opposition and this does not indicate that you are uncaring or unbothered by what you are debating about.

If it didn't bother you that much, I would assume you'd be able to keep a level tone with your audience. Calling me pathetic doesn't suggest you are relaxed, it suggests to me that I am (if you like) "pissing you off", now be it with 'poor argument' as you may like to claim, or simply general stress of such a topic, I do not know, but I am wholly unconvinced you are the:
a) Innocent,
b) Happy, and
c) Unworried
party here.

Tl;dr?
You don't invest such effort for stuff you don't care about.

you do know when you repeat the same comeback over and over it starts to lose its effectiveness

Alright, yes, he acknowledged the word on Nov. 22nd, but I can't even find any hint to the homeless within his post on Nov. 23rd of which you quoted, Kllrnohj. So please, Kllrnohj, what did you read from elrune on Nov. 23rd that I failed to decrypt?

you do know when you repeat the same comeback over and over it starts to lose its effectiveness