Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists: do you agree or disagree with this?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 12:50:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

I would say that they serve no objective purpose. Depending on context, they could serve several different subjective purposes.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 12:53:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:50:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

I would say that they serve no objective purpose. Depending on context, they could serve several different subjective purposes.

Ok, good. I'll wait til more reply.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:04:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The heart pumps blood, it serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

The brain controls the body based on the input from the senses, it serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

Lungs take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide, they serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

The stomach dissolves foods, it serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Intestines extract nutrients from food, it serves no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Kidneys filter the blood, they serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Yes.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:10:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Depends on what you mean by "purpose." Do they serve some grand purpose? No. But they all have a function in body.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:13:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Define "Purpose" in the context of your question, please. They are all organs that perform a function as part of the biological processes of a living being. In that sense, they all serve a purpose in keeping that particular being alive and able to function as well.

Do they have a purpose as in some innate reason for existing? No, no more than any other component of the universe.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:10:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Depends on what you mean by "purpose." Do they serve some grand purpose? No. But they all have a function in body.

Yes but they're all arbitrary functions.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:20:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:13:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Define "Purpose" in the context of your question, please. They are all organs that perform a function as part of the biological processes of a living being. In that sense, they all serve a purpose in keeping that particular being alive and able to function as well.

Not possible. Organs serve no purpose in keeping an organism alive.

Do they have a purpose as in some innate reason for existing? No, no more than any other component of the universe.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:22:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:19:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:10:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Depends on what you mean by "purpose." Do they serve some grand purpose? No. But they all have a function in body.

Yes but they're all arbitrary functions.

How are they arbitrary?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:24:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:20:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:13:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Define "Purpose" in the context of your question, please. They are all organs that perform a function as part of the biological processes of a living being. In that sense, they all serve a purpose in keeping that particular being alive and able to function as well.

Not possible. Organs serve no purpose in keeping an organism alive.

Do they have a purpose as in some innate reason for existing? No, no more than any other component of the universe.

Then tear out your stomach and see how long you live, you nincompoop.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:25:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:22:10 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:19:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:10:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Depends on what you mean by "purpose." Do they serve some grand purpose? No. But they all have a function in body.

Yes but they're all arbitrary functions.

How are they arbitrary?

The heart circulates the blood and results in the sustenance of life but doesn't serve that purpose.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:26:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:24:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:20:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:13:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Define "Purpose" in the context of your question, please. They are all organs that perform a function as part of the biological processes of a living being. In that sense, they all serve a purpose in keeping that particular being alive and able to function as well.

Not possible. Organs serve no purpose in keeping an organism alive.

Do they have a purpose as in some innate reason for existing? No, no more than any other component of the universe.

Then tear out your stomach and see how long you live, you nincompoop.

I'm asking if a stomach exists for any purpose. If it's to keep an organism alive, that's not possible.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:28:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:25:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:22:10 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:19:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:10:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Depends on what you mean by "purpose." Do they serve some grand purpose? No. But they all have a function in body.

Yes but they're all arbitrary functions.

How are they arbitrary?

The heart circulates the blood and results in the sustenance of life but doesn't serve that purpose.

It fulfills that role. If it didn't, it would not have been selected for through evolutionary development. How is that arbitrary?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:32:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:28:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:25:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:22:10 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:19:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:10:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Depends on what you mean by "purpose." Do they serve some grand purpose? No. But they all have a function in body.

Yes but they're all arbitrary functions.

How are they arbitrary?

The heart circulates the blood and results in the sustenance of life but doesn't serve that purpose.

It fulfills that role. If it didn't, it would not have been selected for through evolutionary development. How is that arbitrary?

There is no "role". The dice fell and organs just happened to aid in survival.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:32:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:26:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:24:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:20:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:13:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Define "Purpose" in the context of your question, please. They are all organs that perform a function as part of the biological processes of a living being. In that sense, they all serve a purpose in keeping that particular being alive and able to function as well.

Not possible. Organs serve no purpose in keeping an organism alive.

Do they have a purpose as in some innate reason for existing? No, no more than any other component of the universe.

Then tear out your stomach and see how long you live, you nincompoop.

I'm asking if a stomach exists for any purpose. If it's to keep an organism alive, that's not possible.

And I said it serves the purpose of being one of many organs that work in concert to keep you as an organism functioning. You said it serves no purpose in keep an organism alive. If you mean that by keeping an organism alive it serves no "Purpose" then I could perhaps agree. Nothing in this universe has a 'Purpose' in that respect. We are but the results of natural forces acting in natural ways. Any 'Purpose' we have comes from within ourselves.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:36:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:32:33 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:26:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:24:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:20:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:13:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Define "Purpose" in the context of your question, please. They are all organs that perform a function as part of the biological processes of a living being. In that sense, they all serve a purpose in keeping that particular being alive and able to function as well.

Not possible. Organs serve no purpose in keeping an organism alive.

Do they have a purpose as in some innate reason for existing? No, no more than any other component of the universe.

Then tear out your stomach and see how long you live, you nincompoop.

I'm asking if a stomach exists for any purpose. If it's to keep an organism alive, that's not possible.

And I said it serves the purpose of being one of many organs that work in concert to keep you as an organism functioning.

Not possible. No organs work to keep organisms functioning.

You said it serves no purpose in keep an organism alive. If you mean that by keeping an organism alive it serves no "Purpose" then I could perhaps agree.

No organs work to keep an organism live.

Nothing in this universe has a 'Purpose' in that respect. We are but the results of natural forces acting in natural ways. Any 'Purpose' we have comes from within ourselves.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:38:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:36:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:32:33 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:26:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:24:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:20:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:13:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Define "Purpose" in the context of your question, please. They are all organs that perform a function as part of the biological processes of a living being. In that sense, they all serve a purpose in keeping that particular being alive and able to function as well.

Not possible. Organs serve no purpose in keeping an organism alive.

Do they have a purpose as in some innate reason for existing? No, no more than any other component of the universe.

Then tear out your stomach and see how long you live, you nincompoop.

I'm asking if a stomach exists for any purpose. If it's to keep an organism alive, that's not possible.

And I said it serves the purpose of being one of many organs that work in concert to keep you as an organism functioning.


Not possible. No organs work to keep organisms functioning.

You said it serves no purpose in keep an organism alive. If you mean that by keeping an organism alive it serves no "Purpose" then I could perhaps agree.

No organs work to keep an organism live.

Nothing in this universe has a 'Purpose' in that respect. We are but the results of natural forces acting in natural ways. Any 'Purpose' we have comes from within ourselves.

Now you have stepped completely into ridiculousness. If you have a point, make it. If not, please stop making these absolutely ludicrous statements.
Usagi
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:39:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:38:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:36:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:32:33 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:26:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:24:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:20:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:13:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Define "Purpose" in the context of your question, please. They are all organs that perform a function as part of the biological processes of a living being. In that sense, they all serve a purpose in keeping that particular being alive and able to function as well.

Not possible. Organs serve no purpose in keeping an organism alive.

Do they have a purpose as in some innate reason for existing? No, no more than any other component of the universe.

Then tear out your stomach and see how long you live, you nincompoop.

I'm asking if a stomach exists for any purpose. If it's to keep an organism alive, that's not possible.

And I said it serves the purpose of being one of many organs that work in concert to keep you as an organism functioning.


Not possible. No organs work to keep organisms functioning.

You said it serves no purpose in keep an organism alive. If you mean that by keeping an organism alive it serves no "Purpose" then I could perhaps agree.

No organs work to keep an organism live.

Nothing in this universe has a 'Purpose' in that respect. We are but the results of natural forces acting in natural ways. Any 'Purpose' we have comes from within ourselves.

Now you have stepped completely into ridiculousness. If you have a point, make it. If not, please stop making these absolutely ludicrous statements.

I'm glad to hear that. It is ridiculous, isn't it?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:42:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

If something came about for no reason how could it perform a "function"? A function is an end. Organs can't be means toward any end.

For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.

That's not possible. It can't serve as a means towards some end. Unless you're willing to argue that something that came about for no reason was made for some reason.
Usagi
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:42:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

If something came about for no reason how could it perform a "function"? A function is an end. Organs can't be means toward any end.

As organs currently do perform functions and are means towards an end (lungs provide airborne resources for the body to use in regular operation, heart provides an engine for moving resources throughout the body to allow resource gathering to be performed by specialized organs, etc) the burden of proof as to their not performing functions lies on you.


For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.

That's not possible. It can't serve as a means towards some end.
As above.
Unless you're willing to argue that something that came about for no reason was made for some reason.

This is attempting to confuse the definitions of reason, the cause in a cause-and-effect relationship and the concept of motives. Organs came about for a reason (having groups of cells in an organism perform specialized functions better facilitates the operation of larger organisms; therefore, the organisms that developed specialized groups of cells were more likely to grow larger and have advantages over ones that did not), but they did not require a reason (an intent, from what we would recognize as a conscious, intelligent will) to come about.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:56:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:54:38 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:42:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

If something came about for no reason how could it perform a "function"? A function is an end. Organs can't be means toward any end.

As organs currently do perform functions and are means towards an end (lungs provide airborne resources for the body to use in regular operation, heart provides an engine for moving resources throughout the body to allow resource gathering to be performed by specialized organs, etc) the burden of proof as to their not performing functions lies on you.


For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.

That's not possible. It can't serve as a means towards some end.
As above.
Unless you're willing to argue that something that came about for no reason was made for some reason.

This is attempting to confuse the definitions of reason, the cause in a cause-and-effect relationship and the concept of motives. Organs came about for a reason (having groups of cells in an organism perform specialized functions better facilitates the operation of larger organisms; therefore, the organisms that developed specialized groups of cells were more likely to grow larger and have advantages over ones that did not), but they did not require a reason (an intent, from what we would recognize as a conscious, intelligent will) to come about.

Ben is incapable of recognizing that distinction. According to him if God didn't do it, it's impossible.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 2:17:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:32:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:28:03 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:25:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:22:10 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:19:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:10:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Depends on what you mean by "purpose." Do they serve some grand purpose? No. But they all have a function in body.

Yes but they're all arbitrary functions.

How are they arbitrary?

The heart circulates the blood and results in the sustenance of life but doesn't serve that purpose.

It fulfills that role. If it didn't, it would not have been selected for through evolutionary development. How is that arbitrary?

There is no "role". The dice fell and organs just happened to aid in survival.

Okay, it doesn't matter. I'll agree it's arbitrary for the sake of argument. So what?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 2:28:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:54:38 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:42:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

If something came about for no reason how could it perform a "function"? A function is an end. Organs can't be means toward any end.

As organs currently do perform functions and are means towards an end (lungs provide airborne resources for the body to use in regular operation, heart provides an engine for moving resources throughout the body to allow resource gathering to be performed by specialized organs, etc) the burden of proof as to their not performing functions lies on you.

I'll just ask you a few questions to show you where you went wrong.

(1) are you an atheist?

(2) does humanity exist for any reason?

(3) does evolution occur for any reason?

In order to be a means towards some end that thing must occur for a reason.


For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.

That's not possible. It can't serve as a means towards some end.
As above.
Unless you're willing to argue that something that came about for no reason was made for some reason.

This is attempting to confuse the definitions of reason, the cause in a cause-and-effect relationship and the concept of motives. Organs came about for a reason (having groups of cells in an organism perform specialized functions better facilitates the operation of larger organisms; therefore, the organisms that developed specialized groups of cells were more likely to grow larger and have advantages over ones that did not), but they did not require a reason (an intent, from what we would recognize as a conscious, intelligent will) to come about.

So organs came about *for a reason* but *required no reason* to come about? If so, how could they possibly be a means towards an end?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 2:30:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 1:56:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:54:38 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:42:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

If something came about for no reason how could it perform a "function"? A function is an end. Organs can't be means toward any end.

As organs currently do perform functions and are means towards an end (lungs provide airborne resources for the body to use in regular operation, heart provides an engine for moving resources throughout the body to allow resource gathering to be performed by specialized organs, etc) the burden of proof as to their not performing functions lies on you.


For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.

That's not possible. It can't serve as a means towards some end.
As above.
Unless you're willing to argue that something that came about for no reason was made for some reason.

This is attempting to confuse the definitions of reason, the cause in a cause-and-effect relationship and the concept of motives. Organs came about for a reason (having groups of cells in an organism perform specialized functions better facilitates the operation of larger organisms; therefore, the organisms that developed specialized groups of cells were more likely to grow larger and have advantages over ones that did not), but they did not require a reason (an intent, from what we would recognize as a conscious, intelligent will) to come about.

Ben is incapable of recognizing that distinction. According to him if God didn't do it, it's impossible.

I wouldn't bet too much on it if I were you, I already know where this is going. There is *no* possibly way that our organs occur for any reason, purpose, function, or act as a means towards any end if atheism is true. Simply because *nothing* exists for any reason if atheism is true.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 2:38:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 2:30:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:56:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:54:38 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:42:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

If something came about for no reason how could it perform a "function"? A function is an end. Organs can't be means toward any end.

As organs currently do perform functions and are means towards an end (lungs provide airborne resources for the body to use in regular operation, heart provides an engine for moving resources throughout the body to allow resource gathering to be performed by specialized organs, etc) the burden of proof as to their not performing functions lies on you.


For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.

That's not possible. It can't serve as a means towards some end.
As above.
Unless you're willing to argue that something that came about for no reason was made for some reason.

This is attempting to confuse the definitions of reason, the cause in a cause-and-effect relationship and the concept of motives. Organs came about for a reason (having groups of cells in an organism perform specialized functions better facilitates the operation of larger organisms; therefore, the organisms that developed specialized groups of cells were more likely to grow larger and have advantages over ones that did not), but they did not require a reason (an intent, from what we would recognize as a conscious, intelligent will) to come about.

Ben is incapable of recognizing that distinction. According to him if God didn't do it, it's impossible.

I wouldn't bet too much on it if I were you, I already know where this is going. There is *no* possibly way that our organs occur for any reason, purpose, function, or act as a means towards any end if atheism is true. Simply because *nothing* exists for any reason if atheism is true.

As usual, baseless assertions with zero factual evidence to back them up. Go home, Ben.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 2:46:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 2:38:18 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:30:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:56:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:54:38 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:42:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

If something came about for no reason how could it perform a "function"? A function is an end. Organs can't be means toward any end.

As organs currently do perform functions and are means towards an end (lungs provide airborne resources for the body to use in regular operation, heart provides an engine for moving resources throughout the body to allow resource gathering to be performed by specialized organs, etc) the burden of proof as to their not performing functions lies on you.


For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.

That's not possible. It can't serve as a means towards some end.
As above.
Unless you're willing to argue that something that came about for no reason was made for some reason.

This is attempting to confuse the definitions of reason, the cause in a cause-and-effect relationship and the concept of motives. Organs came about for a reason (having groups of cells in an organism perform specialized functions better facilitates the operation of larger organisms; therefore, the organisms that developed specialized groups of cells were more likely to grow larger and have advantages over ones that did not), but they did not require a reason (an intent, from what we would recognize as a conscious, intelligent will) to come about.

Ben is incapable of recognizing that distinction. According to him if God didn't do it, it's impossible.

I wouldn't bet too much on it if I were you, I already know where this is going. There is *no* possibly way that our organs occur for any reason, purpose, function, or act as a means towards any end if atheism is true. Simply because *nothing* exists for any reason if atheism is true.

As usual, baseless assertions with zero factual evidence to back them up. Go home, Ben.

*sigh* I didn't want to have to do this.

(1) are you an atheist

(2) does humanity exist for any reason

(3) does evolution occur for any reason
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 2:48:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

I'm not quite sure what you mean
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 2:50:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 2:46:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:38:18 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:30:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:56:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:54:38 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:42:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/25/2015 1:39:24 PM, Usagi wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:42:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The heart serves no purpose.

The brain serves no purpose.

Lungs serve no purpose.

The stomach serves no purpose.

Intestines serve no purpose.

Kidneys serve no purpose.

Do you agree or disagree with his?

Disagree. Their purpose, regardless of where that purpose came from or whether or not that purpose is subjective, is their functions. I would argue they are objective purposes that came about without an intelligent will.

If something came about for no reason how could it perform a "function"? A function is an end. Organs can't be means toward any end.

As organs currently do perform functions and are means towards an end (lungs provide airborne resources for the body to use in regular operation, heart provides an engine for moving resources throughout the body to allow resource gathering to be performed by specialized organs, etc) the burden of proof as to their not performing functions lies on you.


For instance: the circulatory system doesn't have to have been designed by an intelligent will in order to perform its function. If its function (providing a centralized system for dealing with the movement of resources between cells in the body) has come about naturally because that happened to be the most optimal way to go about managing the flow of resources that our evolutionary line happened upon, then its purpose, objectively, is that function.

That's not possible. It can't serve as a means towards some end.
As above.
Unless you're willing to argue that something that came about for no reason was made for some reason.

This is attempting to confuse the definitions of reason, the cause in a cause-and-effect relationship and the concept of motives. Organs came about for a reason (having groups of cells in an organism perform specialized functions better facilitates the operation of larger organisms; therefore, the organisms that developed specialized groups of cells were more likely to grow larger and have advantages over ones that did not), but they did not require a reason (an intent, from what we would recognize as a conscious, intelligent will) to come about.

Ben is incapable of recognizing that distinction. According to him if God didn't do it, it's impossible.

I wouldn't bet too much on it if I were you, I already know where this is going. There is *no* possibly way that our organs occur for any reason, purpose, function, or act as a means towards any end if atheism is true. Simply because *nothing* exists for any reason if atheism is true.

As usual, baseless assertions with zero factual evidence to back them up. Go home, Ben.

*sigh* I didn't want to have to do this.

(1) are you an atheist

(2) does humanity exist for any reason

(3) does evolution occur for any reason

Of course you did, that's the whole reason you asked the stupid questions in the first place, Ben. At least own up to it and stop being a drama queen.

(1) Yes

(2) Yes, evolutionary pressures drove our development into the current level of development we enjoy.

(3) Yes, conditions change so species adapt over time as new traits emerge that make part of the population more able to survive and thrive within the new ecology.