Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[Xeno]

When I referred in #629 to questions from other posters without naming them, and also on having a chat with davo about this by PM, I thought I should name a few more outstanding issues I picked up in the last hundred posts.

Fataardvark and a couple of other people would like to know this

Originally Posted by fataardvark

jireh, how do you reconcile abandoning the Old Testament with Matthew 5:17-20?

I do not recall that this question from loubert yet has an answer, despite him following up with a further request:

Originally Posted by loubert

I would like to hear from Jireh, in his/her own words, in a couple of sentences or paragraphs, what evolution is and the main driving firce behind evolution. With out copy/paste or a link. I would like to know if you (Jireh), actually understand what you seem to oppose.

loubert also asked about Jireh's devotion to the NT over the OT:

Originally Posted by loubert

Jireh, what is your position on slavery?

Meanwhile, there is a little matter of facts over pixie-wishes

Originally Posted by Inedifix

... if belief in god is the only thing stopping people stealing, raping and murdering, prisons should be full of atheists, whereas the opposite seems to be the case.

According to the US Bureau of Prisons (March 1997: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists)
0.2% of all inmates, 156 people, were atheists.
99.8% of all inmates, 74,575 people, were followers of one faith or another.

That's a Believer to Non-believer ratio of 478 to 1. While the general US population has a Believer to Non-Believer ratio of more like 9 to 1. Making Believers about 53 times more likely to commit crime.

Conclusion?: Lack of belief in god seems to make you 53 time more likely to be a moral human being.

to which Jireh replied with the baldest of assertions contrary to evidence, and with a might lot of wishful thinking:

Originally Posted by jireh

The oposit is NOT the case. But what you say, is irrelevant. The logical consequence of applied atheism in daily life should be ...

Don't you love that should be? What a pity Inedifix provides a link to evidence about facts.

[wolty]

Originally Posted by Xeno

Meanwhile, there is a little matter of facts over pixie-wishesto which Jireh replied with the baldest of assertions contrary to evidence, and with a might lot of wishful thinkingon't you love that should be? What a pity Inedifix provides a link to evidence about facts.

Want more evidence?



Sorry for the big image. It looks better as big.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

That's a good one wolty. Certainly shatters the whole "religion = morality" and "religion = good" cases.

[wolty]

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That's a good one wolty. Certainly shatters the whole "religion = morality" and "religion = good" cases.

We know it. And jireh will deny it. Because they are facts and jireh doesn't 'do' facts.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by wolty

We know it. And jireh will deny it. Because they are facts and jireh doesn't 'do' facts.

He has jirehscopic stabilizers from NASA* built in. The facts can't knock him off the fantasy.

*National Apologetic Shite Association

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by wolty

Want more evidence?

Sorry for the big image. It looks better as big.

Evidence copied. Thanks

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by jireh

even the very first cell must be irreducible complex, with the information fully stored already.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html



kokook. check mate.....

Brrrwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ahhh, that central canard of creationism intelligent design, irreducible complexity...

Well jireh, the time ID fronted up for a proper contest of ideas, guess what? It. Got. Smoked.

LINK:

Originally Posted by Kizmiller case summary (wiki)

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.[1] In October 2004 the Dover Area School District changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People was to be used as a reference book.[2] The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

So, what did the court have to say about ID and irreducible complexity, in the decision?

Originally Posted by Kitzmiller case decision extract (wiki)

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
...
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
...
...ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64)
(my emphases)

Now for the exquisite irony... the judge in the case was actually religious!!! Sorry, no opportunity for you to claim some immoral godless heathen conspiracy, either.

And since you ended up referencing birds, in your post... methinks that your horribly early crow, is now stuck somewhere in your craw.

BTW, how's that explanation of naturalism in your own words, coming along? Oh please, no rush... it's only the fourth fucking time you've been asked. I also note there's a heap of outstanding queries from other posters as well, so you best get cracking, jireh...

[wolty]

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of
homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion
in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S.,
is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the
most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost
always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world
is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to
the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular
factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of
evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human
evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are
usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is
experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an
outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable
secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes
outstandingly so.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf

Morality has a strong negative correlation with regards religion. We know it. It is fact. Jireh's fantasy world does not equate with reality.

Notice the bolded bit jireh? Seems your god is a bit of a joker. He likes to fuck you up for fun.

And see all those red lines on the above graphs jireh? Each one of them says your arguments about morality and societal health are full of shit and should be laughed at and discounted with all the other fantasys of the world.

[Inedifix]

Originally Posted by hackenslash

Hey Hack. How's things up north? Been a while since I was in a forum. Last time I saw you online we were ripping Catholic.ie a new one.

[THWOTH]

Originally Posted by jireh

no, not necessarly a atheist has to become a murderer, rapist, paedophile, and thief. But if he thinks that the most convenient for his personal interests and survival is to do such things, there is no basis in atheism to condemn someone with these convictions.

Bollocks.

Being of an atheistic outlook DOES NOT mean that one foregoes morality or is somehow immunised against the personal moral consequences of our actions. It just means that our morality is not rooted in an obligation to conform to the capricious will of a mythical authority.