Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[THWOTH]

Originally Posted by jireh

the nazis thought that killing jews were a good thing to protecting the arian race. Whats wrong with that ?

Ethnic cleansing is morally reprehensible. I don't need Jesus to tell me this, and I can justify my moral judgement wholly aside from any particular religious point of view. Let's not forget those Nazi belt-buckles eh?

[Inedifix]

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, that each atheist can freely form his own personal morals, according to what he thinks, is right, and what is wrong, and do what he wants. There are NO consequences, beside the ones applied by society. So if you like to steal, just dont let you catch... thats all....

Yet somehow this just doesn't happen does it. Jails are full of Christians. Atheists are grossly under represented in the prison population. The opposite of what you wish for IS true.

Sorry, Jireh. It must be hard when your dreams fall apart.

[THWOTH]

Originally Posted by jireh

God told Abraham to kill his son. Abraham had no doubt, God was talking to him. God has the ability to talk to us in a way that is clear enough for us to understand, its Gods voice talking to us.

Can you give an example of something that God has said to you in a way that was clear enough for you to understand?

Do you think he wants you to bolster your personal faith by entering this lion's den and steadfastly resisting all reason and logic, ignoring questions, erecting strawmen, so that it might justify your feelings of superiority and your absolute conviction that you are absolutely right about him, for example?

[THWOTH]

Originally Posted by jireh

whatever God presents as a correct set of behavior, rules and commands, represents objective moral values.

But if God is perfect and whatever He does is automatically moral then what if he changes his mind? His absolute morality is a subjective as the rest of us. If He does not, would not, or cannot change His mind then where does He get His absolute moral values from?

[Iseeyouthere]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

I would just like to interrupt, so I can express my thanks to Jireh for bringing us new friends, and bringing some of our old friends out of lurkerdom.

It is heartening to see such fine arguments from some of the newer names on the forums.

Hilarious. He came here to do... something... I'm struggling to keep on track WHAT he is trying to do now...
I'll stick with 'attempting to weaken our arguements and... err... something something goddidit...copy/paste... pancakes...'

Instead, he has made our group stronger and the thread has become a great source of such educational material (not yours Jireh, keep trying ).
I didn't know you guys where capable of all that... IN YOUR OWN WORDS as well.

[Logic please]

@Icey: oh, I think we're a looooooong way from done, yet.

And, nice post, yours.

[Atrax Robustus]

Way back here jireh commenced digging a hole in the land of information theory.

Originally Posted by jireh

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

As jireh has crawled out of the information theory hole only to dig a morality hole so quickly that, within three posts he is now out of sight, I'd like to offer a counter question. I only do this out of frustration because he persists in linking that CDesign Proponentsist site in response to my questions asking why he can exclude dendrochronology as a valid example. We all know that he can only do this if we blindly accept the baseless assertions at (2).

So, it's time to call his bluff!

@ jireh. You make the assertion that "there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information."

Provide me with evidence that conclusively demonstrates that nature can not create a code.

Without conclusive evidence - you are morally obliged to formally retract your challenge at #225.

[davo]

Indeedy Atrax "2) All codes are created by a conscious mind;"

Well please show the evidence for this, considering the second part science says the opposite IE: DNA and RNA

[stevebrooks]

Originally Posted by Logic please

Erm steve, methinks jireh's already been supplied with that bit of info, a little upthread.

But, it's all good... perhaps for jireh, repetition will be the key to understanding...

You guys are adding 6 or 8 pages a DAY to this thread, can't help it if I miss a post or 2 aye?

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by stevebrooks

You guys are adding 6 or 8 pages a DAY to this thread, can't help it if I miss a post or 2 aye?

S'okay, steve. I agree that things do move fast here, it can be pretty hard to keep up.

I just took the opportunity to reinforce a few rather important points to the OP, so my apologies if it came across as giving you a whack, it wasn't intended to.

Anyways... on the bright side, I certainly agree with your post. No biggie.