Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[davo]

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?

lol! I do all the time

But methinks Jireh needs the reminding

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Well jireh, you claim that God is needed for morality. How do you explain all those idiots in prison for murdering others in the name of God or christians killing people who are gay?

what does that have to do with the argument ? it seems you completely misunderstand it.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Xeno

You think your god gives you morality but you have no idea how he comes up with it and presents it to you.

wrong. the bible tells me.

You think you will kill for your god but have no idea how or when you would know you were commanded to do so.

thats right. Never thought about that. Neither do i think, that will ever be necessary, since i do not believe, God will ever ask me to do so.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by THWOTH

I condemn your morality because you stated you would kill another on the order of your god. I have as much right to judge as any other member of society. Being an atheist does not mean one foregoes moral judgements - regardless of what you might wish insist.

So based on what standard do you believe your morality is objectively valid ? why should i respect it ?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Jaar-Gilon

What? A reaction to the thoughts? That doesn't make sense. The reaction is the thoughts. What do you think thoughts are?? No, it is the brain producing thoughts, it is the thoughts. I will repeat, thoughts are made from physical processes they are for all intents and purposes physical. It seems you are suggesting that on the fMRI scan the reactions come after the thoughts. Do you indeed mean this? Don't you see the incongruity if you do?
Your personality is not immutable it is readily changeable just ask someone who has suffered brain trauma or who has been cured of mental disorders via drugs or electrode implants. If thoughts came first before physical function these things would not work or happen. All you are and everything you feel are just different brain states and when your brain ceases to function or dies so do you, destined to return where you were before you were concieved.

bollocks.

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?p...material_world

Imagine you’re sitting on a park bench and spot a good friend approaching. You raise your arm and wave.

Why did you wave? There was nothing in the physical world that compelled you through the laws of physics, or chemistry, or anything else to raise your arm. Your action did not begin with a physical process; your action began with your will. Your will to raise your arm was not a physical part of your body. Your thought was non-physical—it couldn’t have been measured because it had no mass and took up no space. Try describing your thoughts and your will in physical terms—what color are they? How big are they? How much do they weigh? These questions are meaningless because our wills are not in the same category as objects in the physical world, which can be described in such terms.

Our wills are non-physical, and yet somehow our non-physical wills are connected to, and have power over, a part of the material world. Somehow our non-physical thoughts and wills are able to move physical objects—our own bodies.

Our limited minds are only able to move our own bodies, but is it so outrageous to think that it’s possible for there to be a greater mind out there who would have access to all physical objects? It’s difficult to rule out the possibility on principle when we see the same thing taking place on a smaller scale everyday, every time we make a move.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Xeno

Jireh, what is your moral objective? Is it to do what you think your god commands? Is it to make it to heaven / avoid hell? Something else?

Its about to obey Gods command, to teach the gospel to all creature.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

Jireh wrote:-

No! As I said, antibodies are selected, parasites begin as generalists, ligand-receptor pairs co-evolve from the general to the specific guided by the natural selection process. It is NOT a chicken and egg paradox-not even the chook & egg paradox is a paradox.

In uncertain environments, organisms can tweak their mutation rates. In predictable environments, organisms can even adaptively predict. This is how circadian rhythms evolve.

If Stimulus One always appears before stimulus 2, then organisms. if there is selective advantage to it, can go stright to response 2

S1 >> R1
and
S1 >> R2

then

S1 >>> R2.

I posted a paper on this very recently in the Science and reason Channel, but of course you either did not read it, or did not understand it. Tell me the title of that paper.

Mutation and selection begins, once a first living being exists.....

[Logic please]

@Mr B: how about it being just plain factually wrong?

Originally Posted by jireh

bollocks.

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?p...material_world

Jireh, you really need to refrain from premature exultation. It's becoming quite a habit of yours, and IMO is best done in private, if at all, methinks - LINK:

Originally Posted by brain synapse wiki

Chemical synapses are specialized junctions through which neurons signal to each other and to non-neuronal cells such as those in muscles or glands. Chemical synapses allow neurons to form circuits within the central nervous system. They are crucial to the biological computations that underlie perception and thought. They allow the nervous system to connect to and control other systems of the body.
At a chemical synapse, one neuron releases neurotransmitter molecules into a small space (the synaptic cleft) that is adjacent to another neuron. These molecules then bind to the neuroreceptors on the receiving cell's side of the synaptic cleft. Finally, the neurotransmitters must be cleared out of the synapse efficiently so that the synapse can be ready to function again as soon as possible. (my emphasis)

See? Thoughts have a documented biological, therefore physical, basis.

Nice to see you have a fan club though, with RatSkep luminaries like Thwoth and hackenslash coming over to play...

"Keep diggin', fella".

[jireh]

Originally Posted by davo

oh poppycock. I explained this what is so hard? You are so caught up in conceptual 'moral standards' that you can't work out if stealing is wrong or right?

it seems you dont grasp the argument. If someone comes and sets different moral values than you do, how can you say who is right ? How can you objectively say, Hitler was wrong , if there is no higher moral giver ?

People don't want to live in a society where others kill and steal.

Maibe in a other society, there is no objection to this. How can you then condem these people for what they think is right to do?

It isn't some huge step of some god-given idea that they stop that stuff to feel protected in the society they live in, to work with others on having a happy and safe society.

Hitler thought the german nation would be safer without the jews.....

My natural tendency is to feel safe. For this to happen I have to make deals with others not to hurt me, and for me not to hurt them. My morality is built on critical thinking and reasoning over actions, on ethics. In other words causing the least harm possible.

thats YOUR view of things. Canaanite religion followers had a practice to offer their babies to their gods, and thought that way their Gods would be mercyful with them. What is wrong with that ?

This is the basis for why we have laws and consider murder wrong.

So is in your view abortion right, or wrong ?

'Wrong' and 'right' are concepts we have created that represent disruption to peoples well being. We understand that a society without agreement on wrong and right is a dangerous and inhospitable place to live. No one wants to live in such a world

Cannibals in the jungle thought that kill people from other villages and eat them was something that helped for their wellbeing as well. Anything wrong with that, and if, why ?

Yourself on the other hand is the one that cannot say something is wrong or right, because it simply comes down to what you think your god decrees.

I believe indeed, objective moral values are prescriptive, and can exist only, if God exists. Otherwise, everything is relative, and each one can create its own subjective moral values.

So sad that your only ability to understand right and wrong, is to say without the direction of your god people can't cope.

How arrogant to believe, YOU can set the right standard about what is right, what is wrong, and others are wrong, if they disagree.

what a terrible way to think, and demonstrably false. Atheistic countries are amongst the most peaceful, and religious countries the most violent

why is peace morally better, than war ? just because you believe so ? If Netanjahu thinks, to agress Iran is right, what base do you have to say, its morally wrong ?

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by jireh

it seems you dont grasp the argument.

Oh, the fucking irony.