Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[wolty]

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

Humour me. Explain why YOU think that the link was relevant?

because it explains exactly, why random chance is impossible to explain how the first living being could arise naturally , without intelligence. The odds are too big.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by jireh

i changed my mind. anything wrong with that ? i am giving some australia atheists the oportunity to revise their atheistic belief system, so they might realise how incredibly baseless their belief system actually is......

Well go on then. So far you have not been able to use your own words for any matter being discussed. You either link to a site, copy it verbatim, or both. It won't convince any atheist with an IQ greater than that of a yam that their "belief system" (what belief system?) is baseless.

[Stubby]

Originally Posted by jireh

i changed my mind. anything wrong with that ? i am giving some australia atheists the oportunity to revise their atheistic belief system, so they might realise how incredibly baseless their belief system actually is......

Any time you are ready to start doing so, sing out.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

Those secular courts and government are the body above you that will tell you that you are wrong - are they not?

On upon what is the courts morals build up ?

according to the evolutionary world view, the fittest survives. that leads straight to selfishness and to reasoning, that who has more power, wins.
It is evident that the moral system of our civilisation is not built upon the naturalistic, evolutionist world view. Science does not provide a ethical system and values. There is no reason why it should do so. Ethical behavior can be developed just based on personal preferences , rather than on objective prescribed ethical norms, given by a creator. If survival of the fittest is the base of evolution, then selfishness is to be preferred and encouraged. Whatever is good to me, is to be choosen. Why should someone need to commit to altruism ?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by jireh

On upon what is the courts morals build up ?

according to the evolutionary world view, the fittest survives. that leads straight to selfishness and to reasoning, that who has more power, wins.
It is evident that the moral system of our civilisation is not built upon the naturalistic, evolutionist world view. Science does not provide a ethical system and values. There is no reason why it should do so. Ethical behavior can be developed just based on personal preferences , rather than on objective prescribed ethical norms, given by a creator. If survival of the fittest is the base of evolution, then selfishness is to be preferred and encouraged. Whatever is good to me, is to be choosen. Why should someone need to commit to altruism ?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It won't convince any atheist with an IQ greater than that of a yam that their "belief system" (what belief system?) is baseless.

call it morals and ethics. What base does a atheist have, then, beside his own subjective selfish , individual, criteria ?

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by jireh

what does strong atheism stand for ? what does it postulate ?

You might want to look it up actually. You will find a lot of atheists (yes, even here) are 'weak' atheists or even agnostic atheists. You are addressing an audience and assuming the collective is what you have made it up in your mind to be.

You will find very few atheists will EVER claim to know that gods definitely do not exist, for much the same reasons why we typically call theists on the burden of proof. We wouldn't want to be hypocrites now would we? That said, many do, but I have seldom seen it here (implicit knowledge of non existence).

Speaking for myself I consider myself more an antitheist I guess. In some ways I am not even sure I have clearly found a definition for myself, not that I am much into labels (but I am curious).

I have not had religion in my life, I have not needed it, I had a taste of it, but it didn't work for me. I really don't see a need for myself. I am opposed to the damage religion does around the world in the guise of being all good and the hypocrisy of its many varied institutions and false followers, therefore I want nothing to do with it either. It took advantage of my mother when she was at her weakest point in life so I came looking for a place where things made sense.

Crap, you didn't want to know about me so why am I rambling on?... I told you because I am my own person. I identify as an atheist, I feel it goes deeper than that for me, but I do not speak for other atheists here because the only common denominator between us is:

WE ARE GODLESS! everything else that makes us who we are is unique to each of us or if anything only similar by related interests.

That's it! god is not in our lives, not your god, nor or anybody elses god. If you want to believe it, that's up to you. I just don't like people preaching to me about what I should believe and how I should live, nor better try it on my children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

Please try to understand, maybe even respect some of what I have said. Sorry to ramble on but I am a little over people being generally disrespectful when they are supposed to come from a position of tolerance and understanding.

Cheers.

[Atrax Robustus]

Originally Posted by jireh

because it explains exactly, why random chance is impossible to explain how the first living being could arise naturally, without intelligence. The odds are too big.

Your link is full of logical failure and intentionally misleading assertions. I'm sure you think it's convincing because it supports things that you wish were true.

Nonetheless . . . it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with:

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]

Originally Posted by jireh

call it morals and ethics. What base does a atheist have, then, beside his own subjective selfish , individual, criteria ?

I have told you this over and over jireh, you are simply ignoring it.

My morals come from critical thinking, reasoning and empathy, because I am a social being. I see slavery as bad for these reasons. it is the logical result of basing morals on ethics.

You however cannot say what is right or wrong, as you claim it is simply the decree of your god.

If so, on what basis can you say your interpretation of the bible is the correct one? If god never said slavery was bad, in fact ordered slaves to be taken of those that did not believe in him, how can you say slavery is a bad thing?