Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by Logic please

So, easy question for you then, jireh - explain in your own words, since you claim there's so much pre-existing credible "valid evidence" supporting irreducible complexity....


...why did its proponents lose the Kitzmiller case so comprehensively???

Off you go, then.

Originally Posted by jireh

because the issue was political.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Still denying basic realities, I see.

Thanks, for self-establishing the complete intellectual vapidity of your attempts at argument, beyond doubt, for the benefit of all who are reading this, or will read it in future.

You claim that the ID'ers lost the case because of political influence? That is fucking hilarious, given that political influence is exactly why they expected to win it! - LINK:

Judge John E. Jones III, the presiding judge in the case, has been pejoratively tagged as an "activist judge" for his role in the case.[7] However, John E. Jones is a Republican and a conservative. Lead plaintiff's counsel feared that this would impact the case negatively for the anti-intelligent design side,[8] and at least one ID-proponent was confident that Jones would rule in their favor for political reasons. During the trial, DaveScot, then a co-blogger at William Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog, wrote
“This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves. Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.[9]
”
In essence, the "Uncommon Descent" blogger hoped for an opinion motivated by Jones' (perceived) distaste with evolution, what Scalia would call a "willful judge," or one who lets personal opinion get in the way of the law. In the blogger's neo-conservative opinion, an activist judge is fine, as long as he is pro-intelligent design and agrees with the Discovery Institute's agenda. (my emphases)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Keep diggin' jireh, your vacuous wibblings are unintentional comedy gold, as well as being one of the best advertisements for atheism, skepticism and freethinking, that anyone could possibly wish for.

Clearly, there's no point asking you for credible evidence, which you didn't even bother to provide for your baseless assertion. You. Got. Nuthin'.

Dishonest intellectual dishonesty is dishonest.

[Atrax Robustus]

Originally Posted by jireh

On upon what is the courts morals build up ?

... and around and around and around we go!

This is where you say that the invisible super-force that gives you your morals also controls the moral values of your secular law-makers.

So - I assume - you agree 100% with every single law that you are required to comply with in Jirehland? How do you reconcile the contradiction of those laws with laws that are recorded in the bible?

Originally Posted by jireh

according to the evolutionary world view, the fittest survives.

What is an evolutionary world-view? Is that similar to a gravitationalist world-view or is it more aligned with a plate-tectonics world-view?

Originally Posted by jireh

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.

Hey everybody! Look here!

jireh has understood something!

Originally Posted by jireh

If survival of the fittest is the base of evolution

. . . but he still has a lot to learn!

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

... and around and around and around we go!

Ahhh AR, verily teh JirehScope^TM spinneth frantically...

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

. . . but he still has a lot to learn!

...but alas, it learneth not.

[Xeno]

Well Jireh, things are not going too well for you are they? I read this not from the fact of your inability to express ideas and arguments but from the fact that you fail to answer questions which go to the heart of your claims. Here are a few which I have not managed to forget as you might wish.

Do you remember that I asked you what was your moral objective? You replied "to teach the gospel to all creature" which presumably include armadillos and amoeba. How is the conversion rate with plankton this year?

Still, the important point was that one of a moral objective. It is failure to comprehend the importance of a moral objective that has you so confused about atheist morality. If an atheist has a moral objective of well-being, or least harm, or a Kantian universality of treatment, then there is not the slightest difficulty in determining relative moral worth of actions.

Originally Posted by jireh

that still does not respond the crucial point. What or who sets what is right or wrong ? if my reasoning and logic says, robbing a bank without being catched is smart, how can someone else say thats wrong ?

The question in your example is about whether robbing a bank meets social moral objectives. Even someone who thinks god tells them what to do should see that bank robbery leads to social harm rather than to social benefit, and it is an observable fact that we are social creatures.

You cannot say its good or bad. If you do so, based on what ?? reason and logic can bring you to any conclusion.....

Bullshit. Reason and logic applied to morality have a social objective. Therefore it is easy to say whether an action moves society toward or away from that objective. Remember, if you act as an individual uncaring of others, then you will be treated similarly. It makes sense to act for good. You, however, can not say whether a new action is right or wrong until god tells you afterwards (even though it seems god never does).

i am not claiming that [atheists have no morality]. i claim they cannot have objective moral values based on the fact, that morals are always prescriptive, and if there is no God, you cannot set what is objectively good, what is wrong.

It is true that atheists have moral objectives rather than so-called objective morality. Shall we remind ourselves how these two approaches fare in reality?

Jireh, please respond to Inedifix's point about relative incarceration rates of religious and non-religious people. You do not because it shows atheist moral objectives to work better than personal pixie (PP) "objective morality".

Jireh, please respond to wolty's post which showed, among other things that on issues like homicide rates and corruption, atheist moral objectives work better than PP "objective morality" (PPOM).

When Atrax Robustus asked you

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

Please describe to the members of this forum (and all who will read this thread into the future) one moral act that you as a believer in God can perform that an atheist cannot.

you replied

Originally Posted by jireh

your question is irrelevant.

I can be moral, because i believe God exists,and as a perfect moral giver, and morally perfect being, he is the legislator of morals, and i can live moral laws, and commands. He can set the rules, upon we shall live.

Far from being irrelevant, the question ought to be one you would simply love to answer with examples of how your PPOM works better than atheist moral objectives. It is a fact that once again you have run away when confronted with the reality, that your so-called objective morality, your PPOM, is a vacant space.

If you will kill when your god tells you to do so, Jireh, how can you make any claim to intrinsic or objective morality? You are saying you will act as a puppet killer, unthinking. You ask us how can we condemn Nazis, or people who fly planes into buildings? It is easy, because we see the harm they do personally and socially, offending every rational moral principle. You, however, think their action is right if it is commanded by their god, for you would do exactly the same if your god asked you to. We, however, tell god to fuck off and let people live.

This is no doubt why here, at a post count in the 800s, you still have not managed to find an answer to this back in #229.

Originally Posted by Xeno

You claimed morality came from your god and bible, Jireh. Show me.

1. How do you know what is commanded by your god?
2. How, for example, did your god determine the answer to a new ethical problem (you may nominate one) and convey this information to you?

The reason for no answer is that Jireh has no answers, only a failed gospel to preach, like a Jihadist Muslim or any other sect.

[DanDare]

A few pages back we had: see friend - raise hand = will not physical anything.

Eye registers photons reflective of a person you have seen often. The synapses from your optic nerve, through the LGN, have created sensitive connections to this repeated stimulation and the network of connections intertwines with a number of other sensitised networks to do with pleasure and relationship recognition and various behavioural patterns.

The output of the cascading synapse activations is to trigger various muscle contractions that produce the expected behaviour (raise arm), lay down memories in the form of reinforced connections and create sensitised collections relating to the current situation, especially in short term memory areas of the brain.

Its all physical.

[wolty]

Biggest fail evah jireh!!!!

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Fearless

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.

any atheist, that participates at atheist forums, has a case to defend. To go from " i don't believe in any gods ", to " most probably there is no god ", is a tiny step, and crossed very fast.

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.

nobody has proofs, thats why to ask for proofs makes no sense. but if atheists claim, most probably no god exists, they need to provide evidence for naturalism. that what this thread is all about. Since however most atheists build their world view on a negative, they usually do not want to engage to make a positive case for their position. Its too much thinking involved......

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

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.

i have done so. The odds are too big. But if you do not agree, how about you present the arguments that base your rejection ?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by davo

My morals come from critical thinking, reasoning and empathy

what makes them objectively true ? how about people, that held the oposit opinion about what is desirable, about what is good, what is not ?

because I am a social being. I see slavery as bad for these reasons. it is the logical result of basing morals on ethics.

many other people think slavery is desirable and good. Why is your opinion on the issue superior or more binding, that the one of others ?

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

No, i am the only one that can say it, based on the fact that only the creator of morals can set the rules, and make them binding.

If so, on what basis can you say your interpretation of the bible is the correct one?

Please show all the different interpretations of the first commandment of Jesus, to love God, and the next with all your heart.

and so, please show in what different ways can you interprete the ten commandments of the law of moses ? arent they perfectly clear, so that anyone can understand them ?

[THWOTH]

Originally Posted by jireh

my motivations are the best probably someone can conceive.... i am benefitting through slavery. So ??? how can that possibliy be considered bad it that mets what i think is a virtue ? to attend my needs ?

So, if we take this example, you personal motivation might be to benefit yourself, but that necessarily involves the physical, emotional and economic exploitation of others, owning them as property, and therefore claiming some right or reason for setting and controlling the conditions of their existence - purely for your own ends.

You assume that if this is not objectively wrong then it can never be argued to be wrong at all. This is patently untrue.

You think this because you are considering morality to be a wholly personal construct; to be only a matter for the individual. In this respect your are ignoring, or putting aside, or failing to see and recognise that morality is also a social construct.

I have just as much right as anybody else to form an adverse moral judgement about your championing of slavery because 1) I could not personally own a slave 2) would not like to be a slave myself, and 3) do not wish to live in a society which condones slavery.

At some point you will have to engage with the idea that what you call 'objective morality' bestowed by your nominated deity is actually just another subjective moral view. You cannot claim that it is right 'just because' any more than I can - each point of moral issue must be identified and explicated and subject to challenge and scrutiny if the best possible outcome in any particular circumstance is to be aimed at, let alone achieved.

As I said earlier, you cannot support the claim that your moral views are objectively correct or true without demonstrating the existence of the absolute moral arbiter which is your nominated deity.

Neither can you continue to peddle the strawman that morality, doing and being and aspiring to the good, does not or cannot exist or be expressed without reference to your nominated deity without demonstrating the existence of your nominated diety.

If being, doing and aspiring to the good is always and only ever possible with reference to your nominated deity then it would mean that having no knowledge of God would always and only ever lead to the people ignorant of your religion living lifes populated by an ongoing litany of vile and horrid personal acts - and this clearly is not the case either.