Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[davo]

Originally Posted by jireh

can you resume your point ? i honestly am not motivated to read all that stuff....

See Jireh, it's called blind faith when someone answers your question, and you just refuse to read it at all, yet post links to pages and pages of information you expect others to read.

it's blind as you refuse to look outside your box at all, you ask for answers, but do not bother reading them, just get people to repeat it, but you won't read it.

[Atrax Robustus]

Originally Posted by jireh

No, i am actually here to show you and all others, how absurd your world view actually is......

A apt selection of smiley. You should be embarassed! 100 pages of blather and all you have succeeded in is demonstrating why people who are able to exercise a modicum of reason are relieved that they aren't an evangelical christian.

Originally Posted by jireh

No atheist can live a happy and fullfilled life, if thinking the consequences of atheism trough.

Another assertion. Supported, no less, by insinuation that similar levels of critical thought and intellectual honesty that you have demonstrated throughout this thread are required to accept it.

Originally Posted by jireh

Without God, live is ultimatively absurd.

Those who attempt to make this argument regularly demonstrate that their position is absolutively absurd.

Originally Posted by jireh

It has no reason to be, no value, no purpose, no hope.

Again - if you had bothered to read the content of the many responses you have ignored, you would understand that there are many, many, many people who don't share your limited understanding of ethics, morality and real life outside of your cloistered perceptions.

Originally Posted by jireh

Its a short existence on a tiny planet, which soon will be over, and not exist anymore. And whatever you have done, will have no meaning at all.

You obviously find that hard to deal with. Many people do. That's why religion and superstitious clap-trap has always been able to maintain such a powerful grip on human beings.

Originally Posted by jireh

If God does not exist, the life of a human being has no more value, than the life of a amoeba.

If God does not exist, I suspect that my descendants will probably argue against that.

Originally Posted by jireh

And in ultimate instance, it makes no difference, how you live your life. You can live it as a jerk, or as mother thereza. Ultimatively, all will be over, and forgotten.

I see. Using your analogy then, are you able to tell me about your great-great-great-great-great grandfather? Using your logic - because God exists you should be able to provide a detailed biography of his exploits. If you can't, then does that mean that God does not exist?

Originally Posted by jireh

If i would be a atheist, i would live my life according to that world view. I would only pursue my interests, whatever they are. It could be to live a " good " life, if that would make me happy, or as a jerk, if i would think, that fullfills me most. Since soon i would die, all that i can expect from life, would have to be liven here, and now. Afterwards, the show is over.....

For the umpteenth time on this thread. GARBAGE!

What you imply here is that the only reason you live your life in a 'good' way is because you are scared of what big daddy will do to you when you die! Further, you imply that atheists are unable to live 'good' lives because they don't fear that retribution.

Again - Can you provide us with one good act that you as a christian are able to perform that an atheist can not. Just one.

Originally Posted by jireh

To be happy, i would have to delude myself, make myself believe, that life has a reason to bem, that it has meaning, and value. But in reality, it has not.

No. What would happen is that you would stop living under the delusion that by doing the bidding of some imaginary entity you can cheat death. You would then be able to enjoy each day of your life knowing how fortunate you are to be able to do so - in essence, living your life like every day is your last.

[Xeno]

Jireh, if you asked a question and it was answered, and you simply ignored the inconvenient answer to preach, would you say you were a preach-only device?

If you steadfastly avoided simple questions directly on your belief system, repeatedly from the first page of this thread to the present time, would you call that having a failed belief system or simply intellectual cowardice?

You may choose to add evidence to both hypothetical contentions simply by continuing to avoid the questions I and some others have repeatedly put before you.

[THWOTH]

Since Mr Jireh has admitted to a lack of motivation to read the contributions of others while expecting others to read all he has posted in return, and as that's not a discussion, I'm off.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Loki

So there's no history of conflict between Catholics and Protestants?

William Tyndale was never executed by other christians for the crime of translating the bible into English?

Your arguments truly are paper thin.

The bible teaches us, you shall not murder. Most understand that command. Some do not. Because of the few, that do not understand it, you cannot conclude the bible teaches it.

[Loki]

Fair enough too.

Did like your ice-cream post, an excellent contribution if read on it's own merits.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Jireh, I was once on the path to becoming a qualified credentialled minister, not some hedge-educated wally who thinks his god will provide him with wisdom as a reward for his ignorant zeal.

It is quite possible for a non-believer to know plenty about a belief system.

I could hose you into next week in a bible quiz.

then use your knowledge here a littlebit......

[jireh]

Originally Posted by dilbadoon

Nice try jireh, but I am not going to let you off the hook that easily. First up as others have pointed out, there are plenty of examples of christians murdering based on the bible. But this is also an attempt by you to escape your original claim (see above), which was that it clearly explained in the bible that god doesn't want us slaughtering others.
Please show me how the verses I quoted (plus the hundreds of others where he endorses and demands slaughter) show this, or admit you were wrong.

please explain, how you think the bible transforms a specific command, at a specific time, at a specific context, with a specific reason, in a general one, where it recommends all of us to slaughter our neighbour, or other volks. Your argument has no validity at all. Jesus said, the most important command is to love each other. You should understand the bible in context.....not isolated.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Inedifix

Hey Jireh,

Good work dodging all the tough questions . . . again

Still waiting for an answer on this...

You asked for one transitional form - I gave you three:

Tiktaalik a transition from Fish to Tetrapods - "without doubt" a transitional form. Part fish, part amphibian, it has gills, scales, fins like a fish; it has a salamander like head, with top mounted eyes and nostrils, unlike fish. Plus, it has a NECK. Fish don't have necks. Plus it's fins have fewer, much sturdier 'leg-like' bones than fish.

It is a veritable Fish-o-mander.



This one fossil alone is enough to answer your challenge.

(Plus, I gave you Ambulocetus, literally, "Walking Whale" a transition from four legged land mammals to whales...



... and E.O. Wilson's transitional ant with wasp-like mandibles - a transition from non-social wasps to ants.



So what gives? Why no response? Is it because no fossil has ever, ever been found that contradicts the predictions made by the theory of evolution?

I interprete it as that the similarities can also mean a common creator.
If you compare the cars of volkswagen, upon similiarities you can conclude the different models came from the same manufacturer.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Inedifix

And I'm still waiting on an answer to this one too . . . I'm really keen to hear your comeback, perhaps you just don't have one.

Here it is again . . .

You have repeatedly asserted that if morality is relative, then no one at all can have a sense of moral values. And you have frequently backed this up by using the Nazi's ethnic cleansing programme as an example. Sticking with the ethnic cleansing theme, my question to you is this:

Q: If morality is not relative, how can you justify God's instruction to his chosen people (in Joshua 6) to exact the worst imaginable ethnic cleansing atrocity upon the peaceful Canaanite nation, by killing every single one of them, man woman and child (with the admitted exception of the quisling prostitute Rahab) in contradiction of his own Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

Please remember, that having disavowed the possibility of 'moral relativism' yourself, you cannot use 'moral relativism' to defend your God's actions, e.g. Any of the following appeals cannot be used, because they invoke moral relativism:

The specialness of the Israelites (relative to one group of people)
The immorality of the Canaanites (relative to behavior)
The length of time it took them to mend their ways (time is relative)

Good luck!

behavior has actually to do with morals. As explained already, the canaanites were very immoral, did offer their babies to their Gods, and sacrificed them, amongst other grave immoral acts. God gave them several hundred years to repent. They did not. So God did also not want, that their practices would influence the jews, so he ordered to kill these folks.