[for that matter, define what "naturalism" means in a non-absurd strawman manner. ]

Lets use this definition.

From wiki-

Naturalism is a philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[1]

i believe natural-ism to be a belief-ism
to clarify lets research out ism

Definitions of ism on the Web:

doctrine:..a belief..(or system of beliefs)..accepted as authoritative by some group or school
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs,..myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement,..institution,..class or group....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

A belief..that can be described by a word ending in -ism
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ism

thus naturally..naturalisim is a belief...[not a science]
either remain constantly scientific
or constantly in your belief

facts are facts
beliefs are beliefs

believe as you chose
but the facts on which belief in evolution rests remain unproven
natural selection...lol
how scientific is natural

trav,

"There have been something like 13,000 terrorist attacks taken out in the name of Islam over the past 7 or 8 years. There have been an insignificant and miniscule amount taken out in the name of Christianity."

if you are willing to tar "islam" with such data, i am equally justified in tarring "christianity" with its sordid history. i don't give a damn whether it's "christianity/islam", or if it's "in the name of christianity/islam". what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"My justification is that regardless of which theism you use, the existence of a God makes complete sense of rationality. "

cool! i'll give the flying spaghetti monster a whirl, and let you know how it goes.

trav, that's just unadulterated crap. your god can't make sense of rationality unless and until you assign attributes to your god. you can believe in whatever god you please. but unless and until you give some justification for those attributes, why on earth should anyone else care?

"I don't have proof, I have anecdotal evidence. I rarely see people who proclaim atheism talking about the wonders of the spiritual world. Do you?"

what the hell does "wonders of the spiritual world" mean? if you mean the wonders of existence and emotions and feelings and desires and meaning and consciousness, i know of no atheist, no human, who doesn't experience such wonders.

you think people can't wonder about the world without imposing a god? smells like god of the gaps to me ...

TLTR,
You say that ‘everything’ (with capital letters) in the bible’s version of history is silly. The main part with which you wish to contend seems to be on the dinosaur theme. So let’s address this further.

The passages in Job to which we refer are quite detailed. They mention two large beasts, namely the leviathan and the behemoth (the word in current use, dinosaur, is a quite recent invention).

Overall, your argument seems to be that if the bible doesn’t match with your personal view of history, then it must be in error. This leads me to contemplate the very nature of history. How can we be sure of any historical fact? No one has invented a time travel machine to go and investigate past events. All we can do is to try and piece together those incomplete fragments of the puzzle as best we can.

Creationist scientists have theorised quite harsh climactic conditions in the centuries following the flood, including an ice-age. These difficult conditions would not favour large animals, for reasons which include their need for much foliage to feed upon and hide within for protection from hunters.

Though the larger animals dwindled in number relatively quickly, evidence of their existence survives in written records, in legends, as well as in fossil and other measurable evidence (not to mention those still alive, such as large crocodiles.)

Many countries such as Wales, China, Japan, the Scandinavian countries and others refer to dragons as part of their folklore or in their national symbols.

There have even been recent discoveries of dinosaur vestiges that have survived without being fossilised. This points to either very hardy dinosaur blood cells that can survive millions of years, or more likely to their recent existence.

Shadow,
I raised the notion that atheists have no basis for reason. You took a dislike to my comment, but still did not offer any basis for reason.

Christians have a basis for reason. Page 1 of the bible describes God speaking things into existence. That infers that words are somehow profoundly at the base of all that exists.

The first sentence of the Gospel of John (perhaps the most read book in world history) begins “In the beginning was the Word…” The word ‘word’ in greek is Logos, from which we get our current word logic. Logos in greek can refer to a word or perhaps something longer like a sentence or an argument.

In the bible, God speaks and reasons with people. It’s said that he made people in his image. This is why we reason. This is not so true for animals. We observe monkeys in zoos, we train them, but we never attempt to reason with them. (I don’t think any monkey will have taken offence at these words, or at least I know I won’t get correspondence from those that did).

From where does scientific reasoning obtain its strength? Much of it comes from borrowing Christian assumptions. For example, how do we know that the laws of physics are uniform through out the universe? We don’t, as no one’s ever gone to investigate distance parts of the universe. However, scientists can and do make the assumption that the laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe because of the idea that God, in particular a reasonable God, who doesn’t have bad hair days, who created the universe in an orderly manner, is responsible not only for our part of the universe but for all of it.

It was such thinking that allowed for the possibility of modern scientific thinking to take off.

I accused the naturalist of believing that reasoning within logic is merely our brain’s chemical reactions. Do you have a basis for saying that we are anything more than monkeys on a lucky streak? If so, can our thoughts be relied upon?

Hello KatieO,

Thanks for your comment.

I was referring to Mathew 12:31-32

"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

Excuse brevity.

O.