Naturalism Vs Theism

Religious apologists like to manipulate the definition of words to obfuscate the truth: they have no objective evidence upon which to make their case. Click on the link below for an in-depth podcast analysis of the definitions of "naturalism" and "theism":

What is Naturalism?

Naturalism, Supernaturalism, And Presuppositions

Theists challenge atheists with the claim that all people have presuppositions, which are assumptions made in advance and taken for granted. Is this true? Let's take a look at the actions of religious apologists: they assume that there is a supernatural, a God, spiritual beings, and miracles. Unfortunately for them, there is no objective evidence for any of it. In comparison, science and its methods make NO assumptions and only accept claims with sufficient supporting objective evidence. Most atheists with whom I have been in contact are science-based thinkers like myself. Click on the link below for clarity regarding how science works:

" - - - Science, at least ideally, is committed to the pursuit of truth about the nature of reality, whatever it may be, and hence cannot exclude the existence of the supernatural a priori, be it on methodological or metaphysical grounds, without artificially limiting its scope and power. Hypotheses referring to the supernatural or paranormal should be rejected not because they violate alleged a priori methodological or metaphysical presuppositions of the scientific enterprise, but rather because they fail to satisfy basic explanatory criteria, such as explanatory power and parsimony, which are routinely considered when evaluating claims in science and everyday life. Implications of our view for science education are discussed."

Does Science Presuppose Naturalism (or Anything at All)?

A Different Angle On The Naturalism Vs Theism Debate

"In his 1997 debate with William Lane Craig, Paul Draper considers seven lines of evidence and asks if they are more expected on theism or on naturalism. He argues that the meager moral fruits of theism, mind-brain dependence, evolution, the biological role of pain and pleasure, tragedies, divine silence during tragedies, and religious confusion are not what we would expect to find if theism were true. The world looks about as one would expect it to look if God did not exist."

Click on the link below for the Podcast.

Paul Draper's Case for Naturalism

Supernaturalism Has Nothing To Stand On

Sean Carroll is one of the best communicators for delineating the differences between the natural and the supernatural, with strong support for the claim that most probably there is no supernatural realm.  In this 10-minute video, he clearly and concisely does so.
- - -

Fear Of Knowing

"Essentially everything you see around you as you go through your day is made of just three particles of matter — protons, neutrons and electrons — interacting through a handful of forces — gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces.

Naturalism 101

"Wishes and hopes are one thing, the ways things are is another. So if you want to know how things actually work and what actually exists, as opposed to getting stuck in what might be wishful thinking or delusion, you should be scientific and empirical. You should seek good, objective evidence about what exists and how things work."

Other Ways Of Knowing?

Whenever I get into a discussion with a philosopher or religious apologist, the subject of "Ways of Knowing" other than through scientific methods usually rears its head.  Following are three links, with highlights from such, that I believe shed more light than heat on the subject:

Naturalism Wins!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=SQ4OFAFfFrY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhSSG76R5sM