Bonky

Are you saying that scripture tells us that there are no collection of planets that, due to gravity, orbit a star? If so this is news to me. I would think that you're well aware of the geocentric model the Greeks embraced in antiquity and the OBSERVATIONS that kept calling that model into question. I have no idea what experiment you're looking for above and beyond what Galileo, Capernicus, Kepler, Newton et al. has already done.

Stars are Suns if they are the center of a planetary system. Where are you getting your information Enoch?

So let's clear things up. Earlier in this discussion I stated: You responded by saying: Reason and rationality don't just apply to me, neither does the statement "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness". So given the presupposition: "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness". Do you agree or not agree that reason and rationality can guide morality?

You're not being very specific so I'm not sure what I'm even responding to. I also never claimed that my "theory" of morality had all the answers or an answer for every situation.

The whole point is that these fundamentals don't just apply to me, they apply to all humans. So it's pretty easy to see that me killing someone robs them of their will to be healthy and alive.

I didn't see this last question before I hit send on my last post. It's 4am where I'm at...I'll respond later today after I rest. I haven't studied up on this in great detail but I would say I'm a compatibilist. If you agree that "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness" then moral structure can easily take place with reason and rationality.

I didn't see this last question before I hit send on my last post. It's 4am where I'm at...I'll respond later today after I rest.

I find it ironic you used the term "triggered". What is the context here? Israelites and how they interacted with other Israelites? The Bible clearly states there were different rules if you weren't a Hebrew. The core issue here is whether owning people as property is a good idea. Even if we were to state that the Israelites were rather good at treating their slaves well, do you think it's a good idea that humanity embraces this practice? I think atheism does fine. In fact, I think secular morality is superior to theistic. Your case for morality allows for ISIS to in fact be committing "good" acts by doing God's will. What I don't understand is why we need to reach for a supernatural explanation for why this is. I wasn't conceding anything. I was momentarily giving you the benefit of the doubt in order to show that even if you were correct, the effectiveness of Christian values is pretty poor. There's no mention of a moral authority. If you look at the writings of the founding fathers, they are not like the bible thumping evangelical Americans we see today. Many of them would be considered heretics today for their lack of faith. Thomas Jefferson is an example. At any rate, good ideas are good ideas irregardless of what religious beliefs the person holds. By your logic should we look at the founders of Apple, inventory their religion beliefs and credit a religion for giving us the iphone? I believe that religion was at one time our best explanation for reality, for the world around us. I think that religion provides auxiliary uses today that we have a very hard time letting go of. I've said before that I understand that some people believe that there's a creator God, but I don't see any convincing reason to conclude that that is the most plausible explanation. Now I'm told the Bible is the greatest work handed down from God to man. This same book inspires people to tell me that I'm not really an atheist, deep down I know the truth and I'm suppressing it. This book inspires people to tell me, in one breath that humanity is so fraught with corruption and shortcomings and yet in another breath if we end up in hell it's our fault because we should have known better. It inspires people to tell me that the moral author of humanity actually allowed slavery like behaviors for his chosen people but we can rationalize that and brush it under a rug. So I do have my reasons why I think religion(s) at one time were our best source of answers for the world around us, I just think today that there are other ideas that some [like myself] consider more compelling. Humanity has gaps in our understanding, it's frustrating for sure...where secular and religious people disagree is whether we should fill these gaps with the supernatural.

From Leviticus chapter 25... “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." I don't see anything about a contract. I also don't see anything in the Bible that states, in general, that anyone needs to sign a "contract". If anything I see a clear indication that a particular race or nation of people are treated better than others. I don't think women being treated as equals is "superficial". Is not allowing women to vote on par with murdering someone I would say no but it's still an important issue. Perhaps your angle in this discussion is more concerned about murder and theft etc. No, but I don't see how this challenges my views. Christian values sure took their time giving us these modern views. I'm not familiar with your term "Christian West". I decided to look it up and I came up pretty dry. It's almost as if you made this up I'm not sure this properly addresses what you're asking but just by coincidence I watched The story of God lastnight with Morgan Freeman. They were talking about people who were in prison who committed horrible acts with no remorse or sense of wrong doing actually had brain abnormalities. I think rationality can be a basis for moral structure and nothing more is needed. Sure dictators can claim they are doing good but let's see their RATIONAL explanation for genocide. Hitler clearly used heavy propaganda against the Jews to make it seem like they were the scourge of the earth [for the Germans anyway].

No not just the church. I mean what is the point of having an objective morality defined by a God if it's not disseminated down to humanity clearly. Why does it seem that we've chiseled away at our views of what a civilized and free society looks like? Is there an objective Biblical defense for allowing women to vote? I don't see that there is. Is it Biblically wrong to own people as servants and or slaves? I don't see how that could be objectively defended. It wasn't until recently that we modified our social contract in the free world to make these modifications.

I'm not seeing a consistent pattern where religion [or the God it claims] is a catalyst for progress in how we "ought" to behave. I see a messy evolution of social changes that have led up to where we are today particularly in the Free world.

Let me see if I'm making sense here. I've admitted before I'm not educated or moral arguments so I'm probably going to fail. If we were lions, then rape or killing wouldn't really be immoral because we wouldn't have the capacity to consider our actions and the consequences of those actions. So that would be kind of analogous to flipping coins. The issue is we're NOT lions, we have advanced brains/nervous system that allows us to consider our actions and how it impacts us and those around us. We are social creatures and how we interact with each other goes a long way into stabilizing our communities. Some where along the line we figured out that we can not only survive but have an enjoyable time doing it.

You were the one who brought up courts and laws no? I agree that laws don't address morality thoroughly. It's not illegal to be a jerk. They can even be made President Not referring to an accident even. I should have added the context that Person A intentionally cuts person B. Person A could be a thief or a surgeon. Context of the action helps us determine whether the act was moral or not.

Then explain how/why America is changing it's direction on marijuana use. People have historically been thrown in prison for using marijuana and now some States are allowing businesses to sell it. Some States allow gambling in various forms and some States don't. So depending on which courts and which laws we're talking about we have different views. Where's the objectivity? It sounds to me that social discourse, debate, lessons learned/experience certainly play into our moral code. If you just look at things like murder and theft, then yes. As we peel back we see in some cases vast differences on what is "wrong". Person A cuts person B. Did person A do something immoral?

I think that's a fair question. We all know there are going to be multiple responses to this from various theists, how do we sift through them and determine which, if ANY, are right?

Perhaps to you it doesn't, for others .... mo·ral·i·ty məˈralədē/ noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

I clearly stated I don't believe there's an absolute objective morality. I stated that a case for morality can be built and then measured or defending objectively. Countries like America have built a social and moral fabric on the basis of equality, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Upon this foundation you can OBJECTIVELY declare murder wrong and eating peanuts ok. If you're wanting a higher being to approve of this foundation then I don't believe that exists or if it does how would we demonstrate it?

To me, morality is an interesting and complicated topic. I wish I have spent more time studying and exploring this topic in depth. I don't know that I believe in an absolute objective morality. I think if people can agree on what the goals are then an objective morality can begin to take shape and be measured. It's worth noting that I believe in situational ethics, so things like "Don't steal" or "Don't lie" aren't always morally wrong.

This is to say, the Bible will be used to defend the claims in the Bible, correct? I would agree that darwinian evolution is in conflict with Christian theology, but having said that we still somehow have people like Dr. Francis Collins.

For heavens sake join in, this thread could use another view.

My posts in this thread have been related to what thilipsis is bringing to the table. Now look at what you're posting about and see how it relates...if at all. Aside from that, you seem to be addressing someone who demands that there is only the material, with no room for a creator. This isn't me. So when you make this lengthy posts talking about quantum mechanics this and that, who are you talking to? It doesn't even relate to the thread! That sounds very trollish. I have to admit, you are a little charming in a Donald Trump kind of way. You just proved my point. I don't know where everything came from. This is a strawman argument you're making and it's wasting our time.

Enoch I think you managed to copy and paste your defense of your copy/paste routine. Well done. BTW, if you ever debate Lawrence [or anyone really] publicly I'd love to know. Also, the reason why I give you grief about your copy / paste routine is because the routine doesn't address me. Also, rarely do your posts actually dive into what I'm responding to. As other's have said, you don't really seem to be interested in dialogue, you seem interested in arguing. Until you realize this and make some adjustments, you're going to continue to struggle to get anybody to take you serious.

We won't destroy the earth, but we can certainly destroy ourselves [extinction].

I mean when you're awake. Have you engaged in any public debates? What is an example of a proper scientist? What discoveries or insight did they offer us? An example or two would be fine. You presented a mish mash of ....I'm not sure what. If you notice the discussions I am active in, both parties are discussing a topic or two and actually engaging each other. Your responses are usually a giant copy paste routine that goes into 50 different directions. Not something that interests me in the slightest.

Enoch, since you know so much why aren't you out exposing scientists to be the miserable fools they are? Why are you wasting your time on a messageboard? It's easy to be tough behind a keyboard.