Bonky

7 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

1.  Stars are clearly not "Suns" in Scripture.

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.

7 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

3.  Scientifically Validate Stars are @ the center of planetary systems...?

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:

Quote

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.  

You responded by saying:

Quote

if the reason and rationality applies only to yourself then sure, but how does "your" morals explain situations where your life takes another's or your pleasure causes another pain?

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?

58 minutes ago, Seanc said:

If this applies to all humanity then at some point in time someone's life will cause another to lose his and someone's pleasure will cause someone else pain. Where does you theory fit in then? Seems your talking more about natural instincts more than 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.  

18 hours ago, Seanc said:

if the reason and rationality applies only to yourself then sure, but how does "your" morals explain situations where your life takes another's or your pleasure causes another pain?

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. 

9 hours ago, Bonky said:

12 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Define rationality? Also, please elaborate on how a rational proposition becomes a moral imperative.
Are you a determinist? By this I mean do you believe that all human actions are ultimately caused by the inevitable workings of the laws of nature?

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.   

2 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Define rationality? Also, please elaborate on how a rational proposition becomes a moral imperative.
Are you a determinist? By this I mean do you believe that all human actions are ultimately caused by the inevitable workings of the laws of nature?

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.

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Atheists tend to consider themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to Christians. As a result of this, they get severely triggered when it is shown that atheism entails moral nihilism and that the moral high horse they're sitting on, has "Property of Jesus Christ" written on it. Their recourse in such instances is to take jabs at Christianity and their goto for this is usually the slavery issue. As such I am pretty familiar with all the verses about slavery because it's impossible to have a conversation about moral ontology without having to deal with these red herrings. Atheism's inability to ground morality in anything but mere subjective preference, doesn't evaporate simply because the word slavery appears in the Bible. You need to deal with it.

I find it ironic you used the term "triggered".

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Having said that, the primary purpose of slavery was endentured servitude. It was a system by which citizens of Israel could work off any debts. Servants if they choose, could get a piercing and remain with a master if they liked working for that master. Jacob for instance slaved for Laban as a way of earning the right to marry his daughter. This flies in the face of the misleading atheistic narrative that slaves were to be treated as mere possessions. That is was atheists are going for were they bring up the slavery issue, is to make it appear as though slaves were dehumanised and considered to be mere things. This couldn't be further from the truth, and you and I have had this conversation before.

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?

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

The reason I didn't elaborate too much on the contractual thing is because a) we've had this conversation before and b) this is a red herring to get away from the fact that atheism cannot make sense of morality.

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. 

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

It challenges your claim that morality is obscure and that it evolved in a messy fashion. My point is that the fundamentals were always the same.

What I don't understand is why we need to reach for a supernatural explanation for why this is. 

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Christian values or human stubbornness?  I'm glad though that your argument has moved from "I don't see any evidence of moral progress as a result of Christian beliefs" to "why did it take so long". I get that you'll never accept that Christianity did good in the world, so I'll take this as a half-hearted concession.

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.

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Some say the American constitution is the greatest constitution ever written: and I believe that this too is thanks to it's formulators belief that men are created equal and that as such they have inalienable rights endowed by a moral authority, right?

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?

3 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Then we got science which has shown that we don't need god (lowercase is super important even though it's a proper noun) anymore. Some Christians try to be as clever as we are by attempting to argue for the existence of God, but if they were rational they'd realise that any argument that leads to God is either circular, or is undercut by slavery.

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.

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

I don't think it's wrong to own people as servants in a contractual sense (which is how the bible defined it), so I'm not sure what your point is with that.

 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. 

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Even murderers won't claim that murder is right, instead they'll try to tilt the scale by attempting to justify murder by saying the person had it coming, or that murdering so-and-so was for some greater good. It seems to me then that apart from superficial (in the grand scheme of things) issues like woman's rights and social status, mankind indeed is pretty consistent in its moral sense. What changes are the justifications, not the morals themselves.

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.

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Can you look back in history and find a culture that celebrated cowardice? Or didn't mind theft of personal property? That considered murder to be morally benign? I doubt it.

No, but I don't see how this challenges my views. 

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

In terms of the finer moral points like equal rights and so on these virtues gradually arose in the Christian West, and basically nowhere else. Now this makes sense: If morality is objective then it is discoverable: progress is possible, just like scientific progress is possible if one believes that there are right and wrong answers in nature, another deliverance of the Christian worldview... You're welcome

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

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

But if morality evolved as you say, then what becomes of right and wrong? Ask an evolutionary psychologist where anti-social behavior comes from and they'll say it's our evolutionary instincts. Ask the same evolutionary psychologist where our social behavior comes from and they'll also say it's a result of our evolutionary instincts. Should sociopaths be sociopaths because their genes determine their behavior and should the virtuous be virtuous because their genes determine otherwise? Do you have a particular preference?

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].  

8 hours ago, Yowm said:

I take it that you are referring to the Christian faith? If so, it is  not the Church's role to be a catalyst for 'social progress' but rather a proclaimer to the nations, warning them of impending Judgment of our sin and the Rescue accomplished through His Son's death and resurrection.

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. 

On 1/14/2017 at 2:38 PM, LuftWaffle said:

but it says nothing about how humans beings ought to behave.

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.  

21 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

The point is that, if our moral sensibilities railing against the idea that "rape is benign" is merely an incidental impulse of our evolution, it's just like saying "fire is cold" rails against our sense of touch and claiming that our sense of touch is just an illusion seems just as silly.

Now if our moral sensibilities are mere incidental traits of our evolution what's wrong with flipping a coin to make moral decisions? What is your principled case for not just flipping coins when making moral decisions?

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.  

28 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You're confusing what's legal with what's moral.  What's legal isn't a reflection on what is moral.  Anything that is immoral can be legalized.

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

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

If you're talking about attempted murder, yes.   If you're talking about an accident in a wood or metal shop, no.  But that's not situational ethics.    You would have to justify attempted murder, that a situation could arise that taking or attempting to take the life of an innocent person is morally justified.

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.  

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It's not how our courts of law work.

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.  

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There is something innate in all of us that knows right from wrong. And it is reflected around the world

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".  

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

For the purpose of discussions like this, it is easy to talk about situational ethics.  But it is a horse of a different color when you are the victim of such a terrible system of morality.  Situational ethics becomes pretty over rated when you're the one who gets sacrificed, so to speak, for the good of the many.

Person A cuts person B.  Did person A do something immoral?

8 minutes ago, Teditis said:

Is there a God that has predetermined right and wrong for

human behavior and thought?

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?

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Morality doesn't work that way. 

Perhaps to you it doesn't, for others ....

44 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

If objective morality could be arrived by majority consensus, it's not objective.

Who gets to decide when a situation arises when lying or stealing isn't morally wrong?   And if morality isn't objective, then when is anything ever wrong?   I mean, if there is no objective morality, why isn't murder no more or less immoral than eating a bag of peanuts?

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.  

7 hours ago, thilipsis said:

When attempting to defend the Bible as being true and reliable history it becomes essential to realize, the Bible is primary source material, at least, in a Judaeo Christian context.

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.

44 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I was going to respond to several of the posts in this thread until I came to the realization that you guys are WAY more informed on the subject than I!  ALL of you.  But I've enjoyed reading through the thread and I've learned things too so...good job.  If y'all can keep ME from challenging and arguing then my hat is off to you. 

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

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

2.  SUPPORT that it doesn't address you...?

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!

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

My 12 year old daughter would reduce him to a blithering idiot within 2 minutes. 

That sounds very trollish.  I have to admit, you are a little charming in a Donald Trump kind of way.  

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

2.  Something can come from Nothing, Naturally.

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.  

37 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

God did not give us an earth that we can destroy.

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

41 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

I have been, for years.  And they're NOT Scientists.

I mean when you're awake.

Have you engaged in any public debates?

43 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

I'm Exposing 'Pseudo-Scientists'.  Do I have to be on a certain "Special" media to EXPOSE them?

What is an example of a proper scientist?  What discoveries or insight did they offer us?  An example or two would be fine.

44 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Being Tough ??  How so?  

I was attempting, IMHO quite successfully...to present sound Scientific Principles and Logical Reasoning.

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.