new

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

When a person is asleep, he or she cannot feel or care what happens. Would if be okay in your worldview to assassinate someone as long as that person is sleeping? You see, your worldview just cannot make sense of morality. You instinctively that people have more value than plants and even animals, because you know in your heart-of-hearts that people are made in the image of God. You keep repeating the Christian principle of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. But that principle makes no sense whatsoever in an evolutionary worldview.]

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

You keep repeating the Christian principle of
"doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. ”
its not a christian principle it is a Chinese one, and Mozi and Laozi made those conclusions in strictly secular contexts

[Dr. Lisle: We have already covered this. Only the Christian worldview can make sense of objective morality. These other systems that you have proposed only motivate people to behave when they are being watched, and only if it will benefit them in the future. That's not morality.]

Josef #fundie jasonlisle.com

[You do not have an objective moral standard.

For instance: baby-killing is OK if god orders it, is it not? William Lane Craig seems to think so.]

Of course. Whatever God commands is absolutely moral because God himself is the absolute standard for good. In fact, if God really did command to do something, such as kill babies, then it would be immoral not to do it. And on what basis do you have to disagree with this outside of mere opinion?

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

First, the rise of biology has nothing to do with evolution. (Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?) It may interest you to learn that belief in evolution actually fueled racism tremendously in the past century. Take a look at the subtitle for Darwin's famous book and you'll see the beginnings of this. The African man Ota Benga was even captured and put on exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in 1906 due to the evolutionary belief that his race was closer to the ape than Caucasians

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Jason Lisle: In the atheist's worldview you are just bags of chemicals with no purpose
Tony: Thats a fallacy of composition
Jason Lisle:It would only be the fallacy of composition if humans are more than just bags of chemicals. If we had a soul for example. But on your worldview, there can be no fallacy because humans are simply bags of chemicals with no design or purpose

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

The statement "Jupiter is in the constellation Taurus" is a "description of reality," and it is true - for now (June 24, 2013). But next week, it will not be true. Jupiter will be in Gemini. If laws of logic were merely a "description of reality" as you suggest, then we would expect them to change with time, since reality changes with time. But they don't. Thus, your claim stands refuted

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

In your worldview, pain and suffering are simply chemical reactions taking place in a bag of chemicals. Why would that be wrong? When baking soda reacts with vinegar do you get upset? Do you say that it is morally wrong? Your view of morality does not comport with your view on origins. In my worldview, people have intrinsic and objective value, since they are made in the image of God. It is because the Bible is true that we can call pain and suffering "bad." In the evolutionary view, they can never be more than chemistry.

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Taka No Mi:To whom are we morally responsible? In moral systems that lack a divine component, we are accountable to those around us

Dr. Lisle: Why? There is no rational basis for such an assumption, and it leads to absurd results. If one man were to kill all other humans, then by your definition he is not morally responsible to anyone. Thus, the action cannot be rationally condemned

Tony:No it doesn’t it just seems like you don’t understand the argument if he kills everyone else he himself cannot survive, and again i believe that you wont understand the full crux of the argument

Dr.Lisle:Dr. Lisle: Certainly he can survive. Since he has killed everyone else, he helps himself to their possessions and resources. He has enough food, shelter, clothing, and other resources to last the rest of his life with plenty more. So, why in your worldview would his actions be morally wrong? Or would they?]

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

The biblical model of slavery is another very misunderstood principle. Perhaps some of the confusion comes from the history of slavery as it occurred in the United States; that type of slavery was not biblical. The Bible never condones racial or brutal slavery—the kind that was experienced in our nation. However, the Bible does indeed endorse a type of “slavery.” And when we read the relevant Scriptures in context, we see that it is quite different from what many people think. Biblical slavery was designed to help a financially irresponsible Israelite get out of debt and become a responsible worker. Here is how it was designed to work:

Those people who were very financially irresponsible, and had accumulated so much debt that they could not possibly pay it off, could request to become the slave of a wealthy individual (Leviticus 25:39; Genesis 47:19). If the wealthy individual agreed, he would pay off all the person’s debts and provide for him, and then the servant would work for the individual for some period of time apparently proportional to the amount of debt (Leviticus 25:50) but not to exceed seven years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12). When the period of time had expired, the servant was set free, and the wealthy person was required to give him enough start up supplies so that he could begin his own business (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). The Israelite slave was to be treated respectfully (Leviticus 25:43) and was immediately granted freedom if mistreated (Exodus 21:26–27).

It’s really a very generous system. Help a financially irresponsible person to become responsible by (1) paying off his debts and providing for him, (2) training him by having him work for a period of time, (3) giving him sufficient startup capital to start his own business. It’s not quite what most people think, is it? I would suggest that the biblical system is far superior to our modern welfare system.