Evidence for God from Science

Great, why is 'being rational' right, and being irrational 'wrong'?

If you are going to inject yourself in this discussion then you need to account for your worldview. Otherwise being rational is a preference. And in that case no one is right or wrong (objectively) for prefering to burn down orphanages or torture children for pleasure. If someone is 'naturally' inclined towards that, then how can you judge it to be morally problematic? If you are going to offer intuition and nature, then you need to be willing to deal with the massive problems that come along with that. The question isn't whether you are guided by a moral code. The question is how do you account for it?

All you've done so far is tell us you are right and we are wrong, and without offering any justification outside of your own preferences. I can think of no position more arrogant than this. And while doing it you must smuggle in the very worldview you attempt to discredit. That is hypocrisy.

jlay wrote:Great, why is 'being rational' right, and being irrational 'wrong'?

Well, I can see that this conversation is over. There is no sense in talking with someone who is irrational...

Nice chatting,

Butter,

If I am being irrational, I EXPECT to be called out on it, and more importantly to be shown precisely where and how I am being such.
If you think it is rational to refuse to explain the source of your morality, or account for a standard outside yourself by which you measure goodness/rationality/etc, or smuggle in a conflicting worldview, then you are most certainly correct. You can try to sound coy all you like, but the truth is obvious to those reading. I strongly suggest you read the board guidelines.

I know why being logical, rational, moral, etc. is BETTER. Because it is objectively so. Not because I prefer it, or a group of people prefer it. It really is GOOD to be rational, moral, etc.
You ACT like it is good to be rational, logical, moral, etc.. But you cannot and will not offer any defense as to how that is the case. You've resorted to name calling. I assure you I am more than rational, which is why I have challenged you to rationally answer these questions and examples. You haven't. You continue to smuggle in OM and refuse to account for it.

If you think I'm being irrational, show me how. I have shown exactly how you are being contradictory and hypocritical. If you think this forum is where you can spew atheist fodder and speak in platitudes without being called to the carpet, then you aren't being........rational.

jlay wrote:
If you think I'm being irrational, show me how. I have shown exactly how you are being contradictory and hypocritical. If you think this forum is where you can spew atheist fodder and speak in platitudes without being called to the carpet, then you aren't being........rational.

Oh, I get it! You can say that I'm not being rational, but I can't tell you that...sounds like a double standard to me.

It has nothing to do with telling. It is showing. I showed you and specifically pointed out why.

You just speak in platitudes. If I was calling you irrational without spelling out why, then yes. For someone who lauds being rational, you ought to be willing to practice it.
The topic is morality. You keep telling us what is wrong with the bible, what is better, what is rational, and appear to be measuring it all by something. We are asking you to account for it.

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:
If you think I'm being irrational, show me how. I have shown exactly how you are being contradictory and hypocritical. If you think this forum is where you can spew atheist fodder and speak in platitudes without being called to the carpet, then you aren't being........rational.

Oh, I get it! You can say that I'm not being rational, but I can't tell you that...sounds like a double standard to me.

I that your "sexist" side showing J?

I have just read/skimmed through this thread. Please allow me to present my dramatic synopsis of the exchange between Butterfly and his various interlocutors:

Butterfly: I submit to you a foundation of objective morality absent God: the Golden Rule.
Interlocutor: What makes it objective?
Butterfly: The fact that it is universal to humankind.
Interlocutor: But what about individuals/cultures XYZ, who would reject the Golden Rule as moral?
Butterfly: They don't count because they are clearly irrational.
Interlocutor: I see. On what basis do you call them irrational?
Butterfly: They are irrational inasmuch as they reject the Golden Rule as a moral, the objective truth of which is obvious.
Interlocutor: Ah yes, of course. What was it again that established it as objectively moral without any need of God?
Butterfly: It's universal recognition as such among all of humankind.
Interlocutor: But what of those who reject the GR, thus refuting its universality?
Butterfly: They don't count because they are irrational.
Interlocutor: Irrational because......?
Butterfly: They are irrational because they reject the Golden Rule, the objective truth of which is manifest.

Butterfly, do you recognize the circularity of your argument for the GR here? For all of your efforts, your arguments have basically been ipse dixit repetitions of your personal belief that the GR is a great moral foundation. As such, far from overturning the theist moral arguments, all you've done is volunteer your own subjective opinion of what makes a great foundation for personal ethics,then baldly asserted that anyone who disagrees is irrational and therefore not worth listening to, and thereby satisfied that there are no rational objections you declare your subjectively favored moral system objectively true. And yes, I read the blog post you linked to regarding the Golden Rule, and my reaction to it was the same as Icthus': it was laughably bad.

I want to be charitable here, I really do. So if I have misunderstood your argument, or you feel I have completely misrepresented it, please demonstrate (that is, don't simply assert) where I have it wrong.

From there, though, your problems aren't at an end. Even if we stipulate that the Golden Rule is an objective moral truth, and indeed even if it were universal across all of humanity, one still must account for why it is objectively true. You seem to think it has something to do with self-consciousness or self-awareness of human beings, but on an atheist (and here I mean materialist or naturalist) worldview, consciousness or awareness is illusory, and intentionality (and thus the belief that we are "attempting" to act "morally") is certainly a mirage, as such a worldview is deterministic. You see, even if all of humanity (to a man!) recognized the Golden Rule as an objective moral truth, on an atheistic worldview humanity only does so due to a random quirk of evolution-- and remember that, according to naturalistic evolution, species evolve not according to what is "good" or "bad," but only according to what happens to promote survival and procreation. One could argue, as Sam Harris tries to, that that which promotes survival and well-being of humans is objectively moral, but to do so overturns the entire framework of naturalistic evolution--that its results simply are as they are, and any attempt to assign value to them is entirely post hoc and subjective; it is man flattering himself by pretending that he is, in the end, anything more than just another animal. This is why at least a century and a half of atheist philosophy has simply accepted the absence of any objective moral standard, and indeed why existentialists despaired that life is ultimately void of any meaning at all.

Again I welcome your comments. Thank you for your time.

Butterfly wrote:The problem with the God of the Bible is that he not only allowed his children (the Hebrews) to abuse others by denying them equal human rights, but he also mandated laws that were specifically biased in favor of the Hebrew male. It is one thing to teach people in a gentle manner if they have been abused, and quite another thing to accommodate them when they are practicing abusive and discriminatory behavior to others based solely on gender or race. While God may have instilled many good behaviors in the Hebrews, he also allowed and mandated many abusive behaviors that violated the human rights of others.

Let’s see Butterfly, your premise is this: Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery, etc and etc – all that you stated so far.

Have you considered the following:

1-- Man created the oppression, killing of innocents, and justifies slavery and needs no god or gods to justify in doing so. Ancient pagan Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, China, India, and Polynesia all practiced male dominance over women, killing of innocents, and justified slavery and in some cases cannibalism.

a--These social/societal norms are historically verified in the archeological and written records of the ancient world. The ancient world and times have been historically defined as brutal, vile, justifying male dominance over women, killing of innocents, warranting slavery, as well as a host of despicable immoral acts which has corrupted the human gene pool with all kinds of diseases to this day. This is more evidence how far humanity fell from God’s Goodness (So note in Romans 5:12 woman is not blamed but that point however escapes you) due to the fall.

2--God chose a person to make a nation out of during this mixed up perverse era in order to begin to straighten things out and get people back on the right track. In this, God choose to work through these very ancient social norms that infected all people and permitted certain social laws to address these issues of that era. It is these that you claim to buttress your bias prejudice of your philosophic position: kill bible god.

a--These laws were crafted in such wise manner to expose human depravity that eventually led to correct much of this depravity in cooperation with human agents own will. A New Covenant was made. God’s light shone in darkness and pushed it back and continues this to this day. This has led to the abolition of slavery, a return to better treatment of both sexes to each other, the moral outrage over abortion which battle continues. The OT law’s purpose was to expose and identify sin and deal with it effectively through Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:24, 25).

Now to the Main Point

You, Butterfly, never address any of this, nor seek to understand it due to your own breaking the Golden Rule you created for yourself. What you are doing is trying to pit your idea of the Golden Rules against bible believing Christians concept of the Golden Rule in order to kill, rob, and steal belief in bible god.. In this Butterfly, you failed. How so?

Well for starters, I challenge you today – where do we Christians have slaves, have concubines, put women on the auction blocks for sale, and then go out and slaughter the innocent for kicks, today, right now? Hmmmm…..

WE DO NOT and DEMAND THAT YOU APOLOGIZE TO ALL CHRISTIANS OF YOUR FALSE INSINUATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS!

Live up to your own Golden Rule will ya?

Conclusion: Here is the reality

Jesus was correct – marriage is between one man and one woman. God never intended otherwise. Never did God want salves – he went about setting slaves free and reminded those bound to a depraved sin nature exemplified in the ancient social norms of slavery in OT times to treat slaves well. That old system became obsolete and was dealt with 70 AD and a new covenant was made. The OT laws were to bring us to Christ and led to the freedom for slaves, freedom from harsh child labor laws, and points out that human induced abortion is a crime. The reason these were in the OT was God’s way to expose it as wrong and make people think this - they need to stop it and in this – successful.

God desires men and women to be ONE an Echaud: That equates to equality between each gender by balancing each other and not either sex dominating the other. That’s God’s idea – not Man’s. God has been in a battle with human nature over this for centuries. Ancient Pagan Rome influenced the West and its abuse and ill treatment of women carried over but is now fading. Only recently, in the past 100 years or so has this sin begun to be removed. Is there vestiges ancient Rome still in the Church, yes, but it is fading nevertheless.

More now than ever, are people reading the bible from the original languages and seeing the equality of the sexes in a Echaud union of unity – or as the bible says so – Oneness. We see the cultural and historical aspects of the ancient world in the proper context. We see what the original text and words actually mean why Paul addresses certain problems between the sexes inside a church the way he did. We see the truth.

I ask you, was Jesus a sexist as you suggest the Bible God is when he spoke what he said in Matthew 19:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9c? Next, Was Paul in Col 3:19, Eph 5:25, 28, 29, 33, Col 3:21, Eph 6:4 a sexist as you claim? So as you review these verses, I hope you realize how revolutionary Christianity is combating the societal norms of the ancient and modern world. Instead of fighting us, why not join us?

In all this, you fail to see truth because you have an agenda as I pointed out and underlined earlier. All readers should likewise note that when these subject come up which for me is: When I hear an anti Christian, tell me, a Christian, what the Golden Rule is and how it should apply, then I know I am up against someone skilled enough to attempt the age old trick of pitting their opponents standards against their own standards under a 'Golden Rule Subterfuge' to win a debate. The devil Tried so with Jesus in Luke chapter Four to destroy God and failed: nothing has much changed since.

Again, I challenge you today Butterfly – where do we Christians have slaves, have Concubines, go out and slaughter the innocent, today, right now? The OT covenant of societal based laws has been done away with – there is a New Covenant that is revolutionary.

So Why Don't - YOU APOLOGIZE TO ALL CHRISTIANS FOR YOUR FALSE INSINUATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS!

If you can’t please politely hold your peace, pack your kit of tricks and be on your way.
-
-
-

****B. W., you went and done it now! You mentioned abortion. Pro life/anti-choice is the ultimate sexist mindset. How dare you try to manipulate and control women by telling them they can't have control of their own bodies? That is the ultimate male dominated slavery. You're no different than the Old Testament biblegod. You can't claim to know the plight of a woman who doesn't want a burden of bringing a child into this world. Because you are not a woman!


****hopefully, this extremely sarcastic sarcasm makes my point.

B. W. wrote:

Butterfly wrote:The problem with the God of the Bible is that he not only allowed his children (the Hebrews) to abuse others by denying them equal human rights, but he also mandated laws that were specifically biased in favor of the Hebrew male. It is one thing to teach people in a gentle manner if they have been abused, and quite another thing to accommodate them when they are practicing abusive and discriminatory behavior to others based solely on gender or race. While God may have instilled many good behaviors in the Hebrews, he also allowed and mandated many abusive behaviors that violated the human rights of others.

Let’s see Butterfly, your premise is this: Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery, etc and etc – all that you stated so far.



Well for starters, I challenge you today – where do we Christians have slaves, have concubines, put women on the auction blocks for sale, and then go out and slaughter the innocent for kicks, today, right now? Hmmmm…..

WE DO NOT and DEMAND THAT YOU APOLOGIZE TO ALL CHRISTIANS OF YOUR FALSE INSINUATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS!

Live up to your own Golden Rule will ya?



Again, I challenge you today Butterfly – where do we Christians have slaves, have Concubines, go out and slaughter the innocent, today, right now? The OT covenant of societal based laws has been done away with – there is a New Covenant that is revolutionary.

So Why Don't - YOU APOLOGIZE TO ALL CHRISTIANS FOR YOUR FALSE INSINUATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS!

If you can’t please politely hold your peace, pack your kit of tricks and be on your way.
-
-
-

It seems one little butterfly has opened a Pandora's box of Christian male attackers (at least 10). I came here to question and be challenged, not to have false accusations hurled at me. I think your implications are outrageous, where have I even hinted at any Christian here or anywhere else participates in murder or slavery? I have not!

My truthful statements have been that the Bible ordains and sanctions human rights violations including murder, and slavery. Can you deny that?

You also twist my words to mean something other than what I intended...shame on you. You said my premise is that "Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery", I said no such thing. My premise is that the Bible is biased toward the male, reflecting the same gods and male mindset present in other cultures at the time, implying that the male, tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period.

I have nothing to apologize for, as I have accused no one of anything. My focus has been solely on the content of the Bible. I will think long and hard on whether I want to continue on such a biased forum. I thought this forum welcomed free thought, but obviously you don't like your religious views challenged, sort of like Islam?
-

It seems one little butterfly has opened a Pandora's box of Christian male attackers (at least 10).

Let's see...You come into a Christian forum, insult our God, and when we defend God and scripture, we are the attackers?

My truthful statements have been that the Bible ordains and sanctions human rights violations including murder, and slavery. Can you deny that?

Yes, we all have denied that, and showed you why. Your prejudice has blinded you.

I thought this forum welcomed free thought, but obviously you don't like your religious views challenged, sort of like Islam?

There are rules here. "Free thought" is welcome, as long as those rules are followed. From the Board purpose, which whether or not you read it, you agreed to it when you signed up here:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =19&t=2517

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilised discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

If you don't think the rules are fair, too bad. There are plenty of sites that will allow you to attack the bible, Christianity, and God. There are more than a fair share of Atheists who post here, understand the rules, and abide by them. Oh BTW, men that break these rules are discouraged, as well.

Butter,

I am assuming you are a woman, although I honestly didn't assume until this last post.

The Bible has difficult things to understand. In our culture today the rolls of men and women are much different than 3,000 years ago.
But, you've yet to show us how it is wrong for the Bible to have distinct rolls for men and women, or how the female being submissive is wrong. Sure, I understand you don't prefer it, but you've not shown how it is wrong. Whether you like something or agree with it, doesn't make it wrong.
Also, the Bible does make provisions for slavery regarding the theocracy of Israel. Slavery has been a cultural reality for eons. That doesn't mean slavery is right. And the Bible dealing with slavery does not mean it is an endorsement of slavery in all times and places. You've been offered these explanations and I've yet to see even a hint that you would consider them to be valid. Which tells me, you've made up your mind, aint going to change it, and thus your only purpose here is to attack and not discuss.

You mention human rights, but where do those rights come from? The questions directed at you have been to hopefully get you to look as critically as your own presuppositions as you have looked at the Bible. To this point you have refused. You have refused to offer any justification for your own presuppositions or morality.

FWIW, I don't feel like you owe me any apology. I just don't think you have a place on this forum if your own presuppositions are off limits while ours are in the line of fire.

jlay wrote:Butter,

I am assuming you are a woman, although I honestly didn't assume until this last post.

The Bible has difficult things to understand. In our culture today the rolls of men and women are much different than 3,000 years ago.
But, you've yet to show us how it is wrong for the Bible to have distinct rolls for men and women, or how the female being submissive is wrong. Sure, I understand you don't prefer it, but you've not shown how it is wrong. Whether you like something or agree with it, doesn't make it wrong.

Hello Jlay,

Yes, I am a woman.

Let me clarify my position, because you have presented it wrong. First off, I have no problem with social rolls so long as they are not based upon things like gender and race. I think discrimination based on those kinds of things is wrong, because I believe all humans should have equal rights. The same holds true for being submissive; IF the sole reason for a female being submissive to a male is based on gender then it is wrong, because abilities and desires are not based on gender. People should be free to choose and follow their own path no matter what their gender, or race.

jlay wrote:Also, the Bible does make provisions for slavery regarding the theocracy of Israel. Slavery has been a cultural reality for eons. That doesn't mean slavery is right. And the Bible dealing with slavery does not mean it is an endorsement of slavery in all times and places. You've been offered these explanations and I've yet to see even a hint that you would consider them to be valid. Which tells me, you've made up your mind, aint going to change it, and thus your only purpose here is to attack and not discuss.

The Bible presents rules and laws as being given from God, and Jesus reiterated that by saying not one "Jot" or "Tittle" would pass from the law till all was fulfilled. So, when the Bible says that the Hebrews can own foreign slaves for ever and pass them down as an inheritance to their children (Lev.25:44-45), I take that as a sanctioning of chattel slavery. Please show me where I am wrong in making that assumption.

jlay wrote:You mention human rights, but where do those rights come from? The questions directed at you have been to hopefully get you to look as critically as your own presuppositions as you have looked at the Bible. To this point you have refused. You have refused to offer any justification for your own presuppositions or morality.

FWIW, I don't feel like you owe me any apology. I just don't think you have a place on this forum if your own presuppositions are off limits while ours are in the line of fire.

If for arguments sake I say human rights come from God, because it says in Genesis that male and female were created in the image of God, then why do many of the laws given in the Bible deny women equal human rights with men?

As for my presuppositions being off limits while yours are in the line of fire, I have experienced quite the opposite. It seems that everyone who has interacted with me, presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible, which of course totally colors everything built upon that foundation. I hope I have now clarified my position on these issues.

I am not trying to undermine anyone's faith on this forum as I have been accused of, but rather I am presenting the issues which caused me to lose my faith.
-

RickD wrote:

It seems one little butterfly has opened a Pandora's box of Christian male attackers (at least 10).

Let's see...You come into a Christian forum, insult our God, and when we defend God and scripture, we are the attackers?

My truthful statements have been that the Bible ordains and sanctions human rights violations including murder, and slavery. Can you deny that?

Yes, we all have denied that, and showed you why. Your prejudice has blinded you.

I thought this forum welcomed free thought, but obviously you don't like your religious views challenged, sort of like Islam?

There are rules here. "Free thought" is welcome, as long as those rules are followed. From the Board purpose, which whether or not you read it, you agreed to it when you signed up here:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =19&t=2517

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilised discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

If you don't think the rules are fair, too bad. There are plenty of sites that will allow you to attack the bible, Christianity, and God. There are more than a fair share of Atheists who post here, understand the rules, and abide by them. Oh BTW, men that break these rules are discouraged, as well.

Don't you think after nearly 28 years as a Christian, I would love to be able to salvage my faith?

Why do you think I am presenting these tough issues that caused my loss of faith to begin with, hoping someone could maybe give me some new insights that I have overlooked?

If there were easy answers I would have found them already, so I don't need empty platitudes. I didn't come here attacking anyone, but rather I came presenting difficult questions whose answers lead me away from my Christian faith. No one as of yet has been able to give me credible answers that hold up to logic and reason. Why do you think I am no longer a Christian?
-

I think discrimination based on those kinds of things is wrong, because I believe all humans should have equal rights.

Fine, I just hope that you understand that this is an opinion. You say the reason it is WRONG is because of what you BELIEVE. Well, I could easily say, I believe you are wrong. It's circular to the core.

The same holds true for being submissive; IF the sole reason for a female being submissive to a male is based on gender then it is wrong, because abilities and desires are not based on gender. People should be free to choose and follow their own path no matter what their gender, or race.

Again, you are merely asserting your preferences. Otherwise, by what measure do you say that?
The reality is that there are differences in gender. It is not popular to assert that certain roles be restricted due to gender, but I'm not complaining that I can never bear children. Just aint gonna happen. But seriously, could it be that your opinion is wrong?
Regarding race, I agree, because there is only one race, the human race. And you'll be hard pressed to find the Bible supporting racism. And before you go off on a tangent understand that any ethnicity could be a proselyte in Israel. In fact, many were. The distinctions for Israel were not about skin color.

Let's look at it this way. There are things in the Bible you don't agree with. Does that mean the Bible is wrong? And when I say wrong here, I am using in the objective sense. If you say yes, then you need to explain the objective nature of such. This is exactly what I've been challenging you to do from the beginning.

The Bible presents rules and laws as being given from God, and Jesus reiterated that by saying not one "Jot" or "Tittle" would pass from the law till all was fulfilled. So, when the Bible says that the Hebrews can own foreign slaves for ever and pass them down as an inheritance to their children (Lev.25:44-45), I take that as a sanctioning of chattel slavery. Please show me where I am wrong in making that assumption.

Couple of things here. The context of "The Law" here was the 10 commands. Jesus even quotes them directly, and has a specific purpose for His teaching. To imply that Jesus is essentially endorsing buying slaves is really ignoring the context and trying to find an objection where none really exists. The Law was for the Hebrews. Not for us. Nor was it ever meant to deal with or condone the slave trade that we think of when the word 'slavery' is used. The Law was fulfilled by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The theocracy of Israel is NOT in effect and hasn't been for almost 2,000 years. Obviously the ceremonial and civil laws, etc. were not to continue, because Jesus Himself appears to Peter and abolishes all the food laws in one fail swoop.

At the end of the day, I will never try to convince you that the Bible doesn't place men in women in different roles, with the woman being in submission to the man. People today wince at being under authority, etc. Even the term 'sheep' which Jesus uses to describe His followers is a term of disdain today.

But at the end of the day, yes, you are correct. The Bible makes provision for buying slaves. Can I give you a satisfactory answer? no. It could be that you will NEVER get a satisfactory answer. But, does that mean that Jesus isn't who He says He is. Does that mean that you aren't a sinner who needs saving? No. And no matter how much you are disatisfied, or disagree, that doesn't change. I can assure you that I don't have all my own questions answered. But at the end of the day I know I'm a sinner who needs a savior. I can't possibly have the perspective I need to have to throw out the entire Bible because God won't bow to my preferences. It's a humbling position, and again, one people simply don't want to take. Independence and self-reliance are touted as virtues today, and in some ways are. But there is also a lot I see wrong with much the world holds virtuous. And unfortunately we are not going to agree on many those points. You have a lens you view the Bible through, and I know from many years of experience that the Bible will never conform to that Lens. But I do know some incredible Godly women who I admire.

If for arguments sake I say human rights come from God, because it says in Genesis that male and female were created in the image of God, then why do many of the laws given in the Bible deny women equal human rights with men?

The reality is that the Bible makes distinctions between men and women, particularly the OT. The man was to have to the superior role. I doubt there is anything I can offer to convince you that this is right. Sounds like your mind is made up.
The NT is much more accomadating. In fact, considering the cultural idioms of the 1st century, the Bible is pretty radical. Of course there are always one or two verses that can be pointed to, but in doing so one misses the bigger picture.

One of my favorite verses in the Bible is "Be not CONFORMED any longer to the pattern of this world, but be TRANSFORMED by the renewing of your mind." The pattern of this world is what you espouse, and I'm sorry but you will not find the Bible accomodating that. It will be at friction.

As for my presuppositions being off limits while yours are in the line of fire, I have experienced quite the opposite. It seems that everyone who has interacted with me, presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible, which of course totally colors everything built upon that foundation. I hope I have now clarified my position on these issues.

Sure. No one here is saying they aren't biased. Everyone, and I repeat everyone has a lens through which they view the world. Moral law requires a moral law giver. Laws of logic require a law giver. Creation requires a creator. I could go on, but there are some solid reasons to presuppose the God of the Bible.
You need to understand that if there is no moral law giver outside of man, then it really does boil down to preference. And there are billions of Muslim women who prefer their system over your own. By what measure, other than your opinion, can you say they are WRONG? And they are reproducing faster than any other group on the planet, and desiring to enforce their ethic on you, me and everyone else.

Got to run, morelater.