God's Finger Print:The Semiotic Dimension of DNA

FlyersFan

sk0rpi0n
Its a deflection on your part, not mine.

No evidence of Noahs Ark ..

heh. The ''evidence'' for Noahs ark is from the same source that proves Jesus' virgin birth....i.e- the Bible. The true bible adhering christians believe in Noahs ark and thats all that matters as far as this is concerned.

sk0rpi0n

FlyersFan

sk0rpi0n
Its a deflection on your part, not mine.

No evidence of Noahs Ark ..

heh. The ''evidence'' for Noahs ark is from the same source that proves Jesus' virgin birth....i.e- the Bible. The true bible adhering christians believe in Noahs ark and thats all that matters as far as this is concerned.

Are you Muslim ?

ServantOfTheLamb
So in your eyes Evil doesn't exist. Its all relative. So if a person wants to murder someone, how do you justify putting them in jail if it was within there moral frame work? Was Hitler just flesh guided by mindless processes? Is the extermination of a race just a fact? Or is it Evil?

I believe being morally wrong -is- a matter of perspective, as would anyone who looked at the matter objectively. Morals are a concept based off thought and reasoning (sound or otherwise) of the perceived good or bad (our perceptions and or others) of the result of actions, thus morals are based off of perception, which is subjective and thus not ultimate or universal. Wide moral concepts spread through the propagation of opinions on actions, people are persuaded to believe something is very positive or negative because of a reason and depending on the subject a moral concept may be born within a group.

There is no right, only the concepts that you make a choice to embrace that is what makes something real and truthfully right or not because it's true to you. You can define to you what might be noble and why it is noble and build a moral reasoning behind it and say if someone doesn't abide by it they are morally wrong. This is to say you can have a universal concept that you create which you apply to everyone else but it doesn't mean it aligns with the cultures and views of the world (cultural relativism), it would be up to your reasoning and speech skills to convince someone else to see from your view point and have them adopt your moral perspective.

I have pondered good and evil for quite some time and in that time I have come up with possibly one true basic evil (for me that is forcing wills on another) and even that can be justified as moral through the lenses of moral systems of belief (relative/perspective based).

In the case of your examples I have written entire papers on morality, even one specifically on imprisonment:

Ultimately examining the concept of imprisonment through the chosen moral theories I have come to the conclusion in relation to social morality that a concept can be considered good or evil based on action and wills. A universal view of an evil concept is one, which imposes a group or individual will though actions on another against their will or without their consent. However an act based on an evil concept can be rationally applied and considered moral due to circumstantial justification. In relation to the concept of imprisonment, imprisonment is wrong because it imposes will onto another without their consent, however the act of imprisonment may be justified based on other factors such as the utility of a decision to the majority, the cultural beliefs which might be based on rehabilitation, or religious views of a group governed under Contractarianism, or a rational view of retribution. Addition: or any other system a person or group believed in.

Hitler made his decisions on what he considered right and wrong, he decided/chose. You and I may find it wrong… but it's subjective.

Disbelieving in bioligical evolution because we don't have a complete account for the transitional fossils is similar to the disbelief I hear towards the evolution of stars because we've never 'seen one form'. We have seen many stages. We have seen many transitional fossils. We'll see more when we discover more. I find it more than entertaining the demands the religious make when they themselves muster what evidence for Creationism? A book that says it's true.

The ''evidence'' for Noahs ark is from the same source that proves Jesus' virgin birth....i.e- the Bible. The true bible adhering christians believe in Noahs ark and thats all that matters as far as this is concerned.

Case in point.

sk0rpi0n
The ''evidence'' for Noahs ark is from the same source that proves Jesus' virgin birth....i.e- the Bible.

Dead wrong. The story of Noahs Ark is a myth from the Old Testament, and it was poorly 'borrowed' from the Summerian legends. The stories were from thousands of years B.C. The source for the life of Christ comes from the gospels which were written 2,000 years ago by those who experienced the events, or from the students of those who experienced them. The bible is a collection of many different books put together under one binding. It's not one big book.

And it still stands that Noahs Ark has been totally DEBUNKED.

The true bible adhering christians believe in Noahs ark and thats all that matters as far as this is concerned.

Don't start that crap again. You were already proven wrong on that.
The vast majority of Christians do NOT read the bible Old Testament as literal truth.
So stop telling lies to further your own agenda.

2 Peter 3 : Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

I enjoyed the read OP, but people that refuse to believe at this point have been given over to a reprobate mind.

reply to post by graphuto




Or maybe some don't believe simply because for them this belief would require good evidence.