Scientists Create Alien DNA After 15 Years Of Work

[CarbonFistprint]

One step closer to the zombie apocalypse.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I asked this earlier, but you may have missed it...

where do you chalk up natural disasters (not influenced by man)?

I think he implied they were punishment for bad choices allowable under free-will.

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

this is a bad idea... genetically advanced e coli

ignorance.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You're copping out just like before.

You're not making your case, you're just attacking people without making an argument of substance.

Just correcting you is all

 

[TheComebackKid]

I asked this earlier, but you may have missed it...

where do you chalk up natural disasters (not influenced by man)?

From a christianity perspective natural disasters are only occuring because man has let sin into the world through our free will. Man originally had dominion over the earth and everything in it. Man gave up that dominion, voluntarily, and now are at the mercy of the elements.

 

[TheBox]

From a christianity perspective natural disasters are only occuring because man has let sin into the world through our free will. Man originally had dominion over the earth and everything in it. Man gave up that dominion, voluntarily, and now are at the mercy of the elements.

Are you saying that Adam and Eve had control over weather, like Storm from the X-Men?

How does sin lead to natural disasters anyway?

 

[UpaLoompa]

How does sin lead to natural disasters anyway?

Because TCK's god is an evil child.
Honestly, if the Christian god were real the only right answer would be to find a way to fight the monster.

 

[TheComebackKid]

*shrugs*

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink...or something like that

 

[afrdzak]

*shrugs*

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink...or something like that

So we need to trick the evil god to drink from a poisoned well?!?!?!
He's omnipotent. It won't work.

/sarcasm, bad joke

 

[TheComebackKid]

Heres a hypothetical, philosophical question. Lets just say there is a God(creator of heaven/earth, creater of life, creator of morality) who produces, allows, or authorizes natural disasters that lead to massive human suffering...how could any of us call him evil? He is the one who defines and determines what is or isn't evil.

I really don't think you can have something like an "evil God". The closest you can get is a "God that seems evil to our limited understanding of good and evil".

Just a thought. But carry on...

 

[Jake Jarmell]

Heres a hypothetical, philosophical question. Lets just say there is a God(creator of heaven/earth, creater of life, creator of morality) who produces, allows, or authorizes natural disasters that lead to massive human suffering...how could any of us call him evil? He is the one who defines and determines what is or isn't evil.

I really don't think you can have something like an "evil God". The closest you can get is a "God that seems evil to our limited understanding of good and evil".

Just a thought. But carry on...

That is a shitty way to think about god. If god kills an entire group of people, it's ok because god did it and he sets the standard for good and bad. If god can set morals for us that he is incapable of adhering to, then I choose not to follow that god.

God should not be held to our standard of morality, HIS SHOULD BE BETTER. But if he fails our standards, why follow him at all? This is assuming he exists, which there is no evidence to support he does.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Heres a hypothetical, philosophical question. Lets just say there is a God(creator of heaven/earth, creater of life, creator of morality) who produces, allows, or authorizes natural disasters that lead to massive human suffering...how could any of us call him evil? He is the one who defines and determines what is or isn't evil.

I really don't think you can have something like an "evil God". The closest you can get is a "God that seems evil to our limited understanding of good and evil".

Just a thought. But carry on...

The emphasized portion is nonsense. Ethics and morality can be defined objectively and independent of religion. A child can create a terrarium and within it house animals, does that give the child carte blanche to torture his pets?

Your god is an evil entity. You worshiping such an evil being is reprehensible.

 

[TheComebackKid]

That is a shitty way to think about god. If god kills an entire group of people, it's ok because god did it and he sets the standard for good and bad. If god can set morals for us that he is incapable of adhering to, then I choose not to follow that god.

God should not be held to our standard of morality, HIS SHOULD BE BETTER. But if he fails our standards, why follow him at all? This is assuming he exists, which there is no evidence to support he does.

If you were to reject God's standard then whose morale standard would you apply? Your parents? Your society? Your own? The problem with that is those standards are ever changing which means they are not really standards at all. Another thing to consider is your point of view versus a Gods. How could you even begin to think you could know more or understand more from your extremely finite view of any and everything?

I'm just sayin, I can understand rejecting the notion of God but trying to use morality as a standard in which to do so is philosophically bankrupt from the start.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm just sayin, I can understand rejecting the notion of God but trying to use morality as a standard in which to do so is philosophically bankrupt from the start.

Yeah, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

 

[TheComebackKid]

Yeah, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Not impressed

 

[Zankou]

If you were to reject God's standard then whose morale standard would you apply? Your parents? Your society? Your own? The problem with that is those standards are ever changing which means they are not really standards at all. Another thing to consider is your point of view versus a Gods. How could you even begin to think you could know more or understand more from your extremely finite view of any and everything?

I'm just sayin, I can understand rejecting the notion of God but trying to use morality as a standard in which to do so is philosophically bankrupt from the start.

The thing that's particularly hilarious about this argument is the presumption that God's standards never change, when even a cursory understanding of the history of Judaism and Christianity shows that their ethical standards change at a frantic rate, are constantly in conflict/tension, splinter into a million different factions, and (even within Holy Scripture) are constantly being altered.

It's like you are saying "how can you have a solid foundation for ethics when it isn't built on a whirlpool of jello?"

Even this forum is jam-packed with Christians who see not the remotest conflict between them ardently loving guns, the army, and capitalism .... and the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel. Yep, really a rock-hard determinate basis for morality, that Bible. Really imposes strict unchanging standards.

You have to admire Islam for at least being somewhat upfront about this with its doctrine of Qur'anic abrogation, where Mohammed would issues divine commands as Qur'anic revelation on a Tuesday, and then on Wednesday Allah changed his mind and gives the opposite revelation. One moment alcohol is A-OK to drink, the next it's the devil. One moment you are praying towards Jerusalem, the next it's Mecca. It gets remarkably confusing.

 

[Jake Jarmell]

If you were to reject God's standard then whose morale standard would you apply? Your parents? Your society? Your own? The problem with that is those standards are ever changing which means they are not really standards at all. Another thing to consider is your point of view versus a Gods. How could you even begin to think you could know more or understand more from your extremely finite view of any and everything?

I'm just sayin, I can understand rejecting the notion of God but trying to use morality as a standard in which to do so is philosophically bankrupt from the start.

I didn't use morality to reject the notion of god, I used your description of his morality to reject following that god.

So because we have limited understanding, I couldn't possibly understand god, sure (given he exists). This also means you can't either, and any view you have on god's morality is just as incorrect as mine. I never claimed to know more than god, but if the standard of morality he adheres to doesn't include the one he set for us, then I need not follow this god.

Changing morality isn't morality? Can you find a time where god allowed certain things as moral and now he doesn't?

 

[TheBox]

Heres a hypothetical, philosophical question. Lets just say there is a God(creator of heaven/earth, creater of life, creator of morality) who produces, allows, or authorizes natural disasters that lead to massive human suffering...how could any of us call him evil? He is the one who defines and determines what is or isn't evil.

Couldn't a god that defines evil still commit actions that meet that definition?

If god says wearing the color yellow is evil and then puts on a yellow sweater, is it unfair to say that god commits evil?

 

[TheComebackKid]

The thing that's particularly hilarious about this argument is the presumption that God's standards never change, when even a cursory understanding of the history of Judaism and Christianity shows that their ethical standards change at a frantic rate, are constantly in conflict/tension, splinter into a million different factions, and (even within Holy Scripture) are constantly being altered.

It's like you are saying "how can you have a solid foundation for ethics when it isn't built on a whirlpool of jello?"

You have to admire Islam for at least being somewhat upfront about this with its doctrine of Qur'anic abrogation, where Mohammed would issues divine commands as Qur'anic revelation on a Tuesday, and then on Wednesday Allah changed his mind and gives the opposite revelation. One moment alcohol is A-OK to drink, the next it's the devil. One moment you are praying towards Jerusalem, the next it's Mecca. It gets remarkably confusing.

Remember we are considering a hypothetical God here. So if that hypothetical God existed then all you are describing is man's different and ever changing interpretation of that standard. But if that God and that standard do not exist then there is no real moral standard at which to apply anything to. The standard is what that person or group currently believes according to their current level of insight and understanding of a situation.

 

[TheBox]

Remember we are considering a hypothetical God here.

Oh, so we're not talking about your god.