No, it is not the "same way in any organization." If your boss asks you to do something immoral or illegal, you do not have to follow their orders.
I urge you again to review the Nuremberg Trials. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse to just do whatever.
Who said anything about doing something immoral or illegal? My point was if the boss tells you to do something that is in accord with your job description and you fail to carry it out, you will not stay employed unless you do as you are told by someone who is your superior in that company. Why are you moving the goal posts?
If your god is upset with me for disrespecting his amoral "system" of morality, then he should take it up with me already. So far, nothing.
Be patient....in his word, God says that all of his intelligent creation will account to him....it's called judgment day. According to scripture, for all our lives we are making a record about the way we live this life that the Creator has given us. He will not interfere with our choices because they are ours to make.
At that judgment time, I don't believe that anyone will be left in any doubt about what it means to disobey his laws.
That's why we're having a discussion.
You think something is moral just because somebody says so because that somebody supposedly is the author of morality, even though you can't demonstrate that. That's not enough for me. To me, morality is about weighing the consequences of actions based on what effects they have on myself and those around me. Blindly following whatever orders are commanded doesn't fit with that. If you're not weighing the consequences of our moral decisions, how are we actually exercising morality at all?
Morality is expected of human kind because they are the only creatures with a moral sense that is dependent on personal choice, by free will.
Morality is not a uniquely human trait. Dogs know when they've done wrong, for instance.
Nonsense. Dogs respond to their owners tone of voice. They act guilty because their owner is displeased with them...it's a submissive response. I have been a dog breeder for over 40 years.
That's what they are to you. Because you haven't made an effort to understand what has been explained to you over and over.
I understand perfectly well.....the explanations were simply bogus. I just call out those who try to pass off assertions and assumptions as facts. There is NO proof that evolution, as in a slow progression from amoebas to dinosaurs, ever took place except in the imagination of those who want to believe it.
Scientists are not gods and they are not worshiped as gods. If you think they are, then you'd need to demonstrate that in some way.
Richard Dawkins and his ilk, do a good impersonation.
Scientific publications are not scripture, and they're not taken as the Gospel's truth, as scriptures are. In fact, they're subject to scrutiny and criticism and are not accepted until they are shown to be verifiable and repeatable and have followed rigorous and sound methodology.
What is "sound methodology" exactly? It seems to me that "sound" simply means that scientists agree with each other and the methods they use to assume what they want to believe is true. They share these beliefs and hold them in common, so they interpret their findings collectively because they all believe them to uphold their assertions, as if they were facts.
Science is not a religion; it's a tool. You can tell yourself it's a religion, if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't make it so. It doesn't fit the criteria. If you think it does, you'll need to demonstrate that.
I have demonstrated it many times. This "tool" is used to discredit the Creator, so it's not as innocuous as many seem to think it is.
Science is the study of creation, finding out how and why it all works. They then put forward all manner of suggestions based on what they "know" to invent the things that they "assume". By utilising the brilliance of design in nature, they bring forth their own 'creation'....taking full credit for their plagiarism.
What carefully controlled studies/experiments have you carried out to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims? What carefully controlled studies have you carried out to demonstrate that the god you worship exists? Your "senses" don't coordinate with verifiable reality and you have, as of this date, not once provided any empirical evidence backing up your beliefs.
"Carefully controlled" by whom? Anyone who dares to step outside of what is "carefully controlled" to promote a different opinion about what is observed, becomes a 'leper' in academia.
Notice how you had to throw the word "faith" in there? Science doesn't require faith in order to accept it, because it's demonstrable. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. If you had evidence, you'd give that instead. Anything can be believed on faith so it can't be a reliable pathway to truth.
Evolutionists have as much "faith" as we do. They have the same evidence as we do, but they attribute the intelligence demonstrated in all of it to blind forces, devoid of intelligence or intent. That complex systems and the transmission of information just 'happened' through chance mutations and 'natural' selection. Where does "science fact" stop, and "science fiction" begin? The line is so blurred that even the scientists have lost sight of it.
To me, that is the same as saying someone found a house in the woods.....fully furnished, with plumbing and solar electricity, air conditioning, an abundance of food and water and a "Welcome" sign on the door.....then assuming that it just got there through "natural" means.....no architect needed....no engineer or builder required....no plumber...no electrician....no benevolent provider....that would be a ridiculous assumption! The "evidence" speaks for itself IMO.
Then stop trying to drag science down to religion's level. You're the one who keeps trying to put it where it doesn't belong.
We don't have different opticians. I have an actual optician, and you have a guy claiming that everything we know about the human eye is wrong because an old book written by people who had never inspected eyeballs before says so.
That "guy" designed the eyes of all creatures. Each one suited to their individual needs. Just an accident of evolution? I think your optician needs a reality check.
God is not religion.....religion does not represent him.
You accept all science that you think agrees with your preconceived religious notions and throw out the science that you think doesn't match those notions. That's not how science is done. That's how religion is done.
No, actually....I accept what science can prove......not what science assumes. You can't tell the difference?
We've been over this proof thing too many times to count. I seriously cannot believe that you are still trying this line. You know very well by now (or at least you should since you've been told umpteen times), that science deals in EVIDENCE, not proofs. Which of course does not mean that it's faith based. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
This is classic. "Evidence" requires interpretation.....when the one doing the interpreting has an agenda to uphold (if they wish to maintain any credibility in the hallowed halls of academia) they will find their evidence interpreted to match the views of the majority. We have all seen what happens to those who stray from the status quo.
There is more evidence that supports evolution than any other scientific theory in existence, including gravity. Funny how you accept the existence of gravity. But then again, you accept evolution too, you just have to call it something else ("adaptation") in order to deal with your cognitive dissonance on the subject.
What a ridiculous comparison. Who can deny gravity? Seriously....."cognitive dissonance" is alive and well in evolutionary ranks as well IMO.