There Is No Sin!

[Banned]

Moral reasoning 

What or who determines what is a crime or what is moral?

---

Nothing matters to the dead when they're dead, you don't need evolution to reach that conclusion. Everything that matters, matters to the living while they're alive, and other people being dead doesn't change what matters now. We want to be comfortable, fulfilled, happy, loved, safe, and secure while we're alive, and hopefully have a long life to enjoy those things. Criminals are a threat to the things that we want, the things that matter to us, so we have to protect ourselves from them. We've quite reasonably concluded that criminals getting what they want doesn't mean it's okay for them to take what we have.

You're coming off as either extremely dense or extremely trollish.

I look dense because I was waiting for the correct response to my questions.
Thank you for a plain and true answer, and for being right on topic.

I love and accept your position for the now, just as Astreja wrote earlier. Beautifully said. You are all better human beings than I am, better intentioned, braver, more accountable.

Your life, the way you related to your loved ones, your loved ones, the world of people you interacted with, your whole life, all the details, of how you do things and have coped through thick and thin...

I think it is wrong and a crime to wipe that all out through death.
Fairness to me would be to restore every decent thing you've ever achieved in your character, and to compensate you for every single ounce of suffering and loss, and do the same to anyone worthy of your affection.
Yes, restore all things. Renew your best memories and relationships, give back your life and youth, give back the moments that went missing, because you are worth it.

It doesn't matter how long you live, death is never welcome.

---

How is the supposed development of an ideology not a scientific fact?

BTW evolution science teaches that morality was developed by the process of evolution.
If you disagree you don't have sufficient backup from that community, to be able to call it accepted by that community.

The capacity for religious thinking is also a trait developed by the process of evolution.

Yes, that is what has been accepted about evolution, but others will disagree and see moral development as independant of evolution.
But if evolution is the progress of life - it would naturally include human thought and tendencies.

---

...
Why does it have to be atemporal, universal, static, and purely absolute in order to be a 'moral sense'? Those qualities don't seem to apply to anything else in our universe, why should they be necessary for anything at all?

...

That's the question I want you to help me with, does morality have an absolute, and if not, can it be called moral?

With evolution we are looking at the refinement of moral standards within a society...
which (just like scientific conclusions) leaves with the possibility of being incorrect in the past and now.

But then whatever we are striving for, must have a summary, a goal, a simple outcome no?

---

One wonders what keeps you from skullfucking all the ungodly children who won't be resurrected or recognized...and then one remembers that the religious have a particular history of -not- staying that red right hand..when it comes to ungodly children.
You've got the moral sense of a toaster.

So people who don't want to be in heaven because they're not allowed to string people up and burn them, ought to be tortured forever by being there?

I expect your morals to be found in an earlier stage of evolution.

---

Well, I am firmly of the opinion that that "story" is fictional.

That's because you don't have the evidence for it, but that doesn't exclude you from the future life. There will be a lot of people there who never knew who God is, and who never knew of a new life prepared for them.