How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: cooperton
I would go into more of my Theology but you don't care. So let's leave it at that.

I know you don't have a good memory of our exchanges but I do have things like this post that stick out.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No that is exactly what I am claiming. God did it.

Or like when I said I lean towards simulation theory you just had to ask "What if Jesus is the programmer'" and of course your Noah thread, always the bible has to be real and accurate.

Lol I told you phantom herself would eventually disagree with you. Facts prevail.

They didn't actually disagree, they explained what the differences were between weight and density.

Nobody here has disagreed with that.

Obviously they had forgotten that neither of those were the word that started this particular back and forth that it was in fact "heavier".

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
What makes it even worse for me is that it has to be that one particular "God", in that one particular storyline.

Cooperton in some other thread started using the term "apex creator", trying to make it seem like a generic term that all religions might be alluding to, and I called them out and they just snapped right back with (paraphrasing) no I mean Jesus, I have never tried to hide that.

Straight up bible thumper.

You don't know what I believe. You assume a broadbrush belief system on me because it helps your spiteful narrative. I've said multiple times throughout threads that God can allow people to know him without a Bible or the historical knowledge of Jesus. I refer to Jesus and the Bible because that is the predominant religion of this thread. I would go into more of my Theology but you don't care. So let's leave it at that.

originally posted by: daskakik

We have been arguing that the terms are interchangeable, depending on context.

Lol I told you phantom herself would eventually disagree with you. Facts prevail.

You accept creationism and that's evident from the number of threads you have made.

But as we discussed creationism has no leg to stand on. It's a story that belongs to a different area when we had no knowledge and understanding of how things work.

There is no much truth in the Bible and the stories told are baseless having zero merits. There is exodus, no flood, no miracles, and just like I said earlier there is no evidence Jesus ever existed and he was the son of the creator of the universe. The Gof of the old testament is a fictional character together with everything said and claimed in the Bible with respect to the supernatural and other events.

“Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.”

-H. L. Mencken

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You accept creationism and that's evident from the number of threads you have made.

I accept intelligent design because the world looks like it was intelligently designed. You can believe in unintelligent origins if you want, I don't care.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
“Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.”

-H. L. Mencken

Following either way opens up the possibility of unwittingly causing harm because following one's belief system without adapting one's dictated principles to a specific experience. Our 'rightness' leaves us vulnerable to our own arbitrary judgement in the matter before us.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Following either way opens up the possibility of unwittingly causing harm because following one's belief system without adapting one's dictated principles to a specific experience. Our 'rightness' leaves us vulnerable to our own arbitrary judgement in the matter before us.

Knowing what is right and wrong is not a belief system. There are people who may pretend not to notice that their decisions cause other people to get f*cked, but they still know what they did is wrong. It's not 'arbitrary judgement' if you are clearly and obviously the cause of another person getting f*cked. For example- put your shopping cart back where it belongs when you're done with it. If you cannot do that- guess what- you lack the fundamental intelligence to self-govern- meaning you are incapable of doing the right thing when no one is looking and no obvious consequence exists before you...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You accept creationism and that's evident from the number of threads you have made.

I accept intelligent design because the world looks like it was intelligently designed. You can believe in unintelligent origins if you want, I don't care.

There is no evidence whatsoever the world (universe) has been designed by intelligent creator. All physical and biochemical processes have natural causes. Why the creation of the universe is any different and therefore it has a supernatural cause it's something only creationists and deeply religious people believe.

a reply to: Venkuish1

I find it odd that since joining this site you have devoted all your posts to this one particular thread, and only just recently created another thread. Does nothing else interest you on these forums? Your devotion to this is almost religious.
Your posts come across like someone using one of the latest chatbots to get there answers from…

Let me remind you there is no evidence that the universe hasn’t been designed by a intelligent creator either. Science doesn’t know the answer, it can’t say either way.

We still don’t have a satisfactory explanation for what consciousness is, are we to deny that too? There is nothing wrong with holding the view of an atheist, I get it. But some seem almost as fanatical about their non belief, as religious fanatics are about their belief. I find that odd.

At the end of the day who cares? Your time might as well be spent calculating where the last decimal of PI finishes, and of just the same practical value, you will still be going round in circles.

I mean you’re 90 pages in and nobody’s mind has been changed and nobody is non the wiser.

I suggest you all leave the unknowable alone and stop trying to drag it into the category of of the knowable.

Is this nonsense still going???!!!

There isn't a single universally accepted explanation for where morality comes from.

As it likely arises from a combination of evolutionary, cultural, psychological, and philosophical factors.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

I'll give you an example that might bring, the point quint was trying to make, home.

A kid that was raised with physical violent disciplin, is very likely to use the same methods with their kids unless they made a trauma therapy...

You have people that still defend physical punishment and honestly believe it's a good way of action.

In their mind nothing is moraly wrong with physical violence as an education method. Because they've been led to belive it's the right thing to do...

You see how you can be led to belive something and even find peer groups that support the belive...

a reply to: AllisVibration

We still don’t have a satisfactory explanation for what consciousness is, are we to deny that too? There is nothing wrong with holding the view of an atheist, I get it. But some seem almost as fanatical about their non belief, as religious fanatics are about their belief. I find that odd.

I find this very curious too. It feels inorganic, either traumatic or more nefarious...

There is a bridge between science and religions that can't be crossed. And funnily I think consciousness is waiting in the middle.
it might give so much creational power back to the individual consciousness, that it would make any influence very difficult.

Now factor in the wave function collapsing when interacting with an observer and it seems that science has put a foot onto that bridge, that was kind of like religious no go territory for both.

Both establishment are realizing that their time is up when society starts to openly explore that bridge.

I'm thinking, divide and rule on a very fundamental layer...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

I'll give you an example that might bring, the point quint was trying to make, home.

A kid that was raised with physical violent disciplin, is very likely to use the same methods with their kids unless they made a trauma therapy...

You have people that still defend physical punishment and honestly believe it's a good way of action.

In their mind nothing is moraly wrong with physical violence as an education method. Because they've been led to belive it's the right thing to do...

You see how you can be led to belive something and even find peer groups that support the belive...

I'm sorry, was this an analogy for theism? The majority of christians historically had no issues with beating their children- just for the record. Conservative christians historically believed that children were innately “depraved” and “filled with the devil”-requiring harsh treatment to become proper adults (including genital mutilation for males).


"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones."
(Deuteronomy 21:18–21)



"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him"
(Psalm 13:24)

The bible condones many immoral and disgusting behaviors- including rape, murder, genocide, torture, domestic abuse, lying, deception, slavery, polygamy, incest and hitting children. Any person with even a weak sense of morality knows that all of those things are wrong.

People who use the bible as the basis for their morals have no right to try to evade it when they disagree with the text of it teaching what is unacceptable or immoral.

originally posted by: AllisVibration
a reply to: Venkuish1

I find it odd that since joining this site you have devoted all your posts to this one particular thread, and only just recently created another thread. Does nothing else interest you on these forums? Your devotion to this is almost religious.
Your posts come across like someone using one of the latest chatbots to get there answers from…

Let me remind you there is no evidence that the universe hasn’t been designed by a intelligent creator either. Science doesn’t know the answer, it can’t say either way.

We still don’t have a satisfactory explanation for what consciousness is, are we to deny that too? There is nothing wrong with holding the view of an atheist, I get it. But some seem almost as fanatical about their non belief, as religious fanatics are about their belief. I find that odd.

At the end of the day who cares? Your time might as well be spent calculating where the last decimal of PI finishes, and of just the same practical value, you will still be going round in circles.

I mean you’re 90 pages in and nobody’s mind has been changed and nobody is non the wiser.

I suggest you all leave the unknowable alone and stop trying to drag it into the category of of the knowable.

I like science a lot but I like philosophy too. Clearly the Abrahamic religions are devoid of both science and philosophy but I get you don't mind of the criticisms of the Abrahamic God and the various claims made on his behalf unless it bothers you to have people going again the ridiculous religious arguments? I don't know to be honest.

Tell me what could be wrong with your argument there is no evidence that the universe hasn't been designed by an intelligent creator. I leave this to you but before you answer you need to think of the same question but with the intelligent designer/creator replaced by the giant but invisible space unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster.

You think the gaps in our knowledge can be answered by the beliefs in a religion that has its roots in the bronze age.

Nobody is fanatical in this thread apart from the creationists who go around and try to push their narrative and propaganda arguing all sorts of debunked nonsense and trying to link their beliefs in the supernatural creator to morality.

90 pages later and still no closer to enlightenment. Who is the fool here? The monk who seeks purpose and redemption or the chimpanzee who can't recite the function of the mitochondria?

🤔

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

It's more like, "my dad did it and it worked on me" , kind of thing.
i don't dismiss the option that it might be justified trough religion and might always be at its root...

I take no morals from any book.

Some Christian raised, hit kid, turned atheist in his emancipation, now being mom might not gotten rid of the notion that violence is a tool, with benefits. Echo chambers are really bad for your health.

This can actually go on for generations without religion being the actual justification, but like I said it might very well have been at one time...

a reply to: TzarChasm

enlightenment will not be found online...

The best I heard happening online is initiation, which this thread certainly is no source for...

The biggest fool is usually the one who takes part in a fools discussion and doesn't consider himself one...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
90 pages later and still no closer to enlightenment.

Enlightenment ... here ya' go ...
I already said pages and pages ago ....

atheists can be moral people.
atheists can be immoral people.
religious people can be moral.
religious people can be immoral.

same/same.

And no ... atheists who are moral are not superior to religious people who are moral.
A poster was trying to make a case for that earlier and it's simply not true.
Atheists and religious people get inspiration for morality from their own conscience
and from outside sources - secular rule of law and/or religious texts and/or
society in general etc etc

same/same.

There. Can the thread die now?

a reply to: Venkuish1

Why do you equate the concept of god with the Abrahamic religions? Do you believe they have a monopoly on the idea? Has it ever occurred to you that you don’t have to be at all religious, and can still be a theist or agnostic?

think of the same question but with the intelligent designer/creator replaced by the giant but invisible space unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster.

Why would do I do that? Everyone knows god is bearded old white man who lives on a cloud and likes to judge people. /s

How about considering god as a concept, a placeholder for the incomprehensible, like the concept of infinity. We have a name for it but we simply can’t get our heads around it, how can the finite trapped in linear time, with beginnings and endings grasp the infinite?

And no I don’t think the gaps in our knowledge can be answered by religion. You’re assuming religion and god go hand in hand again, they don’t. imagine an alien entity so incredibly intelligent, so vastly superior to us in every way, it views the likes of us, about as significant as a algae growing on a rock. Even such an entity would be as nothing compared to god.

Human hubris has a tendency to judge everything from our own extremely limited perspective, there could be aliens amongst us right now, but because of a apparent lack of evidence we don’t believe it. most people of only 200 hundred or so years ago, would call our technology impossible, or magic, they would flatly refuse to believe it.

My point is our lack of knowledge, our lack of understanding, doesn’t make something not so.

Lastly we don’t need religion to have morality, we don’t need religion at all, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water because it’s to murky to clearly see it.

originally posted by: AllisVibration
Why do you equate the concept of god with the Abrahamic religions?

Maybe because that is what the thread is about? From the OP.

In Christianity, God's Will is the objective standard of goodness.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Enlightenment ... here ya' go ...
I already said pages and pages ago ....

atheists can be moral people.
atheists can be immoral people.
religious people can be moral.
religious people can be immoral.

same/same.

And no ... atheists who are moral are not superior to religious people who are moral.
A poster was trying to make a case for that earlier and it's simply not true.
Atheists and religious people get inspiration for morality from their own conscience
and from outside sources - secular rule of law and/or religious texts and/or
society in general etc etc

same/same.

There. Can the thread die now?

That's just dishonest, false equivalencies again. Yes, atheists can be moral or immoral people but it has literally nothing to do with them being an atheist. A theists sense of morality is directly effected by theology, especially if they were indoctrinated as children. A theist's morality will always have some relation to what they think god wants- which is incredibly dangerous thinking because their 'god' is usually just them talking to their own sub-conscious mind- now they're taking their own fleeting opinions as the 'word of god' inside their own f*cking head. Definitely not "same/same", as you so lazily put it.


What I stated earlier is that if an atheist and a theist have equally good morals, then the atheist is a more noble and honest representation of their character. A theist will always- no matter what- in the back of their head think they are working towards a better afterlife, or some kind of divine mandate- they never help anyone purely out of empathy like a rational person. It goes both ways though, if an atheist and a theist both have evil morality the atheist is, again, more responsible for their own morality. A cornerstone of theism is to outsource personal responsibility (the devil tempted me!) and morality- it opens many new pathways for the dishonest to deceive those around them. I would even go as far as to say that all theology is merely a tool of the dishonest and immoral.


In relation to the original post, the OP ran away and couldn't actually explain how objective morality exists in any possible way (it doesn't- a child could tell you that). I think he got hit with a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance because he has yet to directly address this post- (www.abovetopsecret.com...)
It's quite apparent to me that the opposite of the OP is true- atheism alone cannot corrupt but theology certainly can, and does so routinely. Just look at kenneth copeland, peter popoff or joel osteen and tell me you don't feel bad for all the dumb MFs they scam out of their last savings..... The concept of 'god' only appeals to the weak and the foolish and charlatans make VERY good use of this simple fact. IMHO a person stuck inside the theology loop is incapable of higher, more sophisticated ideas of morality- every thing they do or think is tied to an imaginary hierarchy. I personally see it as mental abuse, ESPECIALLY when it comes to children and adolescents.