How can atheism have morality?

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Yo!

More than 9600 children have been killed in Gaza.

Where my Christians at?

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Yo!

More than 9600 children have been killed in Gaza.

Where my Christians at?

They are all trying and protesting for a ceasefire but are being blocked by TPTB.

originally posted by: andy06shake

How so please elaborate?

What else could they be learned from if not external cues?

They're called phyletic memories. It is engrained truths built into our body. Take for example the ability to walk, we don't actually learn how to walk, the know-how was always present within us. It is just a matter of being able to support your body weight to reveal that you knew how to walk the whole time. This is proven by supporting a baby's body weight and hovering it over a treadmill, it will reveal that it knows how to walk already. It is engrained into our biology.

There's also strong evidence coming out from epigenetic inheritance that we are able to inherit traits Lamarck-style from our parents.

So it is learned then as opposed to bestowed?

Both. With the debate of nature vs. nurture, it is often concluded that it is a mixture of the two that determine the outcome of a person.

Here is your problem there, large groups of people are generally only as smart as the loudest person in the crowd.

Humans in large groups are like cattle for the most part by my guess.

Yeah I agree, because they diminish their internal sense of justice for the comfort of going with the crowd. A fear-based survival mechanism that unfortunately has the tendency to override truth.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Yo!

More than 9600 children have been killed in Gaza.

Where my Christians at?

Most are strongly influenced by the agenda that wishes to overtake Israel. It is sad that so many Christians still associate with Judaism, despite modern day Judaism being the antithesis to Christ's ideals. Muslims actually believe Jesus (Issa) is the Messiah (Al-Masih), while the Jewish people vehemently reject such an idea.

a reply to: cooperton

The thing is there is no scientific concept or evidence supporting the idea of "phyletic memories" in the field of psychology or biology.

And the term "phyletic" appears to generally refer to evolutionary processes and the development of a group of organisms over time.

You don't believe in evolution, do you?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

The thing is there is no scientific concept or evidence supporting the idea of "phyletic memories" in the field of psychology or biology.

And the term "phyletic" appears to generally refer to evolutionary processes and the development of a group of organisms over time.

You don't believe in evolution, do you?

Nah it was programmed into us by a designer. How the F would random chance create the neural circuitry to connect our brain to the multitude of muscles in our legs to synchronize the motion of walking? It is a very intelligent mechanism, unintelligence (evolution) would not have been able to contrive such a motion. Imagine coding for a robot by random chance, it's just a stupid assertion. It requires intelligence to create robotic motions. So too, it requires intelligence to create biological components that can execute motion.



Imagine asserting that this thing got programmed and created by random chance. The engineers would laugh in your face.

a reply to: cooperton

Again there is no real evidence to suggest that memories can be passed down genetically.

Too much "Assassins Creed" buddy methinks.

The development of complex biological systems, including the "neural circuitry" that coordinates human activities like walking, is a process shaped by evolution, not purely by random chance.

Again evolution operates through natural selection.

Essentially variations in our traits confer advantages for survival.

Hence those that display advantageous traits tend to survive longer and have the chance to reproduce thus passing along those traits to the next generation.


Edit:

Imagine asserting that this thing got programmed and created by random chance. The engineers would laugh in your face.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the robot is anything other than a creation of Man.

But that hardly disproves evolution or makes genetic memories an actual thing.

And the overwhelming majority of scientists accept and support the theory, so there is that.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

Again there is no real evidence to suggest that memories can be passed down genetically.

Inheritance of epigenetic memory

One of the original studies that demonstrated the inheritance of this sort of 'memory' was the ability for mice to solve a particular water trap maze quicker with subsequent generations. Eventually a mouse that had never seen that trap before, but was born from a mice who did, was able to solve the trap immediately, whereas its predecessors struggled to learn how to do it. This is now scientifically confirmed, and was the basis of Lamarck's assertions regarding inheritance. Darwin is taking some L's

The development of complex biological including the "neural circuitry" that coordinates human activities like walking is a process shaped by evolution, not purely random chance.

How would random mutations to a genome allow genes to be selected for that would allow the innervation of the muscles of the leg to synchronous with the various motor regions of the brain to be able to culminate in the motion of walking?

It's just a dumb theory, give it up. We were designed

Essentially variations in our traits confer advantages for survival.

I would love to see the population of organisms that didn't know how to walk but had legs just sitting motionless waiting for the beloved miraculous mutation that would connect the leg muscles to the motor cortex. The mechanism that would neurologically connect these regions is beyond our current comprehension, and it could not have occurred by a simple mutation to the genetic code. There's no mutation that says "connect the motor cortex to the muscles of the leg". Evolution is out-dated, but it is perpetuated by fanboi's and scientists that don't want to admit their life's work was for an impossible theory.

a reply to: cooperton

That's one study cooperton, and actually quite interesting, but hardly conclusive proof where genetic memory is concerned.

Please provide proof that humans were designed, of the unequivocally sorts thank you?

As to dumb theories, do you mean like Noah's Ark and magic 440-foot-long wooden magic TARDIS boats per-chance?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

That's one study cooperton, and actually quite interesting, but hardly conclusive proof where genetic memory is concerned.

Please provide proof that humans were designed, of the unenviable sorts thank you?

Because intelligence comes from intelligence. Unintelligence doesn't create intelligence. The moment that advanced AI gets coded from scratch by a random number generator then I will consider your intelligence from unintelligence theory.

As to dumb theories, do you mean like Noah's Ark and magic 440-foot-long wooden magic TARDIS boats per-chance?

No, dumb theories such as those theories that are self-proclaimed as dumb. Evolution is a dumb theory, it insists there was no intelligence involved. I am merely calling it what it calls itself: unintelligent. No intelligence involved in the theory of evolution. It is literally the dumbest theory you could imagine, by its own definition of being completely void of intelligence.

a reply to: cooperton

Because intelligence comes from intelligence. Unintelligence doesn't create intelligence. The moment that advanced AI gets coded from scratch by a random number generator then I will consider your intelligence from unintelligence theory.

Most intelligent people know not to start sentences with "Beacuse", so there is that.

Ive done it myself on occasion so no harm no foul all the same.

Creating advanced AI from scratch using a random number generator alone is highly unlikely and practically infeasible, can you explain how that would take place please?

No, dumb theories such as those theories that are self-proclaimed as dumb. Evolution is a dumb theory, it insists there was no intelligence involved.

So science is incorrect all those people wrong, and you are correct?

I am merely calling it what it calls itself: unintelligent. No intelligence involved in the theory of evolution. It is literally the dumbest theory you could imagine, by its own definition of being completely void of intelligence.

Sorry, but the above tends to lead me to believe you don't understand the theory of evolution or rather are unable to accept the truth down to a predisposition towards your religious belief system.

Again evolution is a well-established scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth and is accepted fact by the large majority in the scientific fields.

Suppose we are drifting off topic through, so do you believe those who subscribe to an atheist ideology can or cannot have morality?

a reply to: cooperton

Because intelligence comes from intelligence.

Which would also rule out any form of intelligent creator.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Tell me, how can you have morality without an objective standard of good when morality is defined as the distinction between good and evil?

Tell me, how can Christians who faithfully participate and practice their religion be considered to have a sense of morality? I spent many years engaged in differnet churches searching for the 'true' God-the one people emulated. What I found sans a very few parisheners was hypocrisy. hidden behind the adage "we're all imperfect, but a work in progress".....and some of the nastiest, most backstabbing and judgemental people I'd ever met.

Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car.

"you shall know them by their works..." The light in organized religon burned out long ago-if there ever was one. It's all about the money.

If I wanted to find empathy, morality and compassion a church is the last place I'd look.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

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

Well then, God's goodness is pretty damn evil.

In Leviticus 21:17-24, he doesn't want people with blemishes, blind people, the lame, those with flat noses, dwarves, people with scurvy, people with bad eyes, people with bad skin, and those that "hath their stones broken" to worship him, even though he technically "gave" those conditions to them.

In Genesis 19:26, did he really need to turn Lot's wife into salt?

In Kings, 40 or so kids made fun of Eliseus' baldness, so God sent bears to murder them all.

God helped the Israelites commit genocide, murdering everyone in Jericho, Heshbon, Bashan and many more. He often condoned murdering women, children and animals all at the same time.

Let's not forget what a dick God was to Job.

The Bible is filled with immorality condoned by God. Go away.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

It seems nobody is addressing the atheists dilemma.

There is no atheist's dilemma. You are refusing, cravenly and contemptibly, to engage with the counterarguments that you have been presented with.

The moral deficit you perceive is your own.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Have you ever stopped to think, that you just might have been brainwashed somewhere along the line?

Seriously, have a think about it.

originally posted by: andy06shake

Creating advanced AI from scratch using a random number generator alone is highly unlikely and practically infeasible, can you explain how that would take place please?

Exactly. It would not occur. Unintelligence cannot create intelligence.

So science is incorrect all those people wrong, and you are correct?

There are plenty of scientists who don't believe in unintelligent design:

Sorry, but the above tends to lead me to believe you don't understand the theory of evolution or rather are unable to accept the truth down to a predisposition towards your religious belief system.

Again evolution is a well-established scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth and is accepted fact by the large majority in the scientific fields.

Yet not a single example to point to a population of organisms becoming something new. Just because evolution is a popular mythos for creation doesn't mean it's true

 
Suppose we are drifting off topic through, so do you believe those who subscribe to an atheist ideology can or cannot have morality?

Logically, from an atheist's perspective, it would only make sense to execute the dogma of survival of the fittest. Like Stalin and Mao, they implemented an atheistic approach to governance. A form of governance that was easily justifiable from an atheistic perspective.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: neoholographicpart2

It seems nobody is addressing the atheists dilemma.

There is no atheist's dilemma. You are refusing, cravenly and contemptibly, to engage with the counterarguments that you have been presented with.

The moral deficit you perceive is your own.

This ⬆️ is kinda what I was thinking with my brainwashed comment. Well said 👍🏼

originally posted by: NoviceStoic1
a reply to: neoholographicpart2

Have you ever stopped to think, that you just might have been brainwashed somewhere along the line?

Seriously, have a think about it.

Have you ever stopped to think that you might have been brainwashed somewhere along the line? Mostly everyone goes through 12+ years of schooling that are directed towards the secular mythos.

a reply to: cooperton

Exactly. It would not occur. Unintelligence cannot create intelligence.

If you say so but that still doesn't negate the fact that the theory of evolution is the widely accepted fundamental and well-supported explanation that science accepts as fact down to the evidence to support such.

Evidence like fossil records, comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular biology, and convergent evolution.

Yet not a single example to point to a population of organisms becoming something new. Just because evolution is a popular mythos for creation doesn't mean it's true

The concept of a population of organisms becoming something new often involves a process called "speciation".

Where a species splits into two or more distinct species over time.

And whilst direct observation of "speciation" events can be challenging down to the process taking possibly millions of years, there is evidence to suggest "speciation" occurs and is indeed a thing.

Evidence such as the "Galapagos Finches" observed by Darwin or the "Cichlid Fish" in Africa.

There have also been laboratory experiments with fruit flies where the evolutionary traits and behaviors of the insect led to "speciation" in the experiment.

Logically, from an atheist's perspective, it would only make sense to execute the dogma of survival of the fittest.

How so, again please elaborate?

Like Stalin and Mao, they implemented an atheistic approach to governance. A form of governance that was easily justifiable from an atheistic perspective.

I suppose that is correct but while both leaders pursued atheistic policies it's crucial to recognise that atheism is not a political ideology.

Atheism simply refers to the absence of belief in god/gods.

And as far as im aware the actions of Stalin and Mao were shaped by their political ideologies, not a belief or lack of such in deities.