How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

No, It is a great time...zero issues, lovely family etc. I don't want to die by any means, I just find that a nice ending to my life would be nothing.

Glad to hear you're prospering!

originally posted by: cooperton

Glad to hear you're prospering!

I'm not sure how old you are, but for me, as my body starts to break down due to age I'm not super excited about my last 20 years or less as much as I have been with my previous past. Maybe it reaches a point of been there, done that, got the T-shirt view. I see my limitations and I'm average at best, most likely below average though I have done well. I don't think I would want to replay my life again in some reincarnation nor would I like to end up in some bubble of all good and that just seems so boring. I think an eternity of anything will suck no matter what it is.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
"This is explained by God being unbegotten, meaning God never needed to be created because God always existed. Only created things have a beginning. Since God was not created, God never had a beginning. He is the Tachyonic King."

The problem of infinite regress isn't solved with the belief in a God that was never created and always existed out of nowhere.

You're wrong, if something is unbegotten that would overcome the physical law that says something cannot come from nothing. This does in fact overcome infinite regress. By supposing that there is 'something' that always existed and never needed to be created, then from this 'something' all things came. This 'something' is God.

What an argument! You want to stick to the observable evidence as you said.

Yes, so show me the empirical evidence that a population of organisms can become some different organism gradually over time and prove evolution, or show me the empirical evidence that life can come from non-life through nature without intelligent input and prove abiogenesis...

I'll save you time, there is no such example. You all rely on faith. Evolution has not been observed, and it is therefore not empirical science, but mere belief.

You make a mistake here.
Evolution is a scientific theory and hence a fact. The burden of proof is on you if you wish to disprove it. Bring the evidence or the evidence for creation by intelligent design and then we can see what you have.

The argument made by creationists, 'who else could have created the world/humans or the universe' is an argument from ignorance.

Evolution is a proven fact and I don't have to 'prove it to you', I am just stating a fact. The only people who think evolution is not a scientific theory are the creationists and conspiracy theorists. But creationism is on its own a unique conspiracy theory.

The infinite regress problem is not solved by the invention of a God because even this intelligent designer is not exempt from cause & effect

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: cooperton

Glad to hear you're prospering!

I'm not sure how old you are, but for me, as my body starts to break down due to age I'm not super excited about my last 20 years or less as much as I have been with my previous past. Maybe it reaches a point of been there, done that, got the T-shirt view. I see my limitations and I'm average at best, most likely below average though I have done well. I don't think I would want to replay my life again in some reincarnation nor would I like to end up in some bubble of all good and that just seems so boring. I think an eternity of anything will suck no matter what it is.

Have you been good in your life?
Because the Abrahamic God and the morality code will send you to some unpleasant place for eternity if you haven't followed the lord and saviour of humanity.

Speaking of morals...

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Have you been good in your life?
Because the Abrahamic God and the morality code will send you to some unpleasant place for eternity if you haven't followed the lord and saviour of humanity.

Speaking of morals...

That is interesting because I think hell would be different for everyone. Hell could be trapped in an elevator for eternity listening to electronic elevator music, or it could be walking around with an eternal smile on your face... At least fire would be more interesting...lol

a reply to: cooperton

I understand that morality can be taught as part of a citizenship lesson or even as a part of a lesson in religion. But you don't need religion to be moral.

Creationism on the other hand can only be taught in the context of religion and never in the context of science.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I'm not sure how old you are, but for me, as my body starts to break down due to age I'm not super excited about my last 20 years or less as much as I have been with my previous past. Maybe it reaches a point of been there, done that, got the T-shirt view. I see my limitations and I'm average at best, most likely below average though I have done well. I don't think I would want to replay my life again in some reincarnation nor would I like to end up in some bubble of all good and that just seems so boring. I think an eternity of anything will suck no matter what it is.

What about an existence that is like a lucid dream state?

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

I understand that morality can be taught as part of a citizenship lesson or even as a part of a lesson in religion. But you don't need religion to be moral.

"Morality", or 'proper behavior of a person in society', would depend on the overarching belief system. Morality in the secularized cities in the US has become sodomy and mutilating your genitals. It has become the opposite of what morality once was in the US.

But to ask what is the archetypal morality, or the way we ideally would behave, I think Jesus did embody it.

Creationism on the other hand can only be taught in the context of religion and never in the context of science.

I view intelligent design as an assessment of the engineered features of biological organisms. Look at these micromolecular robots that are continually performing their various functions in all the cells of our body:

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Evolution is a proven fact and I don't have to 'prove it to you', I am just stating a fact.

Appease me then and show me one example of a population evolving into something new. If the evidence is so abundant this should be easy to do.

originally posted by: cooperton

What about an existence that is like a lucid dream state?

I found a point in the movie interview with a Vampire profound a long time ago. The point was sooner or later the Vampires would just end their own lives as they would live so long that they become extremely bored with existence and would also lose touch with the world.

I think this would be our end too except you couldn't end it. Kind of a scary thought to me.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Its only scary because you don't understand reincarnation. Its not "you" that reincarnates. That "you" was made from dust and returns to dust. The "not you" perhaps has a different take on life. That "not you" experiences life in the timeless now. Like a child everything it witness is new and forever fresh. Not tarnished by a mind which has labelled all it has experienced into classifications (aka memories)....

“The day you teach the child the name of the bird, the child will never see that bird again.” - Jiddu Krishnamurti

originally posted by: glend

Its only scary because you don't understand reincarnation. Its not "you" that reincarnates. That "you" was made from dust and returns to dust. The "not you" perhaps has a different take on life. That "not you" experiences life in the timeless now. Like a child everything it witness is new and forever fresh. Not tarnished by a mind which has labelled all it has experienced into classifications (aka memories)....

“The day you teach the child the name of the bird, the child will never see that bird again.” - Jiddu Krishnamurti

First, I understand that...

Second, no one knows, so I guess no one understands anything close to reality.

That sounds horrible. Just an endless replay of life, no gains just game reset back to level 1 over and over and OVER...

Oh, joy... Hopefully next time I can come back as a suffering poor in Delhi and die next time to some painful disease.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

I understand that morality can be taught as part of a citizenship lesson or even as a part of a lesson in religion. But you don't need religion to be moral.

"Morality", or 'proper behavior of a person in society', would depend on the overarching belief system. Morality in the secularized cities in the US has become sodomy and mutilating your genitals. It has become the opposite of what morality once was in the US.

But to ask what is the archetypal morality, or the way we ideally would behave, I think Jesus did embody it.

Creationism on the other hand can only be taught in the context of religion and never in the context of science.

I view intelligent design as an assessment of the engineered features of biological organisms. Look at these micromolecular robots that are continually performing their various functions in all the cells of our body:

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Evolution is a proven fact and I don't have to 'prove it to you', I am just stating a fact.

Appease me then and show me one example of a population evolving into something new. If the evidence is so abundant this should be easy to do.

I admire the fact you got a star for your post especially when you keep going about the creationist 'theories' and demand 'proof' for well established facts when at the same time you offer religious belief and faith in the supernatural as alternatives which is truly amazing!

And yes how anyone dares challenging creationism?! As creationists say, if we have come from the monkeys why didn't the monkeys evolve to become humans. The question itself answers everything we want to know about creationism.

So I will say again that creationism can only be taught within the context of religions that were made their roots in the bronze age.

You think secular societies (generally speaking) where there is plenty of freedom and democracy (or at least systems that mimic democracy) are somehow worse in comparison to societies governed by the Taliban rule and the religious fanatics of this world?

Morality is subjective and not a standard set of rules.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Evolution is a scientific theory and hence a fact. ...
...
Evolution is a proven fact and I don't have to 'prove it to you', I am just stating a fact.

You truly are a true believer. But such dogmatic statements of your faith (involving such propagandistic slogans repeated ad nauseum) are not very convincing for the unbeliever.

“EVOLUTION is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

...

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow:

...

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” ... Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind. ...

... So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. ...

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

The only people who think evolution is not a scientific theory are the creationists and conspiracy theorists.

Back to the article:

... A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.

...

“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”​—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

“As to the fact of evolution there is universal assent.”​—Limitations of Science, 1933.

“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”​—The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1956.

“The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact.”​—Julian Huxley, 1959.

“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.”​—Biology for You, 1963.

“Anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact.”​—The New Orleans Times-​Picayune, 1964.

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority.”​—James D. Watson, 1965.

“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.”​—Science on Trial, 1983.

“What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.”​—Ashley Montagu, 1984.

Source: Fraud in Science—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

The game is up. Some of us aren't falling for it anymore.

Thanks for such an excellent demonstration of what is accurately and honestly described in the article above though. With a little luck, it might wake up some people who are still asleep to how they're being played by the experts in evolutionary propaganda like Gould and those other sources quoted as examples at the end.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

This is why the Bible says the carnal mind isn't subject to God's law and the Bible calls the antichrist the lawless one. How can you have any moral law when everyone's a law unto themselves? This is 666 or the number of a man that has no spiritual connection to God. A person that thinks they're just a soulless animal.

So here's the crux of the problem whether or not a soul exists within each of us.

If you believe you have a soul that will ultimately be judged by God, then you will act/behave to avoid punishment or choose to live your life in such as way as to know you will have to ultimately face the consequences (mental illness? self-destructive tendencies?).

If you believe you do not have a soul then you are ultimately judged by society and as such will also receive punishment befitting your transgression/crime (choosing crime out of economic desperation? mental illness/addiction?).

It all looks to be the same outcome to me, that being, soul or soulless you are not free to do whatever you want to do that is considered by society's or God's law to be considered harmful in some way (are those laws subjective or objective, or a mix of both?).

originally posted by: Venkuish1
and demand 'proof' for well established facts

I'll ask again then... show me just one example of a population of organisms evolving into something new. Like E. Coli becoming some other bacteria that is not E. Coli. It should be simple if the evidence is so overwhelming. If evolution is indeed fact then you should have no problem finding one example.

You could also save your time, because there is no such empirical example of evolution happening. It relies on faith.

originally posted by: whereislogic
You truly are a true believer. But such dogmatic statements of your faith in evolution (involving such propagandistic slogans repeated ad nauseum) are not very convincing for the unbeliever.

Let's see how he tries to slide away from the fact that there's no empirical examples of populations evolving in recorded history.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
First, I understand that...

Second, no one knows, so I guess no one understands anything close to reality.

That sounds horrible. Just an endless replay of life, no gains just game reset back to level 1 over and over and OVER...

Oh, joy... Hopefully next time I can come back as a suffering poor in Delhi and die next time to some painful disease.

Plato's version of reincarnation involves an inevitable graduation once the soul is fully mature. But yeah I feel the same way, reincarnation would strip your memory and identity from you. I get the whole ego-death thing, but I still want to be consciously aware of my origin when entering into the next stages of conscious reality in the tachyonic realms.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Evolution is a scientific theory and hence a fact. ...
...
Evolution is a proven fact and I don't have to 'prove it to you', I am just stating a fact.

You truly are a true believer. But such dogmatic statements of your faith (involving such propagandistic slogans repeated ad nauseum) are not very convincing for the unbeliever.

“EVOLUTION is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

...

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow:

...

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” ... Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind. ...

... So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. ...

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

The only people who think evolution is not a scientific theory are the creationists and conspiracy theorists.

Back to the article:

... A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.

...

“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”​—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

“As to the fact of evolution there is universal assent.”​—Limitations of Science, 1933.

“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”​—The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1956.

“The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact.”​—Julian Huxley, 1959.

“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.”​—Biology for You, 1963.

“Anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact.”​—The New Orleans Times-​Picayune, 1964.

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority.”​—James D. Watson, 1965.

“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.”​—Science on Trial, 1983.

“What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.”​—Ashley Montagu, 1984.

Source: Fraud in Science—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

The game is up. Some of us aren't falling for it anymore.

Thanks for such an excellent demonstration of what is accurately and honestly described in the article above though. With a little luck, it might wake up some people who are still asleep to how they're being played by the experts in evolutionary propaganda like Gould and those other sources quoted as examples at the end.

The only ones who don't accept evolution are creationists and conspiracy theorists who have issues with grade9 biology. Seems they are struggling quite a lot.

The burden of proof is on you and on fellow creationists. If you have the evidence to disprove a well established scientific theory then present it. Make the connections to the objective morality that derives from the belief in your deity. Your fellow creationist has presented zero evidence for this intelligent design when at the same time tried to teach us 'the science' behind physical processes he clearly doesn't understand.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

The only ones who don't accept evolution are creationists and conspiracy theorists who have issues with grade9 biology. Seems they are struggling quite a lot.

The burden of proof is on you and on fellow creationists. If you have the evidence to disprove a well established scientific theory then present it. Make the connections to the objective morality that derives from the belief in your deity. Your fellow creationist has presented zero evidence for this intelligent design when at the same time tried to teach us 'the science' behind physical processes he clearly doesn't understand.

Just show us one empirical example where a population of organisms evolved into something new. It is not our burden to prove a negative, you are making the claim that evolution is fact, so the burden of proof is on you.

If you do one more evasion post then I will assume you realize there is no empirical examples of populations of organisms evolving.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
and demand 'proof' for well established facts

I'll ask again then... show me just one example of a population of organisms evolving into something new. Like E. Coli becoming some other bacteria that is not E. Coli. It should be simple if the evidence is so overwhelming. If evolution is indeed fact then you should have no problem finding one example.

You could also save your time, because there is no such empirical example of evolution happening. It relies on faith.

originally posted by: whereislogic
You truly are a true believer. But such dogmatic statements of your faith in evolution (involving such propagandistic slogans repeated ad nauseum) are not very convincing for the unbeliever.

Let's see how he tries to slide away from the fact that there's no empirical examples of populations evolving in recorded history.

Evolution is a well established scientific theory. It's not on the table for debate. Perhaps you may want to revisit your grade9 biology and learn about what you've missed unless you want to still argue we couldn't descended from monkeys because if we did then why do monkeys didn't evolve into humans.

Any evidence for creationism? Or is it just your arguments about the beauty and harmony of the universe? Creationism belongs to the field of crackpotery...

You need to revise your grade9 biology and probably math. I am sure you have some gaps there.

Make the connection between your invisible deity, for which you have no evidence for its existence, and morality.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

The only ones who don't accept evolution are creationists and conspiracy theorists who have issues with grade9 biology. Seems they are struggling quite a lot.

The burden of proof is on you and on fellow creationists. If you have the evidence to disprove a well established scientific theory then present it. Make the connections to the objective morality that derives from the belief in your deity. Your fellow creationist has presented zero evidence for this intelligent design when at the same time tried to teach us 'the science' behind physical processes he clearly doesn't understand.

Just show us one empirical example where a population of organisms evolved into something new. It is not our burden to prove a negative, you are making the claim that evolution is fact, so the burden of proof is on you.

If you do one more evasion post then I will assume you realize there is no empirical examples of populations of organisms evolving.

Burgen of proof is on you I am afraid. Creationists have the burden of proof if they want to provide an alternative theory for which you have no evidence other than blind faith.