How can atheism have morality?

a reply to: cooperton

Still no empirical example of a population of organisms evolving into something else.

You can't fit it into your miniscule timescale or something? If you don't acknowledge a scientific timescale, you're just demanding the impossible. Of course, you're always right.

I feel you need to see a significant ape-human change, but that's like demanding to see the continents change. Many changes in physiology have happened since the Neolithic. Foot arches, digit length, average height, internal organ size, the list goes on... we look different in even 12,000 years. You know, "cave men."

I would suggest "Island syndrome" again, but insular dwarfism or gigantism wouldn't qualify as an evolution example for you. You would likely say it's just some freak thing that happens on islands and is not related to environmental triggers that produce genetic changes.

No example can supplant the safety of willful ignorance and incontrovertible religious Dogma.

Notice how you all resort to attacking my faith because you can't defend your own faith?

It is not faith so much as literal mountains of evidence that can't be misconstrued. And can be backtracked

This is one of my favorite interactive maps ever.

dinosaurpictures.org...



Check out the Carboniferous Period. This is the period when Appalachian coal was deposited and all that rapid sedimentation happened, hence the name. The East Texas oil fields are currently forming in a narrow shallow sea.

Notice how the Appalachians are literally on the equator and most PROMINENT mountain range on earth?

You can call that faith all you want, I think that's just cool.

Of course, you can't see the long twisting path the continents took to get to today's form. But it happened a few inches a year.

Just because I can't see the techtonic plate I'm on move doesn't mean my location won't pass San Fransisco in 20 million years...

But if you can't even acknowledge the Appalachian we're once on the equator, or evolution takes a long time unless forced (selective breeding) what's the freaking point. Except to try to provide fun science tidbits for everyone else.

a reply to: Venkuish1

I am neither a creationist nor a conspiracy theorist. For those interested in the history concerning the term "creationism" (and the reason why I say I'm not a creationist even though I have concluded* and consequently believe that life is the product of creation/engineering; *: based on the evidence), try this article:

Creationism—Is It Scientific? (Awake!—1983)

For more on the distinction between creationism and (belief in) creation:

Evolution, Creation, or Creationism—Which Do You Believe? (Awake!—1983)

...

Flaws in “Scientific Creationism”

From the testimony given in the trial, it is manifest that the scientific evidence for creation was not really presented in clear confrontation with evolution. Instead, it was lost to sight in clashes over side issues, particularly two tenets of creationism that had been written into the law:

1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.

2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.

Neither of these dogmas is really crucial to the central question of whether living things were created or not. They are merely doctrines held by the members of a few churches, notably the Seventh-Day Adventists, who form the core of the group that sponsored the law. When these sectarian beliefs were written into the law as something that must be taught in public schools, that law was foredoomed to be declared unconstitutional.

Creationist Doctrines Not Biblical

...

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

... Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

...

That was from the page that precedes the page linked in my signature (about propaganda).

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

EVOLUTION “IS ALSO BEING QUESTIONED BY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS”

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. ...

... (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

... Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) Sullivan said that scientists do not “invariably tell the truth, or try to, even about their science. They have been known to lie, but they did not lie in order to serve science but, usually, religious or anti-religious prejudices.”​—Limitations of Science, pp. 173-5.

The original quest for truth is often forgotten as each one gleans for ideas to bolster his own emotional conviction, whether it be scientific dogma or religious creed. Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid. And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11.

In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

What evidence is there for belief in creation? See the following article.

THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.

This has only been posted about five times in this thread, and deserves to be posted again, for it's awesome comedic value :

The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution

After we all stop laughing : can we get back to investigating the origins of morals ?

Every moment, we have the freewill to choose, God or the devil.

Love or evil.

We somehow know instinctually, intuitively, what is right.
And that, is Love, and the origin of morals.

( Funny universe : a BB game is on the tube, and Kevin Love just scored as the last line was being typed. LoL !! )

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
Every moment, we have the freewill to choose, God or the devil.

Not much of a freewill if you only have those two choices and one carries a punishment.

Even less so since you can't prove either of them exist.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

After we all stop laughing : can we get back to investigating the origins of morals ?

Every moment, we have the freewill to choose, God or the devil.

Love or evil.

We somehow know instinctually, intuitively, what is right.
And that, is Love, and the origin of morals.

Why laugh? It's true. Viruses evolve.

Viral infection is a highly dynamic process, which lead to constant evolutionary changes on both sides of the viral–host interface. The high mutation rates of viruses, coupled with short generation times and large population sizes, allow viruses to rapidly adapt to the host environment. 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

But, you're right, I know the difference between my own subjective good and evil.

For me, 'evil' laughs at empirical data and then arrogantly reasserts their moral righteousness. It mocks the pursuit of knowledge and discovery and simultaneously tells people what is absolute.

That seems more designed to raise blood pressure. Rather than reflect anything analogous to love.

More spirituality, god requires blind faith, love requires real-world interaction, god and love are like oil and water in my subjective world.

a reply to: daskakik

No need to punish yourself : just choose Love !

It's outside, and beyond the limitations of the material world, and things that need " proof. "

Nobody can show it to you.
It's deep within.
Investigate.
Meditate.

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
No need to punish yourself : just choose Love !

Meaning there is no actual choice.

a reply to: Degradation33

You are free to believe whatever you like.
Your beliefs are welcome here.

Wasn't laughing at anything other than absurdity, as absurdity often makes me chuckle.

Can you find a " place ", where God doesn't require faith, and Love doesn't require real-world interaction ?
That's where I'm coming from.

originally posted by: daskakik
Meaning there is no actual choice.

Depends how able one is at dropping-in, tuning-in.

If we are a slave to our egos : then the ego makes the choice.

Every instant while awake, we choose.

As you read, and ponder how to reply : you are choosing.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

Sorta. An anthropomorphic and direct God is absurd to me. Mine is a very narrow application of theism. It's not love, nor hate. It's merely the mechanism by which our indeterminate universe runs itself. The basic rules that give 4 forces and elementary particles.

Everything from there is indirect.

For me, the universe is wicked and nature is hostile. Survival of the fittest is a divine form. Animals use love, among other evolutionary traits as a survival mechanism, because nature is default cruel and indifferent.

God love can only be an idea. At most a manifestation of something in response to the universal hostility. Like it arises for biological life as a survival strategy.

It translates as a life strategy. Single people die young. That's empirical. Love promotes health. That's empirical too.

But for me, I can't draw the useful benefits unless there's interpersonal contact.

The closest it will ever get is as an indirect strategy for an ultimate form of total adversity.

It's still technically given by "God", I think.

I also think we are just only one empathy driven species in this universe. I think there are millions. And I am sure there are some that use cruel survival strategies. Love is not likely to be universal.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin
I am choosing but, it isn't between God or the devil.

That is like saying going to a fast food joint my choice between fries or onions rings is a choice between God or the devil.

I'll have the fries and say no to both your options.

originally posted by: cooperton

God knows his kids, nothing can take them out of his hand, not even their own mis-doings. We are saved by grace, actions are our thanksgiving for this grace.

Satan also apparently has kids. There are some who were born preferring eternal debauchery more than heavenly bliss. I've heard many people say they'd rather live in hell with the sinners. Who am I to tell them not to enjoy the club for all eternity? So engulfed in the flames of their desires, they would refuse to let it go.

The fact that you're getting tired of this world makes me think you're in the former rather than the latter.

You really have quite the imagination, your world view is... fantastic and outlandish, to say the least.
In the parable of 'satan' having children, his offspring analogy are undesirable tares that must grow alongside the wheat until harvest, because you can't uproot the tare without uprooting the wheat. At harvest, the tares are uprooted first and burned in bundles and the parable focuses on this part more than anything. In my opinion it's a funny analogy because the christianized mind would not even once consider what happens to the wheat, the analogy for the children of 'god'. If we follow the parable, then the children of 'god' are processed how ancient peoples would have done it back then, so 'god' would harvest his children with a sickle, bring them to a threshing floor, lay them flat, and thresh them by crushing in order to separate the grain from the stalks. The children of 'god' would then be winnowed by hand and ground into flour by hand using large stones. Am I interpreting this correctly?

All joking and fairy tales aside, evolution is adaptation that an organism under goes in an unfathomable amount of time in direct response to it's environment. We simply don't have detailed records of humanity's evolution going back a million+ years, that would be like if you could remember being born. What we do have are many obvious traits and examples of adaptation we can observe, like the simple fact that there are multiple races of people. Clearly each race of human is more adapted to certain environmental factors, otherwise, why would there be different races of humans in the first place? Or literally any other animal in the world, there are different versions of every animal distinctly associated with whatever environment it happens to thrive in.

Some random human examples-

"The Bajau have unusually large spleens—50 percent bigger than those of the Saluan, a neighboring group who barely interact with the sea. The Bajau people of Southeast Asia are among the most accomplished divers in the world, the Bajau have lived at sea for more than 1,000 years on small houseboats that float in the waters off Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines." A larger spleen means you can hold more oxygenated blood and change the way blood is circulated in the body. The best of their divers have shown an evolved ability to be without oxygen for longer periods than training could reasonably provide; some could hold their breath for 10+ minutes and reach dangerous pressures on free-dives. www.theatlantic.com...


"Humans have adapted to the chronic hypoxia of high altitude in several locations, and recent genome-wide studies have indicated a genetic basis." All throughout the world people have shown clear genetic adaptations to extreme cold and/or high altitude.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
"after early humans migrated to colder climates, their chances of survival increased when mutations in their mtDNA resulted in greater body heat production during the extreme cold of the northern winters."
www.sciencedaily.com...

Different ethnicity have varying resistance to disease and virus as well, how do you explain that? Malaria, for example;
"Obviously, Haldane was correct to point out that malaria resistance in humans was a significant evolutionary factor. Malaria resistance genes comprise some of the most widely accepted examples of strong positive selection in humans. Overall, the original “malaria hypothesis” of Haldane that diseases like thalassaemia are polymorphisms because of resistance to malaria, has been proven correct."
malariajournal.biomedcentral.com...

Alcohol intolerance in Asians and lactose tolerance in Europeans/North Africans is another obvious example of adaptation. This is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak, there is a ridiculous amount of empirical evidence showing significant adaptation to environmental factors across all species; if things don't adapt, they die. The amount of time it would take for all of these adaptations to add up enough to justify a new species is unfathomable, but it is clear that all animals stem from key common ancestors. Just look at pandas, they still have the digestive tract of a carnivore, but it's heavily modified with bacteria and slightly elongated to process a bamboo diet.

a reply to: Degradation33

Yes DeeGee.
Not the God of religions, but that feeling, in common with what they are all trying to describe.
We all have that deep within us, and it has been a wonderful feeling for me to use this very powerful concept of this feeling, presence, of some kind of creator, creativeness, that I now feel comfortable calling God.

We are not talking about the physical, empirical, limited, universe : but the infinite immensity of our creativity.

Have you never felt it, in moments of silence, and quiet contemplation ?

The Love/not-Love choice is an interior feeling, instinct, or intuition.

First : we choose to Love ourselves : means we curtail the inner critic, and negative self-talk.
This is not ego : it's the opposite of ego.

Once we learn to be kind and Loving to ourselves : it's time to experiment in the " outside " world.
Starting with beloved family members.

I'm not talking about sappy Love : but just really listening to someone, and responding to them in a very gentle, kind, accepting, and Loving way.

Now I sound like I'm preaching : but am not perfect at showing this in the outside world.
Too many arrows flyin around ... LoL !!

a reply to: daskakik

I recommend the poutine ! LoL !!

Please don't get stuck on the words God and devil.

It's deeper than words.

Words are just pointers, tools.

It's when you close your eyes, and ponder how to treat yourself, and others.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

In the parable of 'satan' having children, his offspring analogy are undesirable tares that must grow alongside the wheat until harvest, because you can't uproot the tare without uprooting the wheat. At harvest, the tares are uprooted first and burned in bundles and the parable focuses on this part more than anything. In my opinion it's a funny analogy because the christianized mind would not even once consider what happens to the wheat, the analogy for the children of 'god'. If we follow the parable, then the children of 'god' are processed how ancient peoples would have done it back then, so 'god' would harvest his children with a sickle, bring them to a threshing floor, lay them flat, and thresh them by crushing in order to separate the grain from the stalks. The children of 'god' would then be winnowed by hand and ground into flour by hand using large stones. Am I interpreting this correctly?

skip to 3:50 to see the effect Jesus is referring to on chaff and wheat. I couldn't find a video where they are using old school methods of just letting the breeze separate it, but here they use a fan. The chaff is separated by wind, wind represents the Spirit. The Spirit separates the useful from the not-so-useful.

All joking and fairy tales aside, evolution is adaptation that an organism under goes in an unfathomable amount of time in direct response to it's environment.

You say all fairy tales aside and then bring up the fairy tale about father time mating with lady luck to turn a microbe into a human? The princess kissing the frog and turning it into a prince is a more convincing story than evolution.

What we do have are many obvious traits and examples of adaptation we can observe, like the simple fact that there are multiple races of people.

The variability of the races is dependent on allele variation, it's not evolution. It is determined by various combinations of genes that are already existent in the human genome:

Clearly each race of human is more adapted to certain environmental factors, otherwise, why would there be different races of humans in the first place?


"Humans have adapted to the chronic hypoxia of high altitude in several locations, and recent genome-wide studies have indicated a genetic basis." All throughout the world people have shown clear genetic adaptations to extreme cold and/or high altitude.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
"after early humans migrated to colder climates, their chances of survival increased when mutations in their mtDNA resulted in greater body heat production during the extreme cold of the northern winters."
www.sciencedaily.com...

High altitude acclimation is due in part to 2,3-BPG activating epigenetically (link). This means the genes to accommodate higher altitudes are already present in our genome, they become activated depending on various environmental cues. 2,3-BPG expression allows your body to survive lower oxygen conditions exhibited in higher altitudes. I'm sure, like skin tone alleles, there are also alleles present within the human genome that would maximize altitude acclimation beyond the 2,3-BPG mechanism. Adaptation mistaken as evolution is always the extent of the evidence for evolution.

Some random human examples-

"The Bajau have unusually large spleens—50 percent bigger than those of the Saluan, a neighboring group who barely interact with the sea. The Bajau people of Southeast Asia are among the most accomplished divers in the world, the Bajau have lived at sea for more than 1,000 years on small houseboats that float in the waters off Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines." A larger spleen means you can hold more oxygenated blood and change the way blood is circulated in the body. The best of their divers have shown an evolved ability to be without oxygen for longer periods than training could reasonably provide; some could hold their breath for 10+ minutes and reach dangerous pressures on free-dives. www.theatlantic.com...

This is being shown to be epigenetic inheritance. We were all told in highschool that Lamarck was close but patently wrong, and Darwin was correct. But Lamarck's ideas are actually being reinvigorated with epigenetic inheritance, which shows that you do inherit abilities from your parents, even 'memories'. One of the early experiments that discovered this was a drowning trap devised for mice to try to escape, where the rats had no idea how to escape but they eventually figured it out. Given enough generations, their progeny eventually 'knew' how to solve the trap immediately, whereas their ancestors took a while to learn it.

This is epigenetic inheritance, and it resembles Lamarck's theory that the blacksmith's child will inherit that strength of his father. It relies on the genome being expressed in various ways to allow acclimation to all sorts of environmental cues, and it turns out these variations are inheritable. But the reason this is not evolution is because these changes are pre-supposed possibilities within the genome, not random mutations that give rise to novel traits.

Different ethnicity have varying resistance to disease and virus as well, how do you explain that?

I was more vulnerable to influenza when I was young, but no at all anymore. Did I evolve? No. There's plenty of explanations that would demonstrate why certain regions or people are more resilient to infection. Terrain theory is big on this idea.

At the end of the day, humans remain humans, influenza remains influenza, mice remain mice, E. Coli remains E. Coli, there is no demonstration that organisms can become something different. Organisms can adapt to all sorts of environmental stressors, but these mechanisms for adapting are already present in the organism, as demonstrated with antibiotic resistance emerging from an increase in epigenetic inheritance.
link

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
Please don't get stuck on the words God and devil.

But that is what this thread is about, those words and what they mean to some people.

It's when you close your eyes, and ponder how to treat yourself, and others.

No, the concept is you are punished if you don't accept jesus as your saviour.

If you don't hold that belief, then you don't agree with those people so, why use their words?

originally posted by: daskakik

If you don't hold that belief, then you don't agree with those people so, why use their words?

Why are you opposed to Jesus being the Creator of the simulation? He was a cool guy.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes. The " what they mean " part, is the key.

Because words are free !
They are pointers, and tools of communication.
They are merely used as descriptors, as my intention is to point to an essence beyond words, deep within us all.

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: daskakik

Yes. The " what they mean " part, is the key.

Because words are free !
They are pointers, and tools of communication.
They are merely used as descriptors, as my intention is to point to an essence beyond words, deep within us all.

Yeah God is a shortcut word to mean all sorts of awesome attributes of the Apex Being

originally posted by: cooperton

Why are you opposed to Jesus being the Creator of the simulation? He was a cool guy.

Yeah : He had some pretty good seasons !! LoL !!
And plenty of highlight-reel worthy moments !!