How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
They are merely used as descriptors, as my intention is to point to an essence beyond words, deep within us all.

It isn't about what words are, it is about what they mean to some people.

See the last reply on the last page, coop trying to say it is a shortcut to the apex creator while at the same time expecting us to accept stories like Noah and the flood as literal.

originally posted by: cooperton
Why are you opposed to Jesus being the Creator of the simulation? He was a cool guy.

Because programmers of a simulation don't need to take part in the simulation.

Some team makes a game, it gets copied, distributed and sold and people play.

The team got paid, there might be residuals. Nobody is being judged if they can't get past level 3. We don't need "Mike the Level Designer" to come and die so we can continue living after we see GAME OVER.

originally posted by: daskakik

It isn't about what words are, it is about what they mean to some people.

See the last reply on the last page, coop trying to say it is a shortcut to the apex creator while at the same time expecting us to accept stories like Noah and the flood as literal.

What words mean to me : is my business, and my business only.
What words mean to you : is your business, and your business only.
What words mean to some people : is their business, and their business only.

Doctrine and dogma are somebody else's business : ergo : not mine, nor yours.
Coope sees beyond the dogma and doctrine, and yet he may still employ them in understanding, and explaining.

It's not my business, to speak of his business, but I just did ... LoL !!
It's to show that we have a choice, every moment, while reading another's thoughts.
If my knee-jerk reaction is to reply negatively : there is a chance to pause, and imagine what an opposite reply might look like.

If we take the time, to imagine the positive, negative, and whatever possibilities : then we see that we really do have the choice of how to act in the physical world, based-on how we adjust our filters.

We are all free, to form our own understandings, of the empirical world, and the infinite universe, in the ponderings we engage-in.

Sorry if you are more interested in discussing the physical, empirical world.
Am not so much interested in that.

And that's the moral of the story !! LoL !!
( Somebody had to write that in this thread ! )

What if Noah's Ark was literal but it became a Mandela Effect, and we shifted into a timeline where it didn't? All the years looking for a copy of Berenstien Bears as proof wasted, when the Bible is there as the evidence.

Yup.

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.

That's not actually Biblically accurate.

All that eternal fire and brimstone stuff came later, from the Church and other influences (e.g. Dante's Inferno).

There are a lot of versus and study to back it up. Here's just one to ponder.

Romans 6:23: The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. It's the death of the soul, the end of ones existence. Not eternal hellfire. Eternal life is the gift of God should you choose that path. Hell is where God sends souls to be utterly destroyed, and thus cease to exist.

Here's another.

Mathew 10:28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Edit: Further reading if interested. It's a book.. But plenty of, if not all it's contents are in the link.

Hell Know

DP

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
What words mean to me : is my business, and my business only.
What words mean to you : is your business, and your business only.
What words mean to some people : is their business, and their business only.

That was the point, why use their words, which apparently don't match what you mean?

If my knee-jerk reaction is to reply negatively : there is a chance to pause, and imagine what an opposite reply might look like.

What difference does that make? The reply you get might still be a bark or even a bite.

Sorry if you are more interested in discussing the physical, empirical world.

Who said I was? We are talking about things outside the physical. Unfortunately some people think texts/ideas found in the physical can explain how, maybe, things outside the physical controlled the physical. Fairytales.

Personally, I don't buy them. And you using their words is a simple way to get a different message out, but honestly, to me it seems you don't even agree with them, so what is the problem?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
What if Noah's Ark was literal but it became a Mandela Effect, and we shifted into a timeline where it didn't? All the years looking for a copy of Berenstien Bears as proof wasted, when the Bible is there as the evidence.

Right because some guy setting type couldn't have just printed a lot with a different name.

Maybe he was hungover or still drunk.

Seems like a perfectly possible answer to me.

a reply to: daskakik

If in said guy's shoes, I may have done it just for the laughs.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
What about the rich man asking for Lazarus to give him a drop of water, where was he?

The bible is full of contradictions. Nobody can even prove the existence of the soul so don't act like this death of the soul is even a thing.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
If in said guy's shoes, I may have done it just for the laughs.

Well, there you go, for the lols, isn't exactly the Mandela effect.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Venkuish1
In the opening paragraph you will see

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

Won't accept that, they will say it is adaptation and not evolution.

They haven't answered at all and is expectable.
I ve linked a scientific research paper and I ve argued that it's very unlikely the two scientists (authors of the paper) are deluded or are conspiring against the lord and saviour of humanity and deity he believes to be the intelligent designer of this universe.

Adaptation is an [I]evolutionary process and I wonder if they think it's somehow something else. I know that creationism is devoid of science but if they want to make these claims they put themselves in a very difficult position.

Just to link some very basis information

education.nationalgeographic.org...

Evolutionary adaptation, or simply adaptation, is the adjustment of organisms to their environment in order to improve their chances at survival in that environment.

en.wikipedia.org...

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

a reply to: daskakik

I ain't preaching any Gospel here dask. Just trying to point out some misconceptions about the Bible, from the Biblical perspective.

I'm an atheist and understanding what the Bible actually says about Hell (and other things) compared to what they taught me in Church, played a part in that.

You don't got to tell this guy twice to question the Bible.

a reply to: Venkuish1
I have been butting heads with them for years. That is their go to.

What I posted to you was advice. You don't have to go through this, unless you want to, this is one dead horse.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I ain't preaching any Gospel here dask.

I know you are not, but there are more than a few passages in that book that do say humans can suffer eternal damnation.

Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

I know there is the second death thing in Revelation but I got you 3 to 1. Like I said contradictions. To me it is all BS, but it does say what it says.

a reply to: cooperton

See post above.


Now take a look at this article again. I understand you can't say much and you chose not to reply but that's fine.

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

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record.

Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political situation. Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record.

Unless you think the two scientists and authors are conspiring against your deity and creator of this universe together with the entire scientific community or they are deluded and don't know what they are taking about.

Another poster argued that creationists don't accept adaptation is an evolutionary process but that won't be surprising. Creationism is devoid of science.

So I will just state the very basics again and what the authors stated. The fact we need flu vaccines every year it's an example of observable evolution. One of the very many.

a reply to: Venkuish1
While I can't speak for anyone else, I think we all can appreciate you taking one for the team and dancing with the fat ugly chick (cancel culture may frown on that but I don't care).

We have been there, we know it is pointless, that is why we participate in their threads to take the piss or maybe share interesting ideas, on whatever the topic may be, through them, but never really with them.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
...
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.

That description of evolution is misleading, just like describing evolution as merely being (biological) change over time. That does not address the main claims that those who do not believe in evolution have issues with. Those claims related to the topic of common descent. This is done over and over by dishonest propagandizers of evolutionary philosophies, leaving out exactly that part that people have issues with, point to an observed fact, and then say 'that's evolution (in action)' and 'evolution is a fact' (yeah, if you redefine it first and leave out any claims concerning common descent and the evolution of entirely new species). Then when opponents say, 'that's not evolution or evidence for evolution, we want to see an example of macroevolution, an entirely new species evolving', then they are accused of moving the goalpost. It's about as dishonest as it gets.

Evolution—Myths and Facts

“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist.16 Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. * Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” [*: The changes dog breeders can produce often result from losses in gene function. For example, the dachshund’s small size is caused by a failure of normal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism.]

However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.” [whereislogic: and this is the claim people have issues with, this is the claim that is conveniently left out by evolutionists when defending their propagandistic slogan that 'evolution is a fact'.]

Charles Darwin, for example, taught that the small changes we can observe implied that much bigger changes—which no one has observed—are also possible.17 He felt that over vast periods of time, some original, so-called simple life-forms slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on earth.18

To many, this claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’ * In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths. Consider the following. [*: While the word “species” is used frequently in this section, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis. There we find the term “kind,” which is much broader in meaning. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.]

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. * [Research shows that the cell’s cytoplasm, its membranes, and other structures also play a role in shaping an organism.] Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. * Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.” * [Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. However, not one entirely new species was ever created. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than in plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.]

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. ...

...

Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. ...

...

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
...
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.

Is Evolution a Fact? (Awake!—2006)

...

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders.* These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert​—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution. [whereislogic: it's quite dishonest to even call it (micro)evolution, something that wasn't pointed out specifically in the previous article, which is almost the same as this article. These small changes do not show 'evolution in action', it's not evolution, period. So calling it evolution, is just propaganda. See the article below concerning the tactic of "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language".]

...

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

...

AS MEANS of communicating have expanded—from printing to the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet—the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

...

The same tactic is used when pointing to bacterial resistance developing (also not evolution, micro or macro), so-called "speciation events" (where no actual entirely new species has evolved, but a new species is claimed anyway, just calling it a new species for propagandistic reasons doesn't make it one), cavefish going blind, variation amongst stickleback fish with different amount of stickles, variation amongst finches with different beak sizes and shapes, none of these things demonstrate 'evolution (in action)' as it's propagandizers claim. None of it is evidence for evolution, cause it's just variation and/or adaptation. So what do you get when you point this out to the believer? The type of comments about moving the goalpost and the comment made by daskakik earlier:

originally posted by: daskakik

Won't accept that, they will say it is adaptation and not evolution.

Yes, because it isn't evolution. As long as both the flock and their preachers continue to misrepresent evolution that way, and pretend that just pointing to any sort of change over time will do as evidence for the slogan that 'evolution is a fact', the believer or promoter of evolutionary mythology will demonstrate they have no proper evidence for the claim we are having issues with. Also, when responding with such examples of so-called "microevolution" (which isn't evolution, therefore a dishonest term) as your main so-called "evidence" for evolution to a request for evidence for your faith, the believer or promoter will continue to demonstrate they have no intention to ever be reasonable and have a serious discussion about the real issue at hand, the claims concerning the common descent of all living organisms, as per Darwin's presentation when he first introduced his philosophy of evolution. The central part of the evolutionary storyline that hasn't changed till this day, but is conveniently left out of definitions for "evolution" proposed by evolutionists, cause they know they don't have the proper evidence for it and that the evidence we do have from mutation research, genetics and the fossil record, speaks against it (i.e. shows this central idea/philosophy to be a myth). Even dictionaries will go along with this phony definition for "evolution", conveniently leaving out the central claim.

Yes, things change over time, including in biology, big deal. It's not evolution as the term should be used in the context of this debate.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Then when opponents say, 'that's not evolution or evidence for evolution, we want to see an example of macroevolution, an entirely new species evolving', then they are accused of moving the goalpost. It's about as dishonest as it gets.

Honestly, I think it is dishonest for you to say you are right because they have not gotten there.

They are still trying to figure it out. You want to say you are right without backing it up and not even trying to prove how or why.