How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

I'm reading from the Bible. It's in the thread I linked.

And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:14-18

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Zechariah 14:1-2

Just checking back in to see if some Muhammad and Epstien-hating, God, Guns and County, dyed in the wool 'Merican Christian is ever going to pontificate on scriptures such as these, using some of that good ol fashioned "Moral objectivity"

I mean, maybe it's God that wants all that precious "adrenochrome" or whatever it is that some Q believers have been lamenting.

Epstien might end up a hero. Could have been doing it all by faith...

What a plot twist that would be.

a reply to: cooperton

It should bother you that at any point in the Christian narrative, your God was okay with these things. It really sounds like the "open morality" of atheists you were describing in a previous post.

It was okay for you to steal from Sheetz because big bad corporation.

It was okay for the Israelites to take captive war wives because big bad non believers.

originally posted by: cooperton
Are you open to the possibility that evolution is wrong? it seems like you're waiting for the gaps to be filled by evolution and you ignore the evidence that show it can't happen

I'm open to evolution being wrong and even more open to abiogenesis being wrong. But the evidence you present is weak, even if the possibilities against these things is high.

What if Jesus was the programmer?

What if he isn't?

Sure, but it makes more sense that an algorithmic system was designed rather than the result of random chance. In designing a video game, it takes precise mathematics to make the physics work, it's the same with the real world.

That is why I am open to the possibility that evolution/abiogenesis is wrong but still not convinced by your arguments.

I'd side with the creationists that say god seeded the planet and then let evolution take over before believing a guy in a wooden boat repopulated the flora and fauna of the entire planet.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

It should bother you that at any point in the Christian narrative, your God was okay with these things. It really sounds like the "open morality" you were describing in a previous post.

I've already said I think morality is situationally objective. Most of the nations that Israel was warring with were quite insane. Cannibals, giants, etc. Sometimes nations need to be annihilated. Or should we empathize with Nazis and let their nation continue? That's the thing, a lot of these situational circumstances in the Bible tell a deeper meaning, you have to read the depiction of the nation that Israel is at war with.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
That is the next step.

That is how science works, finding out a little at a time.

Bringing up new possibilities and knocking down some old ideas.

You're essentially appealing to the same God-of-the-gaps fallacy that you have critiqued before. "we don't know how it happened, but it was definitely abiogenesis without intelligent intervention". Abiogenesis-of-the-gaps theory... It is literally the most unintelligent possibility.

The fact that scientists in a controlled setting with lab equipment and catalytic chemicals cannot create life from non-life, is very telling that unintelligent matter left to the currently known thermodynamic laws would certainly not be able to make it.

No you are wrong again.

Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact. Nobody disputes it apart from creationists. There is no debate on evolution being factual. This is already proven.

There is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis and it's not a speculation but a scientific hypothesis. The Miller Urey experiment shown clearly how amino acids are formed and that's the beginning of the process that can result in life. Intelligent design has zero evidence.

Amino acid formation has natural causes and does amino acid polymerization despite the attempts made by creationists to argue otherwise.

Speaking of gaps

Your religion which I assume it's Christianity is what we call A religion of gaps just like the other Abrahamic religions.

They try to fill the gaps science has when it comes to knowledge. When one gap is filled then they move to the next gap. And this is what you try to do but unsuccessfully as amino acid formation has natural causes and so does amino acid polymerization. You could argue about the pre big bang era where there is a real gap in knowledge but that's what science is trying to do (fill these gaps).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Romans 12:2: Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Yeah I agree. The reason they wouldn't spare the non-virgin women, is because they were under the impression that they were corrupted by the corrupt nation. Purity laws in ancient Israel are quite interesting, but they are no longer required because Christ is now the purifying factor.

You mean God was under the impression they were corrupted? And the measure of if they were or not, was if the hymen was still intact?

originally posted by: daskakik
I'm open to evolution being wrong and even more open to abiogenesis being wrong. But the evidence you present is weak, even if the possibilities against these things is high.

The thermodynamic unfavorability of amino acid polymerization is very telling. If this doesn't shock you then I think it's due to bias. It's not only that, but even if this reaction were favorable, it would need to be sequenced in such a precise manner to create the cellular machinery necessary for life. There are hundreds of proteins required for the most basic independent organisms. That's a lot of miracles.

What if he isn't?

If someone comes as an ambassador from the higher dimensions with a better philosophy than Jesus, I would be astonished.

originally posted by: HKMarrow
You mean God was under the impression they were corrupted? And the measure of if they were or not, was if the hymen was still intact?

Yeah today's culture puts no value on virginity, it's just a little funbox to many. But the Israelites put high value on virginity for both men and women. They believed it had deeper spiritual implications. I think everyone who is dating someone with an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend can attest to this. Without Christ as a purifier, the women were doom-locked to the corrupt men they were married to.

originally posted by: daskakik

Most people are taught to obey the law. That is why some of us have been saying that it is a set of secular morals.

But then where did the laws come from?

I say this because you keep mentioning big cities. It isn't a lack of religion, it is just a different set of morals held by religious people.

I don't understand this statement. I would say those lacking morals in big cities are more non-religious than religious.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
There is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis and it's not a speculation but a scientific hypothesis. The Miller Urey experiment shown clearly how amino acids are formed=

Ahh nice you finally learned! congrats, it's good to learn new things. You said it right, Miller Urey showed amino acids can form from natural processed, but he did not show amino acids can polymerize into long protein chains.

Amino acid formation has natural causes and does amino acid polymerization despite the attempts made by creationists to argue otherwise.

Ohh this is quite the claim, point me to the experiment that shows that amino acid chains can be made in water to create a viable protein. I'll save you time again, there is no such experiment. So while you may believe that is the case, you certainly cannot call it a fact. As daskakik has already admitted, there is no evidence of it. They are hoping that eventually there will be

Your religion which I assume it's Christianity is what we call A religion of gaps just like the other Abrahamic religions.

They try to fill the gaps science has when it comes to knowledge.

You literally just did that with amino acid polymerization. You're assuming abiogenesis is true, and then using it to fill the gaps lol

a reply to: cooperton

How do they know it is 4.5 billion years old?

Ra-di-o-me-tric da-ting. That's saying in slowly in writing.

What about Rb/Sr?

www.britannica.com...

Scientists typically determine the age of a rock or meteorite by using the isochron method. For purposes of illustration, consider the rubidium-strontium decay system. In this system, the radioactive parent rubidium-87 (87Rb) decays to the stable daughter isotope strontium-87 (87Sr). The half-life for 87Rb decay is 48.8 billion years. Strontium has a number of other stable isotopes, including strontium-86 (86Sr), which is often used as a reference. When a rock forms, the minerals within it have identical strontium isotopic compositions (e.g., 87Sr/86Sr ratios) but often have different rubidium/strontium ratios (e.g., 87Rb/86Sr ratios). In this case, as 87Rb decays, the 87Sr/86Sr ratios in the minerals all increase with time but at different rates—the 87Sr/86Sr ratios increase more rapidly in minerals with higher initial 87Rb/86Sr ratios. If the minerals’ 87Sr/86Sr ratios as they exist now are plotted on a graph against their 87Rb/86Sr ratios, the data points form a straight line, called an isochron. The slope of the line is proportional to the time since the minerals formed, and the point where the line intercepts the 87Sr/86Sr axis (i.e., when 87Rb/86Sr is zero) gives the initial ratio when the minerals formed

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

It should bother you that at any point in the Christian narrative, your God was okay with these things. It really sounds like the "open morality" you were describing in a previous post.

I've already said I think morality is situationally objective. Most of the nations that Israel was warring with were quite insane. Cannibals, giants, etc. Sometimes nations need to be annihilated. Or should we empathize with Nazis and let their nation continue? That's the thing, a lot of these situational circumstances in the Bible tell a deeper meaning, you have to read the depiction of the nation that Israel is at war with.

At least you agree that morality is subjective. Now, as far as nation-annihilation goes, or genocide, if you prefer, that's a bit of a sticky topic eh? Nobody attempted to eradicate the German people themselves.

If you want to say they were eradicating "demon seed" or "fallen angel seed" or something, that is DEFINITELY going to be an interesting discussion. Because people have killed other people, even in modern times, and claimed they did so for reasons not completely unsimilar.

Heroes, or psychos?

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

"How do they know it is 4.5 billion years old?"

is-o-me-tric da-ting. That's saying in slowly in writing.

Please understand my skepticism of wanting to know how they would know the initial isotopic ratios of an fn asteroid lol.

originally posted by: HKMarrow
If you want to say they were eradicating "demon seed" or "fallen angel seed" or something, that is DEFINITELY going to be an interesting discussion. Because people have killed other people, even in modern times, and claimed they did so for reasons not completely unsimilar.

Heroes, or psychos?

Yeah exactly, with so much propaganda it's hard to really tell who was who throughout history. The idea is that the omniscient Creator would know justice more than us mortals.

originally posted by: HKMarrow

At least you agree that morality is subjective.

Hmm, You are acting as though subjective morality is objectively the best morality. If you believe morality is totally subjective then that itself is an objective claim.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: HKMarrow
You mean God was under the impression they were corrupted? And the measure of if they were or not, was if the hymen was still intact?

Yeah today's culture puts no value on virginity, it's just a little funbox to many. But the Israelites put high value on virginity for both men and women. They believed it had deeper spiritual implications. I think everyone who is dating someone with an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend can attest to this. Without Christ as a purifier, the women were doom-locked to the corrupt men they were married to.

Um, what. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall male virginity being highly valued in the bible.

As far as a "doom lock"... what do you mean?

And it's not just ancient Israel that valued virgin girls, that idea is in more then a few religions. What's this "spiritual implication?"

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: HKMarrow
If you want to say they were eradicating "demon seed" or "fallen angel seed" or something, that is DEFINITELY going to be an interesting discussion. Because people have killed other people, even in modern times, and claimed they did so for reasons not completely unsimilar.

Heroes, or psychos?

Yeah exactly, with so much propaganda it's hard to really tell who was who throughout history. The idea is that the omniscient Creator would know justice more than us mortals.

originally posted by: HKMarrow

At least you agree that morality is subjective.

Hmm, You are acting as though subjective morality is objectively the best morality. If you believe morality is totally subjective then that itself is an objective claim.

Not saying it's "best", only that it's all that exists. Even If I was to bring God into the mix, it's clear in the bible, and in the world itself, that the morality of said God is not exactly consistent with human moral aspirations.

originally posted by: HKMarrow
Um, what. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall male virginity being highly valued in the bible.

If they expected the women to be virgins among the nation of Israel, how would the men not also be virgins until marriage? Certainly they wouldn't endorse philandering with other nations.

As far as a "doom lock"... what do you mean?

An irrevocable action that has enduring mental effects. As I said before though, there is now a purifying factor in Christ.

And it's not just ancient Israel that valued virgin girls, that idea is in more then a few religions. What's this "spiritual implication?"

Yeah true. The idea of marriage, at least in Israel, was also supposed to be a marriage of God and humankind. A birthright of transcendence into Zion Isaiah 62:1-5. This same archetype was also the foretelling of Christ as the bridegroom coming to conceive His creation

originally posted by: HKMarrow

Not saying it's "best", only that it's all that exists.

That's still technically an objective statement though. A claim of existence is an object(ive).

Even If I was to bring God into the mix, it's clear in the bible, and in the world itself, that the morality of said God is not exactly consistent with human moral aspirations.

There is immense overlap with the actions of humans and God. The Bible even goes so far as to say that the injustices you do to people, are injustices to God himself (link).

originally posted by: cooperton
The thermodynamic unfavorability of amino acid polymerization is very telling. If this doesn't shock you then I think it's due to bias.

Why would it shock me, because you think it is such a big point? That shows your bias, not mine.

If someone comes as an ambassador from the higher dimensions with a better philosophy than Jesus, I would be astonished.

Again, your bias.

ETA: Since we are on the subject of jesus, it is obvious that your claim that you are talking about some generic "apex creator" in another thread was just to hide your religious zealotry.

originally posted by: daskakik
Why would it shock me, because you think it is such a big point? That shows your bias, not mine.

Thermodynamic barriers are very telling regarding the plausibility of life coming from non-life...