How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: daskakik
But is that a religious reason?

I think religion has provided steadfast morals that do change over time, but provide a long-lasting foundation to work with. What we see going on is non-religious based and so it is made up on the spot to the whims of whoever and can change very quickly. Maybe the culture that music has created today is driving it, but as we have seen in history that kind of stuff is like a flashfire that starts and ends quickly with a lot of deaths along the way.

a reply to: cooperton

Coop, now you can't just go and say you know the mind of God.

It might not make sense, for reasons you give here. But that is irrelevant. Again, in this hypothetical, there is no doubt in your mind the direction to kill your neighbor came from the Lord your God. Absolutely zero.

Do you kill your neighbor at the behest of the Lord God?

Why or why not?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
If there is a "God" my opinion is it would fit into the natural world, built into the fabric of reality. Maybe there's more to consciousness then we understand. Not to mention the properties of space and time, or the quantum level of things.

Yes that is similar to my perspective on God as well. It isn't some guy hanging out in the clouds. It is an omnipresent consciousness that pervades all reality, yet that also falls way short of a proper depiction. This is why God's nature is ineffable, our language is incapable of fully expressing the glory of a extra-dimensional Being.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

So still your argument has remained unchanged. Amino acid formation is acceptable and you agree it has natural causes but amino acid polymerization seems to have come out of the blue therefore it has supernatural causes.

Repeatedly misrepresenting me doesn't make you right. Amino acid polymerization occurs through enzymatic catalysis. It establishes a chicken-or-the-egg dilemma because amino acid polymerization is needed to make enzymes, but enzymes are made through amino acid polymerization. If it was designed then the designer could surpass this temporal paradox

Can you name me some of the physical and biochemical processes that don't have natural causes? Because they don't teach it at school or university level and it looks like you have some revealed knowledge that nobody possesses apart from creationists.

Lol you're just upset abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible.

But can you name me some of the physical and bio chemical processes that don't have a natural cause? I don't seem to know any and science never taught us some of then have supernatural causes. It's only you who tries to argue amino acid polymerization has supernatural causes.

You made other claims too! Viruses don't evolve (they are small and evolution doesn't affect them). You said adaptation isn't a evolutionary process.

You said the earth is much younger and not 4.5 billion years old. The guys at NASA would like to have a word with you to explain them your findings.

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis for which there is plenty of evidence. And it's only impossible to those who believe in creationism.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

Coop, now you can't just go and say you know the mind of God.

According to my belief, Jesus is the manifestation of God in our material world. He personally dictated a philosophy that I believe is from God, and in that philosophy He explicitly said to turn the other cheek to violence.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

But can you name me some of the physical and bio chemical processes that don't have a natural cause? I don't seem to know any and science never taught us some of then have supernatural causes. It's only you who tries to argue amino acid polymerization has supernatural causes.

Chemical and physical law has been consistent for the past known history. I don't know what you're getting at.

You made other claims too! Viruses don't evolve (they are small and evolution doesn't affect them). You said adaptation isn't a evolutionary process.

Influenza still being influenza is not an example of evolution

You said the earth is much younger and not 4.5 billion years old.

No I merely asked degradation how they knew the initial concentration of the isotopes. It's a relevant question. As I said before, I don't just blindly believe whatever these scientists say, I look at the data myself.

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis for which there is plenty of evidence. And it's only impossible to those who believe in creationism.

Or if you truly believe in thermodynamics. You don't find it odd that we haven't come close to replicating an abiogenesis event yet? If random chance did actually do it, then it would be easy for intelligent scientists to do it. But if a higher intelligence did it, then it would make sense that intelligent humans struggle to replicate it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think religion has provided steadfast morals that do change over time, but provide a long-lasting foundation to work with.

But it was man made. That has been the argument this whole time in regards to what you said because man made religion. So, religion didn't come from god, it came from people because we have that capacity.

What we see going on is non-religious based and so it is made up on the spot to the whims of whoever and can change very quickly.

What we are seeing today is secular morals that seek to remove the stigma that religious morals put in place.

Is it better or worse? That is a matter of personal opinion.

a reply to: cooperton

So your argument still remains the same.

Amino acid formation is acceptable and has natural causes.

Amino acid polymerization is not acceptable therefore it has supernatural causes.

It's thermodynamically impossible and this has been proven by the scientific community. Can you remind me who proved it.

originally posted by: daskakik
What we are seeing today is secular morals that seek to remove the stigma that religious morals put in place.

Is it better or worse? That is a matter of personal opinion.

Yeah and now we're condoning child genital/chemical castration in school

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

So your argument still remains the same.

Amino acid formation is acceptable and has natural causes.

Amino acid polymerization is not acceptable therefore it has supernatural causes.

It's thermodynamically impossible and this has been proven by the scientific community. Can you remind me who proved it.

Gibb's free energy (delta G) was discovered in 1870, it was when they started using a thermodynamic standard to test the favorability of reactions and attributed positive or negative energy input in the standard unit of "Joules". Amino acids polymerizing into chains was eventually found to not be a favorable reaction in water. Hydrolysis on the other hand, the de-polymerization of chains, was found to be favorable in water. Therefore the thermodynamic reality of amino acid polymerization is the opposite of what is needed for abiogenesis to be plausible.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

But can you name me some of the physical and bio chemical processes that don't have a natural cause? I don't seem to know any and science never taught us some of then have supernatural causes. It's only you who tries to argue amino acid polymerization has supernatural causes.

Chemical and physical law has been consistent for the past known history. I don't know what you're getting at.

You made other claims too! Viruses don't evolve (they are small and evolution doesn't affect them). You said adaptation isn't a evolutionary process.

Influenza still being influenza is not an example of evolution

You said the earth is much younger and not 4.5 billion years old.

No I merely asked degradation how they knew the initial concentration of the isotopes. It's a relevant question. As I said before, I don't just blindly believe whatever these scientists say, I look at the data myself.

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis for which there is plenty of evidence. And it's only impossible to those who believe in creationism.

Or if you truly believe in thermodynamics. You don't find it odd that we haven't come close to replicating an abiogenesis event yet? If random chance did actually do it, then it would be easy for intelligent scientists to do it. But if a higher intelligence did it, then it would make sense that intelligent humans struggle to replicate it.

The only difference is that flu virus mutates very frequently which shows precisely it evolves. Unless you don understand the principle which is that most likely scenario.

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

The science proves you wrong for once more.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

Coop, now you can't just go and say you know the mind of God.

According to my belief, Jesus is the manifestation of God in our material world. He personally dictated a philosophy that I believe is from God, and in that philosophy He explicitly said to turn the other cheek to violence.

But God has changed his mind and actions before, right? So you couldn't say it would be impossible for God to seek to use you to help fulfil some plan of his, could you?

And once again, the hypothetical stated that you have no doubt that for whatever reason, God has asked you to kill your neighbor.

So please, imagine yourself in those shoes.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah and now we're condoning child genital/chemical castration in school

We are not doing anything.

Some people might seek it out and that isn't my problem.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

So your argument still remains the same.

Amino acid formation is acceptable and has natural causes.

Amino acid polymerization is not acceptable therefore it has supernatural causes.

It's thermodynamically impossible and this has been proven by the scientific community. Can you remind me who proved it.

Gibb's free energy (delta G) was discovered in 1870, it was when they started using a thermodynamic standard to test the favorability of reactions. Amino acids polymerizing into chains was eventually found to not be a favorable reaction in water. Hydrolysis on the other hand, the de-polymerization of chains, was found to be favorable in water. Therefore the thermodynamic reality of amino acid polymerization is the opposite of what is needed for abiogenesis to be plausible.

Can you name me the scientists that proved amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically impossible because you have made a conclusion that has come out of the blue.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

But God has changed his mind and actions before, right? So you couldn't say it would be impossible for God to seek to use to help fulfil some plan of his, could you? And once again, the hypothetical stated that you have no doubt that for whatever reason, God has asked you to kill your neighbor.

Christ was clear about non-violence.

"I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, that person is cursed." Romans 1:9

This is what is helpful about knowing scripture, you are not easily conned by influences that are un-godly.

Khan Academy is underrated. Sorta relevant to the conversation. I think. Sounds relevant, but that's what we do in these threads, we use things that sound relevant!

www.khanacademy.org...

Translation involves “decoding” a messenger RNA (mRNA) and using its information to build a polypeptide, or chain of amino acids. For most purposes, a polypeptide is basically just a protein (with the technical difference being that some large proteins are made up of several polypeptide chains).

Inside your cells (and the cells of other eukaryotes), translation initiation goes like this: first, the tRNA carrying methionine attaches to the small ribosomal subunit. Together, they bind to the 5' end of the mRNA by recognizing the 5' GTP cap (added during processing in the nucleus). Then, they "walk" along the mRNA in the 3' direction, stopping when they reach the start codon (often, but not always, the first AUG).

In bacteria, the situation is a little different. Here, the small ribosomal subunit doesn't start at the 5' end of the mRNA and travel toward the 3' end. Instead, it attaches directly to certain sequences in the mRNA. These Shine-Dalgarno sequences come just before start codons and "point them out" to the ribosome.

Is this relevant? I can do inorganic, never really studied the organic, but I think this is on the "protein formation is not miraculous" side. And because I think it might support my point.

I honestly don't entirely know what that means.

originally posted by: daskakik
We are not doing anything.

Some people might seek it out and that isn't my problem.

They're teaching it to kids, that becomes our problem

originally posted by: cooperton
Christ was clear about non-violence.

And where is Christ and what is he doing during the Revelation, and Armageddon?

It's a hypothetical. You don't need to work out why it could never happen. In the imagined scenario, for reasons not important, you do truly believe the message is coming from God.

Why can't you just say yes or no?

originally posted by: Degradation33
Khan Academy is underrated. Sorta relevant to the conversation. I think. Sounds relevant, but that's what wein thesethreads, we use things that sound relevant!

www.khanacademy.org...

Translation involves “decoding” a messenger RNA (mRNA) and using its information to build a polypeptide, or chain of amino acids. For most purposes, a polypeptide is basically just a protein (with the technical difference being that some large proteins are made up of several polypeptide chains).

Inside your cells (and the cells of other eukaryotes), translation initiation goes like this: first, the tRNA carrying methionine attaches to the small ribosomal subunit. Together, they bind to the 5' end of the mRNA by recognizing the 5' GTP cap (added during processing in the nucleus). Then, they "walk" along the mRNA in the 3' direction, stopping when they reach the start codon (often, but not always, the first AUG).

In bacteria, the situation is a little different. Here, the small ribosomal subunit doesn't start at the 5' end of the mRNA and travel toward the 3' end. Instead, it attaches directly to certain sequences in the mRNA. These Shine-Dalgarno sequences come just before start codons and "point them out" to the ribosome.

Is this relevant? I can do inorganic, never really studied the organic, but I think this is on the "protein formation is not miraculous" side. And because I think it might support my point...

Yeah protein translation is the process that our cells make proteins from the DNA code. The DNA codes for a sequence of amino acids to be put together in sequence by the ribosome. This linear sequence of amino acid polymers then gets folded into a 3D shape that is able to perform a function in the cell.



It isn't magic, it is a precisely designed process. The ribosome essentially acts like a microscopic 3D printer by creating a sequence of proteins to allow it to have a precise 3-dimensional shape. The protein that gets made performs a very precise function, such as the case of ATP synthase where it behaves like a motor:



"the cells in your body have molecular machines..."

These aren't even my words, proteins are called cellular machinery because they behave like machines. Or rather, we should say machines behave like proteins, because proteins came before human-made machines.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

It's a hypothetical. You don't need to work out why it could never happen. In the imagined scenario, for reasons not important, you do truly believe the message is coming from God.

Why can't you just say yes or no?

It would be like asking a bird to swim