How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: cooperton
lol don't be obtuse, that is all you're trying to do

Sorry, I just meant it wasn't an attempt at a "you'd go on a Crusade for Christ" type gotcha.

Like I said, I wanted to see if there is anything God could ask you to do that would go against your morals, that you would justify doing because it came from the Lord.

You know how I am on here, plenty of attempted gotchas to go around.

All in good fun though, from my part. I mean no offense.

a reply to: cooperton

Let's see.

You claimed viruses don't evolve contrary to the evidence and proof we have. Don't you want to reconsider your position given that you are clearly wrong. There is still time!

Here is some good read

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

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. However, this high mutation rate also comes at a cost to the viral population, as deleterious mutations are constantly created, leading to a plethora of defective genomes. Here, we will discuss the basic tenets that govern the evolution of viruses: mutation rates, population size, selection, the multiplicity of infection, and how these factors modulate infection as viruses evolve within a host, during transmission to novel susceptible hosts, and as viruses establish infections in new host species.

And just as everyone has told you viruses do evolve despite the claims made by creationists.

Unless of course the two scientists from the Departments of Molecular Biology and Microbiology & Immunology don't know what they are talking about and they are brainwashed just as you claimed a few pages back.




www.sciencedirect.com...

Viruses have mutation rates that are higher than any other member of the kingdom of life. This gives them the ability to evolve, even within the course of a single infection, and to evade multiple host defenses, thereby impacting pathogenesis.

edit on 23-1-2024 by Venkuish1 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: cooperton

You haven't answered my question even though I asked you a few times earlier. You claimed amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically impossible.

Can you provide the names of the scientists who proved it and can you show me their work? Because your have come to a conclusion out of nowhere.

a reply to: cooperton

So after a number of pages, arguments and counter arguments, you still can't provide any evidence to support your assertions.

I have asked you another question you have dodged a number of times. Can you show me which physical and biochemical processes have supernatural causes. I don't know any like I said earlier but if you have some knowledge we don't have then you can share it with us.

I know that you are trying hard to argue amino acid formation is acceptable and has natural causes when at the same time you argue amino acid polymerization is 'thermodynamically impossible' and so it has supernatural causes.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

Haven't seen the whole thread but I'm an atheist, and I didn't disagree with anything you just said.

I am the same, was not talking about you, but it would be a good read to go back when you have time. hehe

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Those who believe in the Abrahamic God must first learn who is the God of the old testament and then engage in discussions about morals and morality.

OK, Rabbi...or Father...or whatever... Kind of funny you telling religious people what they "got to do first"

originally posted by: daskakik
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.

That is what you and I say, but we don't know either...

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

I see it more like they really don't give a crap one way or the other. They are not that complex to suggest "remove the stigma that religious morals". When there is nothing bigger than oneself then everything is only about one's self, and that is what we are seeing.

a reply to: Venkuish1
To be fair, their argument isn't that it is impossible but thermodynamically unfavorable.

Of course the rock thing I posted earlier removes that by having the polymerization occur outside of water.

Some are looking at it also being very possible in air.
Water-Mediated Peptide Bond Formation in the Gas Phase: A Model Prebiotic Reaction Opens a PDF.

And I'm sure they will bring up the fact the paper is talking about peptides, not proteins, but it is polymerization, no matter how much it rubs them the wrong way.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
That is what you and I say, but we don't know either...

Of course we do. The fact that we have different religions shows people in different parts of the world made different stories up.

I see it more like they really don't give a crap one way or the other. They are not that complex to suggest "remove the stigma that religious morals". When there is nothing bigger than oneself then everything is only about one's self, and that is what we are seeing.

I think that is called freedom. Freedom to be who you want. So then the moral standard becomes, as long as you don't break the law, do what you like.

All the religious type taboos in regards to sexuality, food, dress, drugs is what is being set aside. Don't you remember footloose?

originally posted by: daskakik
Of course we do. The fact that we have different religions shows different people made stories up in different parts of the world.

That means nothing. They could be different ways that people were trying to explain the same thing within different cultures and timelines.

I think that is called freedom. Freedom to be who you want. So then the moral standard becomes, as long as you don't break the law, do what you like.

How about just changing the laws...we do it all the time. Kind of a weak argument. Pol Pot kind of changed the laws and 4 million died in a few short years, many in truly horrible deaths, so if you do not think laws would change along with morals then you should think a little deeper on it all.

All the religious type taboos in regards to sexuality, food, dress, drugs is what is being set aside. Don't you remember footloose?

One piece of the pie.. seems we are on our way to suggest children are adults, think how that might turn out.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Venkuish1
To be fair, their argument isn't that it is impossible but thermodynamically unfavorable.

Of course the rock thing I posted earlier removes that by having the polymerization occur outside of water.

Some are looking at it also being very possible in air.
Water-Mediated Peptide Bond Formation in the Gas Phase: A Model Prebiotic Reaction Opens a PDF.

And I'm sure they will bring up the fact the paper is talking about peptides, not proteins, but it is polymerization, no matter how much it rubs them the wrong way.

Page 68 (last comment on that page)

Part of their reply to one of my comments

Lol you're just upset abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible.

Hence they are implying amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically impossible.

You need to remember what it has been said sometimes the same points made again and again even though they are refuted again and again.

If you remember earlier it was claimed viruses don't evolve. We have provided several research and review papers on virus evolution. Is not even a debate but you understand what I am trying to say. Especially when he argued: Influenza is still influenza so it hasn't evolved.

Remember the other claim where the universal law of gravitation is out by 2000% ?!?!

Or the fact that stars in spiral galaxies rotate faster than they should (dark matter as the most plausible explanation). This is taken out of context so they can argue that dark matter may not exist and what holds galaxies together is some sort of mysterious force: A supernatural force! (That's what they are aiming at)

Similar to the claims made earlier. They are fine with amino acid formation which has natural causes but they want to argue amino acid polymerization has supernatural causes.

My favourite argument is: the planet is only a few thousand years old! It implies coexistence of dinosaurs and humans and all other creatures that have ever lived on this planet.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
That means nothing. They could be different ways that people were trying to explain the same thing within different cultures and timelines.

Some religions don't even have gods. Kind of hard to argue they are trying to explain the same thing when even that basic concept isn't shared by all religions.

How about just changing the laws...we do it all the time. Kind of a weak argument.

Then they change.

Those long standing morals set by religion lasted until then.

One piece of the pie.. seems we are on our way to suggest children are adults, think how that might turn out.

If it happens, then it happens.

a reply to: Venkuish1
They do that, put something out there with some wiggle room and then at some other point they show their hand.

Sorry, but I have to admit I really only glance at a lot of what they post.

ETA: Don't be surprised if they make the "I never said that" post, and maybe even refer to where they said:

The thermodynamic unfavorability of amino acid polymerization is very telling.

originally posted by: cooperton
I try my best not to compromise Christ's philosophy.


The words of Jesus in the Bible are an inscription of the archetypal heart. All that data of Christ's philosophy is within each and every person. Like Paul says in 2 Cor 3:6 "the written word kills, but the spirit enlivens". The Bible is merely an outward affirmation for the knowledge emerging within.

If anything the Bible expands my expectation of morality, because most don't love their enemies, for example. That's a tough one but I've seen the fruit of doing so.

The basis of 'christ's philosophy' *is* a compromised/corrupt philosophy. Nothing in 'christ's philosophy' was original. Humanitarian love and compassion had been taught by the stoics for centuries and through eastern philosophies for even longer. To the rational philosophies, the 'christ' myth added supreme egocentricity and lays the foundation for extreme narcissism/greed/entitlement.


The bible is literary fiction. We have the first five books supposedly written by moses, which obviously isn't true because moses also never existed. The time periods attributed to moses have no contemporary evidence/literature that matches the exodus narrative. The story of exodus is one of the most researched events in biblical archaeology- professional archaeologists and others have been looking since the middle of the 19th century and since then, there has not been a single source of evidence. Virtually all mainstream archaeologists/historians/scholars have abandoned researching exodus entirely, it is now considered mythology. It is safe to assume that most if not all the characters who appear in the old testament/hebrew bible (moses, abraham, king solomon, aaron, jethro, reuben, joseph, joshua, david, isaac, etc.) never historically existed and perhaps were very loosely based on real people, at best.


The new testament is just a compilation of gospels carefully selected by the Roman-orthodox government from the early 2nd century and through to the 4th century- they were still making amendments to the story, because it was an evolving political document at that point. There are over 200 gospels, epistles and other surviving documents written about the adventures of jesus christ. That's just out of what survived, there was a whole plethora of authors making up jesus/mithra/sun-god stories just like people were writing about zeus and hades around 800 B.C.E. in Greece. The literature was particularly popular in the 2nd century and political disputes in the late 2nd century led to the acceptance of four approved gospels and the rejection of all others. After three more centuries, 23 other gospels were carefully accepted by the church as 'divinely inspired'. All of the true authors and their original stories are unknown, the selected gospels had to be conglomerated and synchronized.


It might surprise you to know that the original gospels of mark, matthew and john all had distinctly different versions of jesus. For mark, jesus was not the son of god but a righteous man, adopted by god at baptism. Mark's jesus also denies that the messiah is of davidic descent. Jesus as a descendant of the "house of david" or any other ancestry was not in the original gospel story, it was a later amendment. Matthew is the first gospel to talk about the ancestry of jesus, beginning his lineage for jesus with abraham. An important part of matthew's gospel is that jesus is a direct descendant of king david, this is where the "anointing of a king" and "anointed of god" come from and subsequently the Greek word 'christos' (to be anointed with oil). In matthew's original gospel, jesus was the natural son of joseph and mary, the title of 'christ' was by royal birthright and joseph is also identified as a "son of david". John's version of jesus is basically god himself, eternal co-creator of the universe, born of immaculate conception, etc. and john's gospel also has a different day of crucifixion. John's gospel centers more around the idea that christ is outright god incarnate and the messiah, he emphasizes the divine status of christ as opposed to the majority of other gospels- that jesus was a human chosen by the 'holy spirit'. The gospel of john is mid-second century theology written to overcome rival theologies. The church essentially needed a more dogmatic version of jesus for political reasons and used the gospel of john to accomplish this.


"The Bible writers projected backwards into time the kind of political rivalry that was happening in their own day [6th c BC] in order to explain that rivalry and perhaps justify the Israelite position over current border disputes."

-Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, p76)

a reply to: Venkuish1

You claimed viruses don't evolve contrary to the evidence and proof we have. Don't you want to reconsider your position given that you are clearly wrong. There is still time!

I have one about the HIV genome. A dissertation by a USC doctor.


Discovery of mature microRNA sequences within the protein-coding regions of global HIV-1 genomes: predictions of novel mechanisms for viral infection and pathogenicity

It's about how HIV may evolve to thoroughly infect the host. It's conclusions strongly suggest evolution.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are highly conserved, short (18–22 nts), non-coding RNA molecules that regulate gene expression by binding to the 3′ untranslated regions (3′UTRs) of mRNAs. While numerous cellular microRNAs have been associated with the progression of various diseases including cancer, miRNAs associated with retroviruses have not been well characterized. Herein we report identification of microRNA-like sequences in coding regions of several HIV-1 genomes

We conclude that microRNA-like sequences are embedded within the protein-encoding regions of several HIV-1 genomes. Given that the V1 to V5 regions of HIV-1 envelopes contain specific, well-characterized domains that are critical for immune responses, virus neutralization and disease progression, we propose that the newly discovered miRNA-like sequences within the HIV-1 genomes may have evolved to self-regulate survival of the virus in the host by evading innate immune responses and therefore influencing persistence, replication and/or pathogenicity.

I won't pretend to understand it, but the guy who wrote it, Dr. Brian Holland, might.

This guy:



Like a "what have you done with your life" thing reading and then listening to this guy's work.

originally posted by: cooperton

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

This, I feel hints at the root of the "objective morality " stuff. Sex. That other people are having. Or, what other people are doing as it relates to sex.

If the Old Testament laws don't apply because- Jesus- then "concerned" people need to stop sweating about other folks sexual inclinations.

If something ain't for you, don't do it. If it ain't your kids, you don't know them, or whats in thier heart. Some people will regret gender re assignments, some people won't. Some people will regret abortions, some people won't. Some people will be homosexual, some people won't.

And, I'm not saying that you yourself use cherry picked bible laws and verses to condemn others, but you know good and well that there are many who do.

Either the law applies, or it doesn't. If it does, the stuff "believers" dont like also has to be accepted. So, maybe men can't lay with another man, but Ihey sure can go get collect virgin girls, as long as they follow a few guidelines. And no men better be in the same space as a female on her period. It's all or nothing with the law. The bible itself says as much. Break one law, you have broken them all.

Now, if the biblical law no longer applies, cuz Jesus, then we must default to the laws of the land, and our own personal compass. Our own compass, with wich to concern ourselves with things that are one's own business.

If the "concern" is from an apocalyptic fear position, there still is no reason to be "concerned" . if God said in the last days xyz will happen, then that's what will happen, right? Because it is the will of God that it happens. So... still no reason to be concerned. Ya cant change it.
And if the only thing that actually ends in an apocalypse is religion itself, still no reason to be concerned about what other folks are doing with their own sex organs.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
It's ironic that nobody knows what they are talking about apart from creationists....

No, plenty of atheists know about chemical thermodynamics, you don't though. The worse part is you pretend you do, and you get exposed for it.

Keep in mind that someone can also feign ignorance in order to stick with shoddy arguments and blind beliefs. In that case, they do understand the problem with their so-called "evidence", they'll just never admit to it. People like Richard Dawkins will use this tactic 'all the time' (pardon the hyperbole, but it does feel like 'all the time'). In reality, they know better, just like they know their so-called "evidence" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They'll stick to their cards in their house of cards, playing one after the other and then declaring a win by referring to their house of cards as "a mountain of evidence".

From the facts pointed out above, especially the 2nd problem (described as "wrong conditions"), one can conclude that the Urey-Miller experiment does not test the validity of the so-called "hypothesis of abiogenesis" (quoting Huxley) a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane & Oparin). A proper abiogenesis experiment is supposed to test the notion that a mindless process can accomplish these things, no intelligent intervention allowed (the scientist in the video above calls this "cheating"). Once you do use intelligent intervention to accomplish your goals, you are no longer testing the validity of abiogenesis but the validity of intelligent intervention (as the cause for these results). It's the standard modus operandi for the vast majority of so-called "abiogenesis" experiments.

I often feel that the more intelligent/cunning evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins, don't even believe that what they're selling is true/factual. They have just learned that telling people what they want to hear, tickling their ears, is way more profitable and advantageous to their careers, that's the way you get people to want to listen to you and believe what you're selling. As the Bible prophecied:

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

I think people like Dawkins have a much better understanding of the text above than his flock, realizing that this phenomenon is real and widespread, and they are using this phenomenon to their advantage for selfish pursuits (usually involving financial gain; their entire career is built upon this phenomenon).

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

From the facts pointed out above, especially the 2nd problem (described as "wrong conditions"), one can conclude that the Urey-Miller experiment does not test the validity of the so-called "hypothesis of abiogenesis" (quoting Huxley) a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane & Oparin). A proper abiogenesis experiment is supposed to test the notion that a mindless process can accomplish these things, no intelligent intervention allowed (the scientist in the video above calls this "cheating"). Once you do use intelligent intervention to accomplish your goals, you are no longer testing the validity of abiogenesis but the validity of intelligent intervention (as the cause for these results). It's the standard modus operandi for the vast majority of so-called [edit: or so-perceived*] "abiogenesis" experiments. [*: because of the way it is presented, or rather misrepresented, to the public.]

And Urey and Miller are smart enough to know that they are "cheating" (i.e. testing the validity of intelligent intervention rather than the mindless process proposed in the abiogenesis storyline, so that tells you something about their honesty when they still present their research as an experiment relevant to "the hypothesis of abiogenesis", as well as the honesty of all intelligent people using this experiment as "evidence" for the abiogenesis storyline or the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life"; and that category "intelligent people", includes all those who should know better, given their expertise, even when they don't or pretend not to, referring to willfull or feigned ignorance, which can be difficult to tell which of the 2 it is per individual).

QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

...

Why do these facts matter?
Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing​—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?

...

edit for the previous comment (edit is bolded):

I think people like Dawkins have a much better understanding of the text above than his flock, realizing that this phenomenon is real and widespread, and how they can use this phenomenon to their advantage for selfish pursuits (usually involving financial gain; their entire career is built upon this phenomenon).

That's the "understanding" I was referring to, being much more aware of the phenomenon and how widespread it is, and how best to use it to one's own advantage (and that you can build an entire succesful career out of tickling people's ears, even when you're aware that you're selling nonsense and false stories/myths, it doesn't matter if people want to believe what you're selling and have built a career around). They might not be aware of the text itself, just the phenomenon described there.

Note also, that what's described there at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, is the core idea behind the entertainment industry, you try to give people what they want. South Park calls it pandering (although given the viewer ratings, they* don't seem to be doing a particular good job at it lately). I sometimes call it catering to the audience. *: the entertainment industry as a whole and in particlular the biggest players like Disney, not the South Park writers. I don't know the viewer ratings for South Park.

originally posted by: daskakik
Some religions don't even have gods. Kind of hard to argue they are trying to explain the same thing when even that basic concept isn't shared by all religions.

I'm not really trying to argue the point other than to say that people from around the world with different languages and cultures across 1000s of years of differences would not have the same religions. I would bet that each of us has different perceptions of reality. If you looked at the world in my perception you might say wow what the hell is that? I'm sure people's perception of God is different too.

Then they change.

Those long-standing morals set by religion lasted until then.

OK, then what is your point other than to say morals exist?

If it happens, then it happens.

So you kind of prove my point that atheists tend to not have set morals and kind of let them flow to personal whims. I'm a firm believer that human morals tend to drift in not good directions when they have big shifts. There is a reason we are the apex predators on our planet, and it isn't because we are nice or docile, though we like to play that part when it is convenient.

It seems you suggest there is no good or bad direction and so let's just get rid of these confounding restraints we have on society that slow that process down and just open up Pandora's box.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So you kind of prove my point that atheists tend to not have set morals and kind of let them flow to personal whims. I'm a firm believer that human morals tend to drift in not good directions when they have big shifts. There is a reason we are the apex predators on our planet, and it isn't because we are nice or docile, though we like to play that part when it is convenient.

Whether atheist or religious the directions in which those morals shifted were considered to be moral or a necessary shift for whatever reason to them at the time. Outsiders or we now, in hindsight, label those shifts as good or bad according to our biases and/or higher education in better understanding human nature and ancient people's fear of what they could not understand or control and what motivated their behaviour.