How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: HKMarrow
Kids are part of the human species.

Genital mutilation of kids... like circumcision?
Oh, but that's different, I know, I know... in one case it's desired, in the other it's forced upon the kid. Clearly one of the moral repercussions of religious belief...

Lol I'm not even pro-circumcision but nice try (link).

Even so, to equate circumcision to full dismemberment of a penis is absurd. To advocate for children to remove their genitals is also absurd, and it is a textbook example of the twisted morality that was referred to in the OP. It is no coincidence that it is the secularists leading this deranged obsession.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

Get a chemistry book.

I will suggest the same thing but unfortunately creationism is devoid of science altogether.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Clearly you don't understand what viral evolution means. Do you think the a human virus like influenza will evolve to become another human virus?

lol no, but you do. That is literally the theory of evolution, that organisms evolved from other organisms. Are you admitting this doesn't happen?

Regardless, viruses are in a separate category, and are often not considered living because they do not have independent means of reproduction.

originally posted by: cooperton

No it is more so that we know the thermodynamics of amino acid polymerization, thereby making the theory drastically implausible. This mixed with the fact that the sequences of the amino acids need to be precisely ordered and also all in the L-configuration, allows me to know it did not happen in this manner.

Sure from a scientific perspective it is merely a theory, but that theory is based on the very blatantly designed micromolecular machines that exist in all living things. Motors, for example, indicate that something designed it. We're upright bi-pedal encephalized organic supercomputers, of course there was a designer lol. Artificial intelligence could not come to be by random chance, so why would organic intelligence be any different? Especially given the very blatant thermodynamic hurdles.

That is why I came to the conclusion I am at today.

The fact that we haven't discovered or seen conditions that cause only left handed amino acids to form does not allow you to 'know it did not happen in this manner.' You don't 'know' anything, you're just making assertions. Organic structures that resemble human inventions/designs warrant the existence of a supreme designer? Grow up, that is NOT a theory. The meaning of THEORY is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Your only 'principle' is that micro-molecular structures kind of - sort of resemble things that humans have made. Wow.

"Artificial intelligence could not come to be by random chance, so why would organic intelligence be any different?"

Because that's the literal difference between artificial and organic my friend. Organic means- 'in a way that happens or develops naturally over time, without being forced or planned by anyone'.

Language warning ! Love this guy

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
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.

Yeah you learn it in most bio or chem 101 classes. Condensation reactions are when peptide (protein) bonds form, hydrolysis reactions are when the peptide bond breaks. Here is a mentioning of hydrolysis, the opposite reaction of polymerization:

"The degradation of the peptide is an exergonic reaction that releases about 8-16 Kjol/mole of energy."
link

link

Polymerization of amino acids require peptide bonds, and here we see clearly that it is actually the degradation of these bonds that is exergonic, having a "negative delta G" (meaning it is a spontaneous reaction / thermodynamically favored). Unlike the Miller-Urey experiment which added energy to amplify the reaction in the way it is favored to go, if you add heat to water it will actually amplify the hydrolysis of the peptide bonds, because breaking peptide bonds is thermodynamically favored rather than forming peptide bonds.

We can also see by the positive value for the equilibrium constant (pKb - pKa) that this reaction will go concentrate towards degrading into monomers rather than polymerizing into polymers. I know this is probably way over your head, but this is the science behind knowing that amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically unfavorable. Again, it is like lighting a match underwater

That's doesn't answer my question.

Can you provide the names of the scientists who proved amino polymerization is thermodynamically impossible. Your link is random and doesn't show the claim you have made.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Clearly you don't understand what viral evolution means. Do you think the a human virus like influenza will evolve to become another human virus?

lol no, but you do. That is literally the theory of evolution, that organisms evolved from other organisms. Are you admitting this doesn't happen?

Regardless, viruses are in a separate category, and are often not considered living because they do not have independent means of reproduction.

See the literature and the links who prove you wrong. An entire branch of science is dedicated to virus evolution which is a fact.

I am sure creationists don't accept facts but thankfully our progress and understanding doesn't depend on the views of creationists and their wild claims.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

That's doesn't answer my question.

Can you provide the names of the scientists who proved amino polymerization is thermodynamically impossible. Your link is random and doesn't show the claim you have made.

Lol that's an odd request, it was discovered long ago, it is common knowledge now. That chart I documented of delta G values is from a 1998 study conducted by Bruce Martin. The original source was likely common sense, since water is known to degrade dead organic polymers.

You're now just trying to avoid the fact that it is clearly documented that amino acid polymerization is not thermodynamically favorable.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

See the literature and the links who prove you wrong. An entire branch of science is dedicated to virus evolution which is a fact.

No I am correct about viruses not being independent organisms, they use the cellular machinery of living things to replicate themselves. This is a known fact. You are continually wrong about all your objections to my points lol.

Also, If you think it is a fact that viruses evolve, then show me an influenza virus becoming a polio virus, or any other virus besides influenza for that matter, over subsequent mutations.

originally posted by: cooperton
Lol I'm not even pro-circumcision but nice try (link).

Even so, to equate circumcision to full dismemberment of a penis is absurd. To advocate for children to remove their genitals is also absurd, and it is a textbook example of the twisted morality that was referred to in the OP. It is no coincidence that it is the secularists leading this deranged obsession.

When you consider the fact that circumcision has killed infants and dismembered/maimed penises and comes with those risks, it's not that absurd to equate the 2 especially since the infant male is certainly not consenting.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
When you consider the fact that circumcision has killed infants and dismembered/maimed penises and comes with those risks, it's not that absurd to equate the 2 especially since the infant male is certainly not consenting.

Circumcision is explicitly warned against in Paul's letter to the Galatians 5:1-12. I am not pro-circumcision. It was a pact with Abraham that held spiritual significance that still holds true to this day, but the physical act of it is meaningless in itself.

Taking this a step further with the current trans movement, removing children's genitalia entirely is remarkably insane and it should not be condoned.

originally posted by: cooperton
Circumcision is explicitly warned against in Paul's letter to the Galatians 5:1-12. I am not pro-circumcision. It was a pact with Abraham that held spiritual significance that still holds true to this day, but the physical act of it is meaningless in itself.

Taking this a step further with the current trans movement, removing children's genitalia entirely is remarkably insane and it should not be condoned.

I'm not saying you are pro-circumcision, I'm saying it's not absurd to equate the 2. In the worst case scenario where the baby loses his dick completely or dies, at least the confused trans person had a chance. I've never heard of a child being allowed gender surgery before the age of 16-18.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere I've never heard of a child being allowed gender surgery before the age of 16-18.

Would you condone it if a child was convinced they need gender re-affirming surgery?

originally posted by: cooperton
Would you condone it if a child was convinced they need gender re-affirming surgery?

I've personally never condoned HRT because it's incredibly unhealthy for the heart to be on large amounts of the opposite hormones, I don't think that it's ethical or humane the way it is allowed to be marketed without mentioning all the risks. Cognitive behavioral therapy, is in my opinion, a much healthier alternative for the majority of body dysmorphia cases. Having said that, even in the strange scenario where adults are trying to convince a child to change genders against their own tendencies, it's still better than being the infant in a botched circumcision.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

I've personally never condoned HRT because it's incredibly unhealthy for the heart to be on large amounts of the opposite hormones, I don't think that it's ethical or humane the way it is allowed to be marketed without mentioning all the risks. Cognitive behavioral therapy, is in my opinion, a much healthier alternative for the majority of body dysmorphia cases. Having said that, even in the strange scenario where adults are trying to convince a child to change genders against their own tendencies, it's still better than being the infant in a botched circumcision.

Yeah I agree with everything you said, besides circumcision being worse than parents convincing their kids to change their gender.

Regardless, circumcision is quite wild, especially in a secular state. I know they use circumcised foreskin for beauty products, so that may be one of the reasons it is so common even among non-religious populations. The mega-corps need their products.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah I agree with everything you said, besides circumcision being worse than parents convincing their kids to change their gender.

Regardless, circumcision is quite wild, especially in a secular state. I know they use circumcised foreskin for beauty products, so that may be one of the reasons it is so common even among non-religious populations. The mega-corps need their products.

Well, I specifically said a botched circumcision. More than 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, having your parents try to change your gender is still better than being dead. Circumcision is a huge business, the infant foreskin is used for all kinds of stuff from skin grafts to stem cell research. On top of that they get to charge for the surgery and much more exorbitant amounts to perform the surgery on adults. The thing I don't understand is why do these people think 'god' gave males a foreskin in the first place? They truly are a special kind of stupid...

a reply to: Xtrozero
The point is that while you may say religion was the best tool for teaching morals might be true, you can't say we would be animals without religion, since we made those up as well.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

"Close, loving friendships evolved among early human hunter-gatherers to promote survival- People with long-term friendships could more easily gain the resources and support needed to have a mate and raise their children to reproductive age." (blogs.bcm.edu...)

There was evolutionary pack mentality, but I think we have evolved well past that to establish morals. Early hunters would have a kinship within their small pack, but if you walked up they would most likely kill you on the spot. Even Indians in the Americas were pretty blood thirsty in many ways within their communities and towards others.

"Cooperation made Homo sapiens the last human species standing.

I highly disagree, we almost died out too and the only reason we made it and the others didn’t is because we followed the food south and the others didn’t. The food source migrated to warmer climates looking for food too. Nothing magical about that.

Atheists are far more likely than a theist to have their common sense (morality) intact.

I see a lot of bias in what you wrote. Religions have layers to them and you with others tend to only focus on top layers that are more politically driven than religion. If atheists think they are so much better where were the great atheists civilizations of good? On the lower levels religious people are more altruistic in using their own time to help others. Go into a food kitchen and count the atheists. lol

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: HKMarrow
Kids are part of the human species.

Genital mutilation of kids... like circumcision?
Oh, but that's different, I know, I know... in one case it's desired, in the other it's forced upon the kid. Clearly one of the moral repercussions of religious belief...

Lol I'm not even pro-circumcision but nice try (link).

Even so, to equate circumcision to full dismemberment of a penis is absurd. To advocate for children to remove their genitals is also absurd, and it is a textbook example of the twisted morality that was referred to in the OP. It is no coincidence that it is the secularists leading this deranged obsession.

Well, I'm not advocating it, I mearly don't care if it becomes legal. That's for people who want to do it to worry about. My position on the matter is to mind my own business. Same for circumcision, which led to some accidental full dismemberment, by the way. But see? I don't care if you decide to circumcise your kids or not. Don't care if it's discussed in schools or not. Don't care if it's male or female circumcision we are talking about either. If my kids decide to get either one, that's thier choice. If they have the money and desire to do it, they can go for it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
When you consider the fact that circumcision has killed infants and dismembered/maimed penises and comes with those risks, it's not that absurd to equate the 2 especially since the infant male is certainly not consenting.

Circumcision is explicitly warned against in Paul's letter to the Galatians 5:1-12. I am not pro-circumcision. It was a pact with Abraham that held spiritual significance that still holds true to this day, but the physical act of it is meaningless in itself.

Taking this a step further with the current trans movement, removing children's genitalia entirely is remarkably insane and it should not be condoned.

See? It comes down to sex after all...
It's not as if people are forcibly making boys into eunuchs, although some early church father did think this was admirable.

It's mearly an option that some people want. Others don't want it. Big woop over nothing. It's not as if this is happening to people by force, like it once was....

So, what makes it to where your morals get to interfere with another choice?