How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: daskakik

It's like the trick question of which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of steel. They both weigh a pound but have different volumes.

Yeah they are equal in weight but different in density. Weight is different than density. Stop defending phantom's ignorance just because they're on the same side of the debate as you

When someone says gold is heavier than lead, it is understood that if you have equal volumes, the gold will be heavier because it is denser.

The proper term is "denser", not "heavier".

Since phantom never mentioned weight or volumes it is understood that they were talking about density, except by you, who wanted to try and pull a gotcha.

Of course I knew what they meant, but they were incorrect in their verbiage, despite pretending like I am the one who doesn't know chemistry. I would not hound phantom so much if they weren't so loathsomely condescending.

originally posted by: daskakik
But it could also happen on day one, and then another beneficial mutation every week, or month.

Nobody really knows.

A functional group on a protein is not just one mutation, it requires a chain of amino acids that form a 3-dimensional active site.

originally posted by: cooperton
Weight is different than density. Stop defending phantom's ignorance just because they're on the same side of the debate as you

Why? They never said weight. You made that up and it shows how dishonest you can be in the discussion.

The proper term is "denser", not "heavier".

The more proper term, but the other is also understood.

...but they were incorrect in their verbiage...

No they were not, it is used that way all the time.

a reply to: cooperton
So? Either way you have no idea how frequently they might happen. Poor odds doesn't mean you can't roll a 7 on a pair of dice 4 or 5 times in a row.

Nobody knows, especially since nobody knows the conditions.

originally posted by: daskakik
Why? They never said weight. You made that up and it shows how dishonest you can be in the discussion.

Heaviness is a measure of weight

The more proper term, but the other is also understood.

No it is THE proper term. Density is the accurate depiction of what determines if something floats or not. Weight is ambiguous in the matter. They claim to be such a science-minded person, often berating my knowledge, so I am going to hammer down on them when they make a dumb error like they did.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
Why? They never said weight. You made that up and it shows how dishonest you can be in the discussion.

Heaviness is a measure of weight

The more proper term, but the other is also understood.

No it is THE proper term. Density is the accurate depiction of what determines if something floats or not. Weight is ambiguous in the matter. They claim to be such a science-minded person, often berating my knowledge, so I am going to hammer down on them when they make a dumb error like they did.

Don't tell me you are now an expert in physics! After demonstrating your expertise in biology and chemistry are you now trying to lecture others about mass and weight? You speak about dumb errors but have you realised the errors you have been making or you are completely oblivious to the fact that creationism is incompatible to science.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
-And then you have to calculate how many bacterial lines exist in a given scenario- planetary or otherwise- which would be impossible to determine, especially on the scale of the galaxy, let alone the universe. You seriously based all your math on 1 single generational line of bacteria for the whole planet?

No I based it as though every bacteria on the planet counted as a bacterial line. Even if we consider this for 1 trillion planets being habitable for life in the universe, and thereby multiply a trillion (1e12) from the probability, it still would take 2.7e43 x 1e-12 = 2.7e31 years to make one beneficial mutation to a functional group.

"The research leading to the discovery of Hemolithin started in 2007 when another protein, one of the first to form on Earth, was observed to entrap water. That property being useful to chemistry before biochemistry on earth developed, theoretical enthalpy calculations on the condensation of amino acids were performed in gas phase space asking: “whether amino acids could polymerize to protein in space?” - they could, and their water of condensation aided their polymerization. This led to several manuscripts of isotope and mass information on Hemolithin"

Interesting, is there some experimental data to show this? From what i've seen, they've only found amino acids on meteorites, not polymers. I, like you, am also skeptical that there isn't some sort of contamination. There's even amino acids in the atmosphere so it would be rather difficult for anything entering earth to not get contaminated.

Your argument is erroneous and the 'calculation' has no basis in reality. Clearly you don't understand either the numbers involved and you are misinterpreting the concepts to push creationism. It has been shown against and again that your arguments are flawed and your claims are false.

a reply to: cooperton

You have demonstrated beyond any doubt that not only you don't understand the basic concepts but you don't even read your links.

You have tried to present the late Professor Bruce Martin who was an expert in Chemistry as someone who argued against abiogenesis and you made claims his paper shows that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible. But that's false and propagandistic because you believe others don't know about science or they can't read the links.

To remind you that Professor Bruce Martin used his expertise to promote science and not superstition and was found abiogenesis the most plausible scenario of how life was created. He championed evolution and debunked all the arguments presented by the creationists. It looks like you have completely missed this very important detail!

Bruce Martin was one of the editors of the Skeptical Inquirer (this needs to be stated again alongside all other facts and details)

This is what he has written in one of his letters

In contrast, the premise of Intelligent Design fails to meet even the most fundamental elements of rational inquiry. By being able to account for everything by divine edict. Intelligent Design explains nothing.

I know you can't defend the arguments from ignorance you have repeatedly made but even you can understand that Professor Bruce Martin was a scientist and fiercely opposed the anti-science offered by creationism and its followers. Look at the paragraph above- it speaks for itself.

I noticed you have tried to avoid the conversation about Professor Martin who you tried to present as someone who lined up with the beliefs of creationists. The opposite was true and you seriously need to do a bit of reading before you post or link anything but on the other hand you have exposed your arguments for once more.

Professor Martin was an anti-creationist but there are a few crackpots in academia who use their position to promote creationism and you did defence Professor Andy McIntosh who is an engineer and notorious creationist (one of the very few). Please stick to him.

a reply to: whereislogic


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: cooperton

Get a chemistry book and go away. You lost your case.

P.S. Where are those dozen citations to support your "theory".

Go away.

Creationist are not scientists. Science is based on observational and mathematical data, in an attempt to understand the universe and reality itself in higher sciences.

Creationist use a book they don't even fully understand, or even agree on the interpretation of amongst themselves, to make non observational based "facts" up. Like the earth being flat, because the bible says "4 corners". Or that the space station, that you can clearly observe for yourself, is fake because the bible that wasnt even originally written in English says "firmament" so there must be an impenetrable dome above the flat earth. Yet of course they cannot account for things like solar eclipses. Because they are ignoring observable things.

You cannot debate science this way. You cannot debate anything this way. But you can make silly statements like "atheist can't have morals" that are based on the same empty logic as flat earth.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

Get a chemistry book and go away. You lost your case.

P.S. Where are those dozen citations to support your "theory".

Go away.

The irony is that the poster tried to argue one of the papers he linked proved abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible. The paper is written by the late Professor Bruce Martin (i ve mentioned it many times but we need to do this when creationists are around).

Not only there is no relevance to the claims made by the poster but he didn't even realise Professor Martin was a notorious anti-creationist who spent time as one of the editors of the Skeptic Inquirer to debunk creationism and its followers.

So careless he is with his posts and 'conclusions'. All the evidence and the papers linked from respectable scientists debunk creationism again and again. Rubbish that belongs to the bronze age era.

a reply to: Venkuish1

He doesn't actually read papers. He picks out a few lines that look like they support his "theory". He's done this ad infinitum. He has no ethics and simply masks his ignorance with cut-and-paste rhetoric. In all the time he's been posting in this forum and others, he's never converted anyone to his screwed up "science". By the same token, he's never learned anything either. He's a blatant fraud.

Slight drift ahead... (relevant)

Has anyone here ever heard of Israel Finklestein?

His work on Biblical History is absolutely fantastic. He rewrites the Pentateuch, and it is backed by peer reviewed scientific (archaeological) evidence.

The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan—they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people—the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were—irony of ironies—themselves originally Canaanites!

He pretty much proved "The United Kingdom of Israel" was a slum sandwiched between Canaanite and Assyrian layers. No pig bones, but no great temples that can absolutely be ascribed to them either.

Its basically him vs the others arguing over when Hebrew officially stopped calling themselves Canaanite.

www.newyorker.com...

Screw trying to force scientific oberservation into a narrow cherry-picked world view, reverse it, try to fit the cherry-picked worldview into reality.

That's what creationist can't do. They can't remove a single story as the circular hole they can't fit any of the other shapes into.

REAL biblical history is cool. Real evidence, dated with relative precision, can actually still find some truth.

You try to jam The Pentateuch into archaeological evidence (not tainted by confirmation bias) and you're left wondering if the 10th century complex was of a United Israel or a Canaanite one that transitioned. Or whether Saul, Solomon, or David existed, and if they did, were they anything more than chieftains of unified nomads. E.g. twelve clans of early "Hebrew" nomads might have been a thing.

Instead of Bible taking a run at science, let's let scientific take a run at the Bible. And I'm betting after you rework the history and purpose, many of the meaningful fables and parables within will all still have a place in the world.

Just not so much explaining the technical parts. As evidence in these threads.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: Venkuish1

He doesn't actually read papers. He picks out a few lines that look like they support his "theory". He's done this ad infinitum. He has no ethics and simply masks his ignorance with cut-and-paste rhetoric. In all the time he's been posting in this forum and others, he's never converted anyone to his screwed up "science". By the same token, he's never learned anything either. He's a blatant fraud.

The best answer to ad infinitum propaganda and lies is ad infinitum stating of facts and ad infinitum debunking of the nonsense they push. At the end they get frustrated and they leave.

Creationism is a view/theory that it could have been legitimate back in the bronze age era or the dark ages. It has no place in the 21st century.

originally posted by: cooperton
Heaviness is a measure of weight

Only when it includes volume, otherwise it is understood as density.

For example, gold is heavier than water. In this statement it is understood that heaviness refers to density because we are not talking about specific amounts.

1 liter of water is heavier than one cm3 of gold. In this statement, which includes the volumes, it refers to weight.

Of course, you act like it can only be used one way when it suits your argument.

originally posted by: Degradation33
Slight drift ahead... (relevant)

Has anyone here ever heard of Israel Finklestein?

His work on Biblical History is absolutely fantastic. He rewrites the Pentateuch, and it is backed by peer reviewed scientific (archaeological) evidence.

The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan—they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people—the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were—irony of ironies—themselves originally Canaanites!

He pretty much proved "The United Kingdom of Israel" was a slum sandwiched between Canaanite and Assyrian layers. No pig bones, but no great temples that can absolutely be ascribed to them either.

Its basically him vs the others arguing over when Hebrew officially stopped calling themselves Canaanite.

www.newyorker.com...

Screw trying to force scientific oberservation into a narrow cherry-picked world view, reverse it, try to fit the cherry-picked worldview into reality.

That's what creationist can't do. They can't remove a single story as the circular hole they can't fit any of the other shapes into.

REAL biblical history is cool. Real evidence, dated with relative precision, can actually still find some truth.

You try to jam The Pentateuch into archaeological evidence (not tainted by confirmation bias) and you're left wondering if the 10th century complex was of a United Israel or a Canaanite one that transitioned. Or whether Saul, Solomon, or David existed, and if they did, were they anything more than chieftains of unified nomads. E.g. twelve clans of early "Hebrew" nomads might have been a thing.

Instead of Bible taking a run at science, let's let scientific take a run at the Bible. And I'm betting after you rework the history and purpose, many of the meaningful fables and parables within will all still have a place in the world.

Just not so much explaining the technical parts. As evidence in these threads.

This is mostly correct IMO, and I talked about it earlier when I brought up that not only does jesus have zero historicity, neither does anyone in the Hebrew bible. David, saul, moses, abraham, etc. are all characters invented for a story- they never existed and exodus was not a real historical event. I do think the Jewish race was an invented identity for a new community of peoples from surrounding lands. In semitic, habiru meant ‘beyond’, which could be in reference to 'beyond the Nile' or some other such landmarks as an origin for these peoples. In Babylonian, khabiru referred to a class of slaves, so from that we can perhaps confer that as a people, the early Hebrews combined Mesopotamian and Egyptian lineages that were very likely drawn from the lowest social orders, including but not exclusive to slaves.

When the new community chose the land of Canaan to settle on, these semites (speakers of a tongue common to Syrians, Arabs and Mesopotamians) adopted a migratory inhabitation of the less fertile hill-country of the interior. At least one of these groups who migrated believed in a mountain/sky god named Yahweh, other than that, nothing about their limited culture or modest shelters distinguished them from other early tent-dwelling settlers.
Over time, these semites were joined by more outcasts or refugees from within the more sophisticated Canaanite (Phoenician) societies and cities- "Israel emerged peacefully and gradually from within Canaanite society" - Karen Armstrong (A History of Jerusalem), [p23].

The Canaanite migrants already had their own culture and practices. A major Canaanite god was El, and the phrase ‘El has conquered’ gives us the word Isra’el. The Canaanite god El is evidenced by a distinct influence on naming the characters in the Hebrew bible- Dan-i-El; Ezek-i-El; Sam-u-El, Ish-ma-El, El-i-jah, El-o-him, etc.- as are other Canaanite gods such as Baal. El was the head of an early Israelite pantheon, with Yahweh as its warrior‐god, texts that mention both El and Yahweh are distinctly not the same figure, suggesting an early accommodation of the two in some early form of Israelite polytheism. Although the Hebrews were not a race, they made the males distinctive through circumcision. For the Jews, it was a tribal obligation to offer as blood sacrifice part of the male regenerative organ to the ‘jealous’ god Yahweh. Evidence shows that this tradition was sometimes practiced by the earlier Egyptian priesthoods and may have started with them.

In the stories of the Hebrew bible, in contrast to the unsystematic and gradual migration over centuries that actually occurred, they tell the story of a single glorious conquest by a cohesive people. Their protector god Yahweh, who had chosen this ‘people’ as his very own, had been given a divine purpose. In particular, their migration into Canaan is given a heroic re-telling (sound familiar?? manifest destiny, anyone?). In the story they arrive as a single group from Egypt, released from slavery by divine intervention. It's obviously invented, evidenced by the fact that it was not written until more than a thousand years after the supposed events, despite the supposed word-for-word dialogue between god and man.


The entire story of the Exodus was written at a much later date, after the tribal leadership of these Judaean tribesmen had been taken into exile. This was not at the dawn of time but in the seventh century BC, the original Hebrew/Canaanite civilians of Palestine did historically exist, including the so-called ‘lost tribes’ of Israel- and were assimilated by Assyrian conquerors during the eighth century. The victors were a Persian-sponsored priesthood who settled in Judaea in the 6th century BC, wrote the Torah (or Pentateuch, or to christians- the first five books of the Old Testament). They did not record the history of the Jews but instead concocted a sacred testimony, designed to control, justify and inspire.


"The Bible writers projected backwards into time the kind of political rivalry that was happening in their own day [6th century 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)


"The first millennium of Jewish history as presented in the Bible has no empirical foundation whatsoever."

– Cantor, The Sacred Chain, p 51.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

It looks like most stories in the Bible are not real and never happened. No evidence Jesus ever existed (i ve mentioned this earlier) and no evidence any of the other characters existed like Moses or David and so on.

Invented stories that people seem to take seriously in the 21 century and I often wonder what is it that makes these stories and especially Jesus to be so attractive. I think the marketing (a very ancient art and science) has gone very well.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

It looks like most stories in the Bible are not real and never happened. No evidence Jesus ever existed (i ve mentioned this earlier) and no evidence any of the other characters existed like Moses or David and so on.

Invented stories that people seem to take seriously in the 21 century and I often wonder what is it that makes these stories and especially Jesus to be so attractive. I think the marketing (a very ancient art and science) has gone very well.

I think that mythology/religion is a powerful sociopolitical tool to encourage primitive tribalism. The phenomenon also occurs with things like nationalism or race supremacy- and often the two are complimentary. All of these scenarios can be traced back to a group or groups of people who benefit disproportionately. There exists many strategies to concentrate wealth and power while forcing those who are being exploited to be distracted by chaos and not realize that they have no choice- instead they are presented with an illusion of options and a pack-mentality. The syndicates of christianity/judaism/islam serve as the catalysts for some of the most brutal conquests of land/resources in recent and ancient history- usually to the benefit of various societal elites.


The conquest of resources in the Americas allowed Spain to finance religious persecution in Europe for well over a century. By destroying diverse peoples/cultures across the lands, the ransacking christian nations eradicated ancient civilizations/traditions including their established scientific knowledge. In one generation the Spaniards conquered more territory than Rome did in 500 years, a massive stretch of land extending from California to Tierra del Fuego. In one generation the Caribs and Arawaks- an indigenous population of approximately 250,000- were forced into slavery. The Spaniards forced them to mine gold until virtually the entire population had died off. In 1510, Spain shipped in more slaves from Guinea in West Africa. After no more gold could be mined, they then introduced sugar cultivation and forced the remaining slaves into harsh plantation agriculture, thus, the islands of the Indies were completely exploited by the Spanish colonial elite. Slaves imported from African countries were brutalized as the sugar demand grew tremendously in European markets. The new English colonies began using the same Spanish plantation-style of agriculture in the Lesser Antilles and then in North America- Virginia.


In the beginning of the 17th century, the eastern coast of North America was becoming increasingly inhabited by christian settlers and copious amounts of commerce occurred between settlers, pirates and slave traders as the foreign communities grew and became more established. The christian texts essentially established the settlers as new Israelites, and North America as the new Canaan, divinely entitled to all land they could physically establish a domain over, under puritanical righteousness. The christian criminals/murderers could then, after a generation of committing genocide, find salvation in religious moral virtue/sanctification and sanitize themselves of every act of inhumanity and greed. To them, every land or peoples they conquered was "divine will made manifest"- all enterprise and material success confirmed the approval of their 'god'.



When the novelty of smoking tobacco in Europe opened a massive market- tobacco plantations proved to be extremely profitable in European commerce. Tobacco was particularly resilient and easy to grow- even the previously considered infertile, sandy soils were able to produce tobacco. Tobacco is a toxic plant that depletes even the richest soils within 7 years of re-harvesting- and the colonists decided to grow tobacco almost exclusively, a plant with zero nutritional or medicinal use. Virginia went from approximately 20,000 pounds of production in 1619 to 1.5 million pounds by 1639. Swaths of farmland were dedicated to the cultivation of a plant which essentially was not only useless, but toxic. Virginia was failing as a colony until the production of tobacco by African slaves was introduced. By 1650 there were approximately 50,000 British settlers in North America- stolen land tilled by enslaved peoples, cultivating drug crops, would prove to be extremely profitable to the colonial elite.


The Native Americans were comprised of more than 250 distinctive tribes, with many different languages and cultural patterns. Remnants of vanished civilization existed, one such was Cahokia in Illinois, a city that covered 5 square miles. The population probably peaked around the 13th century with a minimum of 10,000 inhabitants. The vast number of Native American tribes, lack of cohesion and existing politics allowed the new settlers to strike opportunistic alliances with specific tribes who sought conflict with other rival tribes. Unfortunately, the natives wanted to forge alliances with the Spaniards/British/French to use them against their enemies and to resolve their own on-going feuds. The European settlers took the opportunity to supply their favorite tribes with plenty of firearms to eradicate each other with- the jesuits and missionaries providing firearms to any Native Americans who would accept conversion to christianity. This mutual annihilation between the native tribes benefited only the Europeans- the unrepentant indigenous were seen as minions of satan himself. It was condoned in good faith with the word of the 'lord' that settlers could murder/rape/enslave indigenous peoples and take any land for themselves. The christian settlers could then occupy land where native tribes had murdered each other and then assimilate or murder any survivors that remained.



Within the first generations of European settlers, the insatiable greed for pelts/hides and other natural resources destroyed the ecological balance which the natives had undisturbed for thousands of years. The christian settlers gradually eradicated much of the indigenous wildlife- horses and cows eventually replaced the native grass-eaters. Everywhere there were relentless caravans of more christian settlers, each and every one of them believing they had a divine right to more "property". The beginning of the 18th century was wrought with much bloodshed and warfare as 3 separate christian empires sought to expand their territories throughout North America.



Rivalry between colonies led the British to declare war on the French in 1756, and then on the Spanish in 1762. In the seven year conflict, local tribes were used as proxies on all sides. The British gained control over the Ohio valley and Quebec from France, and Florida from Spain, etc. Estimates vary, but before the arrival of European settlers and diseases, as many as twelve million people are estimated to have lived in what is now the United States.


Having said all that- to answer your question, as to "what is it that makes these stories and especially Jesus to be so attractive"- I think it's rooted in the basis of our modern civilization. The bible, unfortunately, was the blueprint the early settlers used to torture, enslave, rape, impoverish, and eradicate the indigenous peoples. Slavery was the key to success for the colonial elite, all three monotheistic religions have a history of condoning, justifying and practicing slavery.