How can atheism have morality?

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
While I agree with what you posted, I think we need to move away from this.

It is what Xtrozero and even whereislogic have been talking about. Hey they did this in the name of god just opens the door for them to say "these guys" did this in the name of atheism.

In the end it is just two sides of the same coin. It was really just politics all along.

Pointing fingers gets us nowhere, because nobody is wrong, mass murder has been committed in the name of both.

It just seems like a messed up pissing contest.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
While I agree with what you posted, I think we need to move away from this.

It is what Xtrozero and even whereislogic have been talking about. Hey they did this in the name of god just opens the door for them to say "these guys" did this in the name of atheism.

In the end it is just two sides of the same coin. It was really just politics all along.

Pointing fingers gets us nowhere, because nobody is wrong, mass murder has been committed in the name of both.

It just seems like a messed up pissing contest.

I was talking about the origin of christendom before the 1st century C.E. and up until the beginning of the 18th century, and how it, like other mono-theologies, are rooted in our civilizations through savage barbarism and slavery. I've never heard of an empire laying claim to an entire continent and eradicating most of its native peoples in the name of atheism. I don't know of any slave trades that were enabled by atheism and operated by atheist countries. The transatlantic trade of Africans was founded on christianity and religion was key in motivating Prince Henry of Portugal to begin aggressive and ruthless expeditions to Africa.

"According to Peter Russell, Henry considered conversion and enslavement as interchangeable terms, experiencing no cognitive dissonance in using Christianity as a civilizing agent for making converts into slaves.- the pope recognized Portuguese claims to Africa. The Crown was also responsible for attempting to convert the indigenous people to Christianity."

We can trace theologies back to their beginnings through contemporary sources of history and examine the motivations for such ideologies. We can't do that with atheism because it's not an ideology or even a philosophy, it is the simple state of not believing a theology is literally true. Humans naturally lack belief in an abundance of things, not just theology- anyone who is a theist was first an atheist by default until they had whatever experience or reason to convince them otherwise.


As far as 20th century examples like Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin, etc.; they were technically anti-theists and not solely atheists (if they were in fact atheists). It was more an example of authoritarianism in that it was not just theology they attacked and attempted to abolish, but any and all conflicting ideologies that could possibly interfere with the populace devoting themselves to their regimes..... identical to what the early christians did. They even used the same concepts of theology and created 'state religions' for people to worship. Naturally, they attacked all theologies and killing people because you are against their theology is not the same thing as killing people in the name of atheism. You can't kill someone solely for being a theist and still be just an atheist, you are motivated by anti-theism at that point. Atheism is only the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. I do not think atheism alone is relevant enough to motivate murder, slavery, rape, etc. Holy scripture, conversely, condones the enslavement of 'lesser races' and even claims that the forced conversion to christianity is a noble purpose, saving souls for 'god'.


Atheism does not have any tenants or rules and is not an ideology so attributing anything to be motivated by atheism alone is just asinine. Theology, on the other-hand, is a blueprint for enslaving/eradicating other people and stealing their land after deeming them inferior so that no one has to feel guilty about it. It has many tenants, rules and individual interpretations- it is a dynamic, evolving ideology. If taken literally, any 3 of the major mono-theologies are totalitarian military regimes- imagine a world run by the taliban for a thousand years- that was literally christian Europe throughout history. You can't say any of that about atheism because atheism is just one example of being in a state of not believing something literally to be real or true until given a reason to do so- there are infinite examples of this. My point about theology is that it's only true purpose is to segregate and confuse- to divide and conquer.




"Africans were enslaved not because they were black but because, being nearest to the plantations, they were cheaper to transport, were available in greater numbers and were accustomed to agricultural labour in a hot climate ... But .. it was easier to justify inhuman cruelty when it was employed against people that it could be alleged were a lower form of human life or not human at all." – Hart, From Occupation to Independence, p17.




"The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow ... Moreover, when men are subjected to one another in a peaceful order, the lowly position does as much good to the servant as the proud position does harm to the master ... This servitude is, however, penal, and is appointed by that law which enjoins the preservation of the natural order and forbids its disturbance."

– St Augustine, City of God (De Civitate Dei), XIX, 15.




" It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture. It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors. All theologians are unanimous on this."

– Leander, Quaestiones Morales Theologicae, Lyons 1668 - 1692,
Tome VIII, De Quarto Decalogi Praecepto, Tract. IV, Disp. I, Q. 3.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

You're wrong:


"Crude oil varies greatly in appearance depending on its composition. It is usually black or dark brown (although it may be yellowish, reddish, or even greenish). In the reservoir it is usually found in association with natural gas, which being lighter forms a gas cap over the petroleum, and saline water which, being heavier than most forms of crude oil, generally sinks beneath it."

geo.libretexts.org...(Schulte)/12%3A_Geological_Implications/12.04%3A_Petroleum#:~:text=In%20the%20r eservoir%20it%20is%20usually%20found%20in,forms%20of%20crude%20oil%2C%20generally%20sinks%20beneath%20it.


Weight is a measure of the amount of matter in an object , whereas density measures the amount of matter in a unit volume.

Now shut up and go away.

How come at first you pretended that you never said sink or float is dependent on weight?

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

You completely made that up. You've done that before and got away with it. Personally, I don't giving a flying crap what you think. You're a liar, a fraud and most definitely not a scientist.

Yet now when I show you where you said this:

originally posted by: Phantom42338

In addition, the water in the mantle is primarily SALINE i.e. salt water. Saline is HEAVIER than most crude oil deposits. Therefore, THE WATER SINKS BELOW the crude oil deposits if there are any.

link to this post

you try to double down and pretend like you were right all along with the quote above. Somehow you managed to find someone else who made the same mistake that weight, and not density, determines if something floats. A quick google gives you the correct answer:



"weight" (kg) is not the same as "density" (kg/m^3). An object can weigh a lot but still float because it isn't dense. Your attempts to try to steer around this obvious, well-known fact is quite astonishing. Even more astonishing is that you have everyone defending and starring your post as if it is right. That shows how much this has become a situation of the blind following the blind.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

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

Oh the irony. Let's see what chemistry textbooks say about the determining factor of whether or not something sinks or floats:



As it says all over the internet, density is the determining factor of whether something sinks or floats. Prove you are an objective scientist and admit you were wrong. Density, not weight, determines whether something sinks or floats.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

And atheist regimes killed millions.

It is a pointless argument to say you guys did bad stuff in the name of god when some people also did it in the name of anti-theism, even if it was lip service.

Maybe we should just agree that the reason was authoritarianism and not religion or atheism.

a reply to: cooperton
Nobody said density isn't a factor in sinking and floating, the correction made to you was that "heaviness" can indicate density or weight depending on the context, as I already explained in a previous post.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton the correction made to you was that "heaviness" can indicate density or weight depending on the context, as I already explained in a previous post.

Then why did phantom pretend not to say it, and then call me a liar?

Density is the unambiguous term that determines whether something sinks or float. Weight is ambiguous. A boat weighs a lot but it still floats. A penny weighs a little but it sinks. Stop supporting their cruel ignorance.

Nobody said density isn't a factor in sinking and floating

Look at phantom trying to dance around facts:

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

You're wrong:


Crude oil varies greatly in appearance depending on its composition. It is usually black or dark brown (although it may be yellowish, reddish, or even greenish). In the reservoir it is usually found in association with natural gas, which being lighter forms a gas cap over the petroleum, and saline water which, being heavier than most forms of crude oil, generally sinks beneath it.

geo.libretexts.org...(Schulte)/12%3A_Geological_Implications/12.04%3A_Petroleum#:~:text=In%20the%20r eservoir%20it%20is%20usually%20found%20in,forms%20of%20crude%20oil%2C%20generally%20sinks%20beneath%20it.


Weight is a measure of the amount of matter in an object , whereas density measures the amount of matter in a unit volume.

Now shut up and go away.

It appears as phantom is still trying to show that weight instead of density determines whether something will float. You guys are supporting this madness. Heaviness doesn't even appear in the glossary of my chemistry textbook lol


sciencenotes.org...

originally posted by: cooperton
Then why did phantom pretend not to say it, and then call me a liar?

He didn't say it, and I pointed it out to you that he didn't say it. Why are you pretending that they did.

Density is the unambiguous term that determines whether something sinks or float. Weight is ambiguous. A boat weighs a lot but it still floats. A penny weighs a little but it sinks. Stop supporting their cruel ignorance.

Weight was never said. Heavier was the word used and it is also ambiguous and why you have to look at the context.

The context in which they used it indicated that they were referring to density.

originally posted by: daskakik
Weight was never said. Heavier was the word used and it is also ambiguous and why you have to look at the context.

The context in which they used it indicated that they were referring to density.

As I said before, I knew what he meant, but it is a semantic error. "denser" is the correct term for determining if something sinks or floats. I wouldn't be so particular if they weren't a total wretch pretending like I don't know anything about science. If a Christian is wrong about something, I don't defend them just because they're on my side of the argument.

originally posted by: cooperton
As I said before, I knew what he meant, but it is a semantic error. "denser" is the correct term for determining if something sinks or floats. I wouldn't be so particular if they weren't a total wretch pretending like I don't know anything about science. If a Christian is wrong about something, I don't defend them just because they're on my side of the argument.

It isn't about whether you understood or didn't. It is about how the word was used correctly, regardless of your feelz.

Gold is heavier than water, is not a semantic error. And neither was the way they used it.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: cooperton
As I said before, I knew what he meant, but it is a semantic error. "denser" is the correct term for determining if something sinks or floats. I wouldn't be so particular if they weren't a total wretch pretending like I don't know anything about science. If a Christian is wrong about something, I don't defend them just because they're on my side of the argument.

It isn't about whether you understood or didn't. It is about how the word was used correctly, regardless of your feelz.

Gold is heavier than water, is not a semantic error. And neither was the way they used it.

Gold sinks because it is denser than water

"Gold’s density is to be blamed for its sinking properties. Any object having less density than water will automatically float."
jewelrykeen.com...

The gold's weight doesn't determine if it floats or not, it is density. "heavy" is an ambiguous lay-men's term. If phantom wasn't such a wretch pretending I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't press them so much about this.

a reply to: cooperton
Are you kidding me?

The word "heavier" in "Gold is heavier than water" is not a semantic error and neither was the way it was used in the phrase you are making a big fuss about.

We know it is because of the density, we also know that "water is heavier than oil" and "heavier" in this phrase refers to density.

What are you not understanding?

ETA:

If phantom wasn't such a wretch pretending I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't press them so much about this.

All you are doing is looking bad.

originally posted by: daskakik
The word "heavier" in "Gold is heavier than water" is not a semantic error

Whereas weight / heaviness is something different:

We measure weight in grams, kilograms, ounces, and pounds. Technically, grams (g) and kilograms (kg) are units of mass. The SI unit of force is the Newton (N), with a 1 kg mass having a force of 9.8 N on Earth. The US unit of force is the pound (lb), while the unit of mass is something called a slug. A pound is the force required to move a 1 slug mass at 1 ft/s2. One slug has a weight of 32.2 pounds.

weight refers to mass. Phantom even said to look at a chemistry textbook, and here is their explanation for whether something floats or not:




You guys are incapable of admitting you are wrong:

difference between heavy and dense

a reply to: cooperton
Seems to me you are the one who can't admit you are wrong, from your link (bolding mine):

As nouns the difference between heavy and density is that heavy is a villain or bad guy; the one responsible for evil or aggressive acts while density is (physics) a measure of the amount of matter contained by a given volume.

That's what I said earlier.

1L of water is heavier than 1 cm3 of gold.

But if volumes are not used, gold is heavier than water, then heavier refers to density.

You need to ask yourself, AITA?

originally posted by: daskakik
That's what I said earlier.

1L of water is heavier than 1 cm3 of gold.

But if volumes are not used, gold is heavier than water, then heavier refers to density.

what? you're convoluting this to try to avoid being wrong. Gold is denser than water so it sinks. End of story. Volume is not concise to determine whether something floats because you have to refer to density then to see if it floats or sinks. Density determines if something sinks or floats, not weight.

This is a great test to determine how drastically you all will ignore basic physical terms to avoid being wrong.

originally posted by: cooperton
what? you're convoluting this to try to avoid being wrong. Gold is denser than water so it sinks. End of story.

It is what you linked, density refers to matter contained by a given volume. When volumes are not used, as in the phrase "and saline water which, being heavier than most forms of crude oil, generally sinks beneath it.", it is perfectly fine to use the term heavier since it is accepted that it refers to density.

Volume is not concise to determine whether something floats because you have to refer to density then to see if it floats or sinks. Density determines if something sinks or floats, not weight.

Derp, that was the point.

This is a great test to determine how drastically you all will ignore basic physical terms to avoid being wrong.

Take a look in the mirror.

ETA: Also from your link:

As an adjective heavy is (of a physical object) having great weight

So yeah, denser objects are heavier, which is why the term is not a semantic error when used without stating a given volume.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
The word "heavier" in "Gold is heavier than water" is not a semantic error

Whereas weight / heaviness is something different:

We measure weight in grams, kilograms, ounces, and pounds. Technically, grams (g) and kilograms (kg) are units of mass. The SI unit of force is the Newton (N), with a 1 kg mass having a force of 9.8 N on Earth. The US unit of force is the pound (lb), while the unit of mass is something called a slug. A pound is the force required to move a 1 slug mass at 1 ft/s2. One slug has a weight of 32.2 pounds.

weight refers to mass. Phantom even said to look at a chemistry textbook, and here is their explanation for whether something floats or not:

You guys are incapable of admitting you are wrong:

difference between heavy and dense

There is no need for 'lessons' in physics and chemistry or the kind of biochemistry you have tried throughout the entire thread. It's quite clear to everyone who has read the pages how compatible creationism is with science.

Sometimes more heavy and more dense are used interchangeably. The same happens when we use the terms mass and weight in everyday life. Someone asks what is your weight and the answer they get is a figure in kilograms or pounds. But kilograms is the unit we use for mass. To get the actual weight we need to multiply with the gravitational field strength (but we don't do it for convenience reasons).

Anything else? A 'lesson' in astronomy maybe?
These arguments don't help any of your assertions and claims you made about intelligent design. They make things much worse!

I will have to remind you what Professor Bruce Martin said

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.

If you remember you have linked his paper as 'proof' of abiogenesis being thermodynamically impossible. Nowhere in his paper there is such claim or proof or anything near what you claimed.

Professor Martin was a notorious anti-creationist and debunked all the claims made by creationists.

originally posted by: daskakik
It is what you linked, density refers to matter contained by a given volume. When volumes are not used, as in the phrase "and saline water which, being heavier than most forms of crude oil, generally sinks beneath it.", it is perfectly fine to use the term heavier since it is accepted that it refers to density.

"heaviness" refers to newtons or weight in physics. "density", as you said, refers to mass per volume. Density, the mass per volume, determines if something sinks or floats. There isn't two terms that determine whether something floats or sinks, it is specifically the mass per volume of an object.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Sometimes more heavy and more dense are used interchangeably. The same happens when we use the terms mass and weight in everyday life.

No because weight can mean mass, but weight does not mean density. There is objective terminology in physics

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
It is what you linked, density refers to matter contained by a given volume. When volumes are not used, as in the phrase "and saline water which, being heavier than most forms of crude oil, generally sinks beneath it.", it is perfectly fine to use the term heavier since it is accepted that it refers to density.

"heaviness" refers to newtons or weight in physics. "density", as you said, refers to mass per volume. Density, the mass per volume, determines if something sinks or floats. There isn't two terms that determine whether something floats or sinks, it is specifically the mass per volume of an object.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Sometimes more heavy and more dense are used interchangeably. The same happens when we use the terms mass and weight in everyday life.

No because weight can mean mass, but weight does not mean density. There is objective terminology in physics

Weight and mass are two different things. One is the amount of material the other the force of gravity on an object. You don't even know the basic definitions.

originally posted by: cooperton
"heaviness" refers to newtons or weight in physics. "density", as you said, refers to mass per volume.

And when volume isn't given heavier is understood to mean density, as in saline water is heavier/denser than crude oil.

We are going on and on about this because you got butthurt.

You even said you understood what they meant, duh, that is because that is how it is understood.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Weight and mass are two different things. One is the amount of material the other the force of gravity on an object. You don't even know the basic definitions.

I said it can mean mass, and even in my prior post I specifically said it can refer to Newtons or mass. "newtons" means 'force'. You don't know that newtons is the measure of force? It seems as though you are the one who doesn't know basic definitions.