How can atheism have morality?

a reply to: cooperton
Yeah, and you, me, and probably just about everyone knows what was meant.

That is the point, the terms are interchangable.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Yeah, and you, me, and probably just about everyone knows what was meant.

That is the point, the terms are interchangable.

When someone says "irregardless", I will correct them for their own benefit. It is good to know that it will make you sound dumb if you use that word in front of the wrong person. Same goes with knowing the difference between weight and density.

When someone says 'irregardless', I know they simply mean 'regardless', It doesn't make it right though.

originally posted by: cooperton
Same goes with knowing the difference between weight and density.

But they never said weight, they used a term that is acceptable, heavier.

What part of "you knee jerked" is giving you a hard time?

ETA: Might want to avoid being that kind of nazi.
Is *Irregardless a Word?

“Irregardless” is sometimes used instead of regardless. While “irregardless” may be used in informal contexts, it is considered nonstandard and should be avoided in formal or academic writing.

Last I checked we are not doing academic writing here.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Nope, they have been saying that heavier and more dense are used interchangeably in every day life.

No they just tried to quote a collegiate level article to try to prove that heaviness and density are interchangeable:

No they wouldn't because they would probably use the same terminology. I already posted a link to where they do this.

But it said that density is a reference to something being 'heavy for its size', meaning mass per unit volume, which is density. It didn't say heaviness is interchangeable with density.

And that's true as most people do it regardless of whether they are laymen or not. It's rather easy to understand. It's like mass and weight.

Yeah many people mistake weight/heaviness for being the determining factor of something floating or sinking, but it is textbook incorrect to say such a thing. Daskakik is still trying to argue that even a science professor would use the incorrect terminology.

What a perfect exhibition of incorrigibility.

Nope, they have been trying to say that the words heavier and more dense are used interchangeably in every day life. Which is true just as the words weight and mass.

The person who is incorrect (scientifically speaking) it's you. Creationism and science are incompatible. You need to twist reality and science to be able to accept creationism the ideas of intelligent design.

Textbook? What textbook? Nobody spoke of any chemistry textbook. That's a strawman argument. You have gone very deep in this rabbit hole. It's rather easy to understand some of the words are used interchangeably in every day life (outside textbook definitions).

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: cooperton
Same goes with knowing the difference between weight and density.

But they never said weight, they used a term that is acceptable, heavier.

What part of "you knee jerked" is giving you a hard time?

ETA: Might want to avoid being that kind of nazi.
Is *Irregardless a Word?

“Irregardless” is sometimes used instead of regardless. While “irregardless” may be used in informal contexts, it is considered nonstandard and should be avoided in formal or academic writing.

Last I checked we are not doing academic writing here.

When creationists want to 'correct' others in matters related to science or terminology. What an irony!

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
Pointing fingers gets us nowhere, because nobody is wrong, mass murder has been committed in the name of both.


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.

You're talking like atheism and theism are equal, they are not. Again- atheism is not an ideology or philosophy, it is a simple characteristic that people are literally born with. Atheist regimes were saturated in #ed up history directly related to churches- they hated religion for a reason and it had nothing to do with being an atheist. It's like trying to say that Hitler killed people because of the way he styled his mustache- it's irrelevant to his morals and ideologies. Atheism is not something you go out of your way to learn about, it's not something that can indoctrinate the minds of men- for you to suggest that atheism was the reason or in any way motivated Pol Pot, Mau Zedong, or Joseph Stalin to do what they did is completely asinine. You and those other people are drawing equivalency between two completely different things based on flawed or dishonest reasoning. You can't seriously equate a simple absence of belief with a full on blueprint for slavery and the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers- nobody is that stupid. Theism is innately authoritarian, atheism obviously is not, it can't be- it is not sophisticated enough of an idea for all of these crazy things you people want to attribute to it. It's only one step in basic logic about a very specific, imaginary thing.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
I'm an atheist.

I'm not saying they are equal. I'm saying it is easy for both side to sling poo because of what was done "in the name of both".

But all it gets us is all covered in poo.

It is a weak argument that they have a quick counter to because of people like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Joseph Stalin.

It's the past, both the theist and the anti-theist killings. I just think it is a good idea to leave then there.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
I'm an atheist.

I'm not saying they are equal. I'm saying it is easy for both side to sling poo because of what was done "in the name of both".

But all it gets us is all covered in poo.

It is a weak argument that they have a quick counter to because of people like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Joseph Stalin.

It's the past, both the theist and the anti-theist killings. I just think it is a good idea to leave then there.

Theists will cover themselves and anyone around them in 'poo' regardless, that's what theism is designed to do. I did think that you were saying the two were equal, so fair enough. Unfortunately you cannot talk about the beginnings of monotheism without getting into things like murder, rape, slavery, etc. All of those things are integral to not only the history, but also to the stories and teachings from all 3 mono-theologies. I wanted to talk about the origins of mono-theologies because I think they were very obvious tools of the elite to make slavery a thing. All 3 christian nations staked claim in massive amounts of land- they needed the slavery to work the land they had just stolen or it wouldn't be as valuable. You can't export 1.5 millions pounds of tobacco in a year back in the 17th century without slavery- all 3 mono-theologies were carefully constructed out of the very early polytheistic/animist/pagan/atheist cultures specifically to condone slavery.


To get back to the original post though, all of that is to demonstrate the inherent immorality of theism. There is nothing inherent to atheists in that regard and they can obviously be moral or immoral individuals. I argue that anyone who is a true theist and literally believes what their sacred texts have to say are inherently immoral. I do not think that the average people of religious communities who exemplify good morality can be what would be considered 'true believers' and I even argue that most of them are in fact atheistic at heart. You can't literally believe in jealous 'gods' like that and some how still have a good moral compass IMHO.


To quote an earlier post that marks the point when OP completely stopped responding-

I have shown that atheism certainly does not cause modal collapse in the context of morality and my evidence is 300,000+ years of atheism co-existing with morality in all societies to ever exist.


On the contrary, I propose that it is theism in fact, that causes modal collapse in the context of morality (remember, modal collapse is- the condition in which every true statement is necessarily true, and vice versa; that is to say, there are no contingent truths, or to put it another way, that "everything exists necessarily") by asserting 'god's word' (despite being written by multiple people) is infallible, thus creating a string of absolute necessaries that are NOT facilitated by the unique, multiple authorship of every major theology.

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
I get what you are saying and would like it if theists didn't have that Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Joseph Stalin card to counter, but they do.

all of that is to demonstrate the inherent immorality of theism

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily apply to the theists we converse with here. That is why there is so much push back. They don't think that way anymore.

It sucked, but it is history.

Let's not forget it but let's not judge those who feel like that is where their heart is taking them.

And yes, it sucks even more when their beliefs tell them to kill non-believers but honestly, most people don't want to do that, they just want to go along to get along.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
When creationists want to 'correct' others in matters related to science or terminology. What an irony!

When self-proclaimed rational thinkers try to change textbook definitions to avoid being wrong. What an irony!

Just humor me and say density is the determining factor for whether something sinks or floats.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

You're talking like atheism and theism are equal, they are not. Again- atheism is not an ideology or philosophy, it is a simple characteristic that people are literally born with. Atheist regimes were saturated in #ed up history directly related to churches- they hated religion for a reason and it had nothing to do with being an atheist. It's like trying to say that Hitler killed people because of the way he styled his mustache- it's irrelevant to his morals and ideologies. Atheism is not something you go out of your way to learn about, it's not something that can indoctrinate the minds of men- for you to suggest that atheism was the reason or in any way motivated Pol Pot, Mau Zedong, or Joseph Stalin to do what they did is completely asinine. You and those other people are drawing equivalency between two completely different things based on flawed or dishonest reasoning. You can't seriously equate a simple absence of belief with a full on blueprint for slavery and the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers- nobody is that stupid. Theism is innately authoritarian, atheism obviously is not, it can't be- it is not sophisticated enough of an idea for all of these crazy things you people want to attribute to it. It's only one step in basic logic about a very specific, imaginary thing.

You don't think atheistic belief has an effect on rationalizing a specific kind of morality? It can result in a multitude of branches. I was a 'screw the corporations' kind of atheist when I was younger. Anything was justified to bring power to the people and diminish the rule of the corporatocracy because I felt the people needed to regain power over these greedy overlords. I still hold remnants of this rebellious ideology today. But there are plenty of branches of morality that could be logically deduced from an atheistic framework. "Survival of the fittest" is one of the more unfortunate conclusions (easily justifies pretty much anything)... but as many have said here, which I agree, you can still have a good moral compass as an atheist.

You all seem like that sort of atheist, who still strives to do good, even if there may not be a 'rational' reason to do so.

originally posted by: cooperton

You don't think atheistic belief has an effect on rationalizing a specific kind of morality? It can result in a multitude of branches. I was a 'screw the corporations' kind of atheist when I was younger. Anything was justified to bring power to the people and diminish the rule of the corporatocracy because I felt the people needed to regain power over these greedy overlords. I still hold remnants of this rebellious ideology today. But there are plenty of branches of morality that could be logically deduced from an atheistic framework. "Survival of the fittest" is one of the more unfortunate conclusions (easily justifies pretty much anything)... but as many have said here, which I agree, you can still have a good moral compass as an atheist.

You all seem like that sort of atheist, who still strives to do good, even if there may not be a 'rational' reason to do so.

There is no such thing as atheistic belief... but atheism is often defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is only a lack of belief in gods. Morality only becomes irrational when you involve a deity because when you are behaving ethically only because of a divine mandate, is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. Rational morality would be things like virtue ethics, deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism, etc.

Sociologist and professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California Phil Zuckerman wrote a book about this-

"In his 2008 book 'Society without God' notes that Denmark and Sweden, "probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[26] Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth".[27] In 2009, New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels commented that Society Without God provides evidence that an irreligious society can flourish."

"He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies. His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average."

You sound like you used to base your morals on rationality, but not any more, lol.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
There is no such thing as atheistic belief... but atheism is often defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is only a lack of belief in gods. Morality only becomes irrational when you involve a deity because when you are behaving ethically only because of a divine mandate, is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. Rational morality would be things like virtue ethics, deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism, etc.

Sociologist and professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California Phil Zuckerman wrote a book about this-

"In his 2008 book 'Society without God' notes that Denmark and Sweden, "probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[26] Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth".[27] In 2009, New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels commented that Society Without God provides evidence that an irreligious society can flourish."

"He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies. His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average."

You could pinpoint all sorts of areas around the world where both sides of the argument could be shown to be true. I am more interested in the rationality behind morality between the two. Would you agree that atheism would be able to justify just about anything? Sure you could make the argument that lunies could say God is telling them to do any sort of wild thing just the same, but that would theologically defy Christ's ideology.

You sound like you used to base your morals on rationality, but not any more, lol.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm still very much bashing the corporatocracy even in my theistic era. It is just a little more refined. I've learned not to fight them at their own game. I'm thinking an eco-village away from the hustle and bustle of Babylon.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
When creationists want to 'correct' others in matters related to science or terminology. What an irony!

When self-proclaimed rational thinkers try to change textbook definitions to avoid being wrong. What an irony!

Just humor me and say density is the determining factor for whether something sinks or floats.

Nobody has claimed something different. You are clutching at the straws for once more.

The ridiculous argument you have brought up relates to terminology and we all know that in every day life some words are used interchangeably.

Nobody tries to change textbook definitions. It is you who is trying to twist reality when you champion creationism over rational thinking and science.

a reply to: cooperton

"Would you agree that atheism would be able to justify just about anything?"

Absolutely not. Atheism does not and can not justify anything, it isn't a sophisticated enough idea- it's very simple. Atheism is a default position, not being an atheist only shows that you came into contact with the work of charlatans at some point in your life.

Theism certainly condones and justifies slavery, that's why christians often used scripture to fight the abolitionists-
In response to the reinterpretations of christian northern abolitionists, southern christians maintained their interpretation of scripture as a literal understanding of the words, and the words were very clear- 'god' 100% endorsed slavery. The bible was shown to be interpreted in a literal sense and southern society endorsed this understanding of the bible as much as possible. Slave owners could feel confident that they were carrying out the divine plan of 'god' by buying and exploiting slaves. The bible is very straightforward and clear about slavery being permitted by 'god', endorsed by 'god', and owning slaves is considered the blessing of 'god'.

By the way, don't you find it quite telling that a common term back then for a non-religious person was 'rationalist'?


"The teachings of abolitionism are clearly of rationalist origin, of infidel tendency, and only sustained by reckless and licentious perversions of the meaning of the Sacred text".

– Robert L. Dabney, Presbyterian theologian, Virginia, 1851



"And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

– Exodus 21, 2,6.


Old testament verses- www.biblegateway.com... www.biblegateway.com...

New testament verses- www.biblegateway.com...


Would you agree that theism would be able to justify just about anything?

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
You went balls deep.

Sorry if I misgendered you, not that it really matters, since atheists ain't those type of busybodies.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
You went balls deep.

Sorry if I misgendered you, not that it really matters, since atheists ain't those type of busybodies.

Lol, wow. He did bury the shaft with the slavery topic. To add to that, the KKK is a Christian organization. And the upstanding citizens heading to the boarder to love thier neighbors as themselves have members claiming they "God's army". Sounds more like ISIS then JESUS.

I think this thread has repeatedly and utterly debunked the laughable idea that religious people are any better then other people.

originally posted by: HKMarrow

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NovemberHemisphere
You went balls deep.

Sorry if I misgendered you, not that it really matters, since atheists ain't those type of busybodies.

Lol, wow. He did bury the shaft with the slavery topic. To add to that, the KKK is a Christian organization. And the upstanding citizens heading to the boarder to love thier neighbors as themselves have members claiming they "God's army". Sounds more like ISIS then JESUS.

I think this thread has repeatedly and utterly debunked the laughable idea that religious people are any better then other people.

Not only the thread has shown religious people are not any better than everyone else who don't believe in some supernatural entity and the derived dogma but has shown beyond any doubt the level of confusion among the creationists and the complete disregard of rational thinking and science in favour of debunked beliefs and views that have no place in this century.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
... has shown beyond any doubt the level of confusion among the creationists and the complete disregard of rational thinking and science in favour of debunked beliefs and views that have no place in this century.

Yeah .. NO.

What you have been dealing with for 86 pages is just cooperton and a few others like him who are fundamentalist in their beliefs. Most of Christianity does NOT believe in many of the Old Testament stories as literal history. There was no Noahs Flood and no Noahs Ark. Snakes don't talk. Jonah wasn't in the belly of a whale for three days. Job is a teaching story and he didn't actually exist. Exodus happened but not even close to how the Bible claims - there weren't 2 million Jews leaving Egypt and living in the desert for 40 years. Things like that.

Christianity believes that God made people, but in a way of His choosing and many (most?) of Christians believe that the Adam and Eve story isn't literal history - the Earth/humanity aren't 6,000 years old, etc. At some point God made a first man and first woman by creating them in some way, possibly through evolution with God's hand guiding it. The only thing that is required of Christians and God believers is to believe that God created humans in some manner.

God hasn't been debunked.
God hasn't been proven either.
It's a matter of faith.
God has a place in this century just fine.
If YOU choose not to believe in a God, that's your choice.
But saying God has no place ... that's claiming God is disproven .. and He hasn't been.
Some stories attributed to Him have been. But He Himself ... no.

86 pages. What a waste. The bottom line ...
Atheists can be moral people without religion.
Atheists can be evil people without religion.

And religious people can be moral people or immoral people ...
Example -
There are Muslims who are moral people (even though their religion is easily debunked)
There are Muslims who are immoral people (even though they follow a religion that claims to be moral).
Painting a religious group about morality with a broad brush stroke without evidence doesn't work.

This thread should end. It's past it's prime and kind of silly.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Not only the thread has shown religious people are not any better than everyone else who don't believe in some supernatural entity and the derived dogma but has shown beyond any doubt the level of confusion among the creationists and the complete disregard of rational thinking and science in favour of debunked beliefs and views that have no place in this century.

You guys just got done denying a definition of a chemistry textbook lol.