How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: cooperton
You guys just got done denying a definition of a chemistry textbook lol.

Stop twisting things. Nobody denied it, we said the other word is also used.

originally posted by: cooperton

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.

Textbook definition deniers?
You need to try a little better as many others have told you so far.

Some of the words can be used interchangeably in every day life. It's rather easy and even you can understand it. Heavier or more dense for example or mass and weight as another example. Textbooks have nothing to do with this.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: cooperton
You guys just got done denying a definition of a chemistry textbook lol.

Stop twisting things. Nobody denied it, we said the other word is also used.

Some of the strawman arguments as expected but there is nothing else left after the attempt to push the creationist view didn't work well in these threads.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Some of the words can be used interchangeably in every day life. It's rather easy and even you can understand it. Heavier or more dense for example

Can you at least admit density is the correct terminology and not heaviness?

Textbooks have nothing to do with this.

Not a textbook on earth would say heaviness is what determines if something sinks or floats

originally posted by: cooperton
Can you at least admit density is the correct terminology and not heaviness?

They are both correct, density when volume is given and heaviness when volume isn't given.

Is it that hard of a concept for you to wrap your head around?

Why does a balloon filled with helium rise through the air? Because it is lighter than air. Everyone understands that. Nobody, but you, is going to argue that this is a semantic error.

originally posted by: daskakik
They are both correct, density when volume is given and heaviness when volume isn't given.

Is it that hard of a concept for you to wrap your head around?

Why does a balloon filled with helium rise through the air? Because it is lighter than air. Everyone understands that. Nobody, but you, is going to argue that this is a semantic error.

Just because lay-people will consistently say this misconception doesn't make it true lol.

originally posted by: cooperton
Just because lay-people will consistently say this misconception doesn't make it true lol.

It isn't a misconception and it isn't just lay-people.

Lighter-than-air vehicles is a category recognized by the US Air Force and others around the world.

Also, heavier and lighter is correct when speaking of things in general. Oil floats on water because water is heavier/denser. It doesn't even matter what the water to oil ratio is.

You're just being a grammar nazi and you are not even right.

a reply to: cooperton

You were right previously but weight and density are related by their metrics.
Weight is the force exerted on an object due to the gravitational pull of the Earth.
Density is the measure of how much mass is contained in a given volume.
They are two different metrics.

A ton of feathers and a ton of bricks both weigh one ton. Do they both sink? Sure because the gravitational force on the feathers and the bricks is the same even though their volume is distributed differently.
1 kg on Earth is also 1 kg on the Moon although on the Moon is would weigh 1/6th of what it weighs on Earth. That's because of gravity. It's mass * gravitational acceleration.

You're not wrong in how you describe density. But weight and density are often used interchangeably although a physics book will differentiate them by the metrics i.e. how they're measured.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

You were right previously but weight and density are related by their metrics.
Weight is the force exerted on an object due to the gravitational pull of the Earth.
Density is the measure of how much mass is contained in a given volume.
They are two different metrics.

A ton of feathers and a ton of bricks both weigh one ton. Do they both sink? Sure because the gravitational force on the feathers and the bricks is the same even though their volume is distributed differently.

You're not wrong in how you describe density. But weight and density are often used interchangeably although a physics book will differentiate them by the metrics i.e. how they're measured.

Yes well said. Truce? Sorry for losing my cool. We all on these forums have much more in common than differences and we ought to take a break from these skirmishes and find the abundance of common ground.

a reply to: cooperton


Yes, of course. I apologize if I was rude to you. I know you delve deeply into the sciences. My only objection is that scientists do get their hands dirty in the lab. Not sure you've had that experience.
But overall, you do understand the mechanisms.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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.

You literally just confirmed that you also think creationists are confused by asserting there was no flood or no ark. You think exodus happened for some reason? I can tell you with as much certainty as is possible with corroborating data from that time period that exodus absolutely did not happen. If evolution is guided by the hand of 'god', then why do so many species fail? Why do organisms have to express random mutation and explore useless adaptations before selecting useful ones if there is a premeditated plan from 'god'?

Despite professor Zuckerman's findings that- "[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."
Let us imagine an atheist and a theist with equally good morality, lets say for the sake of argument that their morality is identical. The atheist is in fact morally superior because they are practicing real-world, rational ethics where as the theist is merely behaving ethically and only because of a divine mandate, is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience.

a reply to: cooperton

I have a few neighbors with kids who struggle with chemistry and physics. So for chemistry, the first thing I do is tell them to leave the books behind and let's go into the kitchen.
Experiment: why does water boil? why does water flow.
What is the gas that lights the fire? Name the first ten alkanes which are gases (ethane, methane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, octane, nonane, decane). What is combustion? on and on.

I even teach them simple chromatography - put a carrot, a zucchini, a tomato and some nail polish remover into a blender. Mix it up. Drain out the
fluid. Take a piece of clean cardboard or paper towels pressed together. Put a little nail polish remover (acetone) in a glass container with a tablespoon of the extract. Watch the pigments climb and separate on the cardboard or paper towels. Then explain why it does that.

You learn this stuff by actually doing it. The kids love it and more importantly, they remember it.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton


Yes, of course. I apologize if I was rude to you. I know you delve deeply into the sciences. My only objection is that scientists do get their hands dirty in the lab. Not sure you've had that experience.
But overall, you do understand the mechanisms.

I've work in an organic chemistry lab as well as a lab involved with detecting neurological disease. You probably have more lab experience than me though I have since left the field and now treat it as a hobby.

a reply to: cooperton

Then if you worked in a lab you understand where the rubber meets the road. The books are great and you must learn the fundamentals. But problems are always solved in the lab. That's why we study science. To solve problems.
My field is spectroscopy and cancer research. If you want problems to solve, cancer will keep you up at night.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

I have a few neighbors with kids who struggle with chemistry and physics. So for chemistry, the first thing I do is tell them to leave the books behind and let's go into the kitchen.
Experiment: why does water boil? why does water flow.
What is the gas that lights the fire? Name the first ten alkanes which are gases (ethane, methane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, octane, nonane, decane). What is combustion? on and on.

I even teach them simple chromatography - put a carrot, a zucchini, a tomato and some nail polish remover into a blender. Mix it up. Drain out the
fluid. Take a piece of clean cardboard or paper towels pressed together. Put a little nail polish remover (acetone) in a glass container with a tablespoon of the extract. Watch the pigments climb and separate on the cardboard or paper towels. Then explain why it does that.

You learn this stuff by actually doing it. The kids love it and more importantly, they remember it.

Yeah it's nearly impossible to forget a fun experiment where you get an interesting result. Science is so fun and I have to really catch myself when I use it as a weapon to 'prove i'm right' rather than a tool for the cooperative. At the end of the day a lot of us scientists do just want to do something that matters and part of that is hoping that the things we work on are correct and worthwhile

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

Then if you worked in a lab you understand where the rubber meets the road. The books are great and you must learn the fundamentals. But problems are always solved in the lab. That's why we study science. To solve problems.
My field is spectroscopy and cancer research. If you want problems to solve, cancer will keep you up at night.

I remember when I graduated college I thought I had all the answers on how to solve various diseases, but one by one I would follow these hunches and eventually reach a clinical dead-end where my idea had already been tried and was not nearly as efficacious as the theory would have made it seem. Thank you for your work in cancer research, it's a never ending battle especially as the prevalence of carcinogenic exposure seems to be increasing. The main river in my county is pretty much unswimmable, it's so sad.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

You literally just confirmed that you also think creationists are confused by asserting there was no flood or no ark. You think exodus happened for some reason? I can tell you with as much certainty as is possible with corroborating data from that time period that exodus absolutely did not happen. If evolution is guided by the hand of 'god', then why do so many species fail? Why do organisms have to express random mutation and explore useless adaptations before selecting useful ones if there is a premeditated plan from 'god'?

Yes these are all good objections, this is why theistic evolution doesn't make sense. It's either-or in my opinion. God wouldn't just roll the dice with creation, and the precepts of evolution are in stark contrast to theistic ideology. My perspective on intelligent design is an extra-dimensional force manifesting the physical plane as an interface for conscious souls to come into existence. I remember laughing at the show family guy's rendition of creation, but my search into quantum physics and the other oddities of empiricism make me think that there is more to this world than meets the eye

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

You literally just confirmed that you also think creationists are confused by asserting there was no flood or no ark. You think exodus happened for some reason? I can tell you with as much certainty as is possible with corroborating data from that time period that exodus absolutely did not happen. If evolution is guided by the hand of 'god', then why do so many species fail? Why do organisms have to express random mutation and explore useless adaptations before selecting useful ones if there is a premeditated plan from 'god'?

Yes these are all good objections, this is why theistic evolution doesn't make sense. It's either-or in my opinion. God wouldn't just roll the dice with creation, and the precepts of evolution are in stark contrast to theistic ideology. My perspective on intelligent design is an extra-dimensional force manifesting the physical plane as an interface for conscious souls to come into existence. I remember laughing at the show family guy's rendition of creation, but my search into quantum physics and the other oddities of empiricism make me think that there is more to this world than meets the eye

Okay... so why are there so many failed organisms that naturally go extinct? Is 'god' just going back to the drawing board over and over..?

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

Okay... so why are there so many failed organisms that naturally go extinct? Is 'god' just going back to the drawing board over and over..?

A lot of organisms go extinct due to pollution, over-hunting, and humans introducing foreign organisms to an environment. Don't blame God for the stuff we do.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
A ton of feathers and a ton of bricks both weigh one ton. Do they both sink? Sure because the gravitational force on the feathers and the bricks is the same even though their volume is distributed differently.

Nice to see an olive branch extended but what surprises me is that you didn't say anything different than what we have been saying for pages.

Also, pretty sure a ton of loose feathers dropped into an ocean would float.