How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: cooperton
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.

Things have gone extinct for reasons other than man.

originally posted by: daskakik
Things have gone extinct for reasons other than man.

Yeah that's the way the cookie crumbles. But we're responsible for most of the extinctions from what I've read.

originally posted by: daskakik
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.

I have to catch myself sometimes because I will do my part in instigating a pissing match, when we can actually learn a lot from each other by discussing these various things and productively challenging each other's ideas. After all these conversations you guys are probably loaded weapons against intelligent design proponents in person, as I am against atheists in person... We've pretty much gone over both sides of every argument regarding the topics lol.

When I entered the PhD program, my mentor, who got his degree under Linus Pauling, said 99% of what you do in this lab will land in file 13 i.e.garbage. . Your job to find the 1%. And it isn’t easy.
a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom42338
When I entered the PhD program, my mentor, who got his degree under Linus Pauling, said 99% of what you do in this lab will land in file 13 i.e.garbage. . Your job to find the 1%. And it isn’t easy.
a reply to: cooperton

So true. Seems like a numbers game where if we have enough scientists working on it, then its a higher probability that someone figures out something important

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah that's the way the cookie crumbles. But we're responsible for most of the extinctions from what I've read.

I don't think most of the extinctions are a matter of record.

So, sure, what you read may give that idea but we can't really say.

originally posted by: cooperton
I have to catch myself sometimes because I will do my part in instigating a pissing match...

I think we can all say we are guilty of that. It is kinda the point of public forums.

After all these conversations you guys are probably loaded weapons against intelligent design proponents in person, as I am against atheists in person... We've pretty much gone over both sides of every argument regarding the topics lol.

Objective...

You say you try to be what that word describes. I do too.

I have said before, on ATS, that I have had OOB experiences since I was a pre-teen, I'm past the half century marker now.

My faith? There is something outside this material world, I couldn't exactly say what it is but this is what I believe. I don't want to convince or covert anyone because the truth is I couldn't really explain.

I think people like me have, unofficially, settled on the term spiritual atheists.

Why? We don't follow traditional religious dogma (we specifically don't believe in a god) but we also don't agree with "militant" atheist dogma.

So, objectivity to me means accepting that the laws of physics run the material world, even if something else exists, because it isn't part of that.

Now, if there is a "creator" that can change things in the material world at will, depending on what they do, you won't be able to prove it though science because they wouldn't be constrained by the laws of physics, so they wouldn't necessarily leave proof. These wild stories that mankind has made up are a part of our thinking. A metaphysical creator could throw the world out the window and create another in less than a week.

That is where the con is, fundamental creationists have made it a profitable thing to market and sell the idea that the proof is there.

originally posted by: cooperton

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.

The most common cause of extinction throughout Earth's history is habitat loss- the number 1 source of habitat loss on ancient Earth was volcanic activity.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

originally posted by: cooperton

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.

The most common cause of extinction throughout Earth's history is habitat loss- the number 1 source of habitat loss on ancient Earth was volcanic activity.

I was always fascinated with the different number of ways a species can extinct. Volcanic activity seems to have played a crucial role.

The creationists will tell you other stories like the...huge flood... And although floods can happen and do happen the type of floods discussed in the Bible almost certainly didn't happen.

On the other hand extinction can occur when God gets really angry and decides to get rid of most animals and humans because they have been good and moral creatures behaving badly and going against the rules...

originally posted by: cooperton

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

Nobody has claimed otherwise. It's a strawman argument you have created. That's something basic and I have nothing to 'admit'. The conversation you had with the other two posters is with respect to terminology used and I can say that it's true some words are used interchangeably.
Don't recall textbooks as we are not discussing about what a textbook says (we all know the terminology involved).

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.
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.

Still the poster is clutching at the straws because we all know that some words can be used interchangeably. Mass and weight being a very common example. The question 'what is your weight' is often answered using kilograms or pounds but we know these units are used for mass only.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
I can tell you with as much certainty as is possible with corroborating data from that time period that exodus absolutely did not happen.

Exodus as described by the Bible did not happen. 2 million people did not leave Egypt and live in the desert for 40 years. What probably happened was a small group of people left Egypt and the story got exaggerated and built up over the centuries. The story is probably based on a much much smaller event and that's where the story came from. Many historians, including some Jewish ones, think that's what happened.

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'?

God can use whatever means He wants to make whatever He wants. If that's the process He wants to use, then that's the process He wants to use. So what? Aren't you happy that a large chunk of Christianity believes God used evolution? What do you care if the people think God is the author of evolution? You can't prove their belief wrong and it doesn't hurt you.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
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.

No. You assume a theist is behaving well only because their religion says so. That would be like me saying an atheist only behaves well because the secular rule of law tells him he has to. Theists and atheists have the same inclination to behave or misbehave equally.

Trying to claim theists or atheists are more moral or more immoral than the other is absurd.

BOTH groups have moral people.
BOTH groups have immoral people.
BOTH groups have some people who behave only because the rule of law and/or religious rule says to.
BOTH groups have some people who misbehave despite the rule of law and/or religious rule of law.

The arguments I've seen in this thread are ridiculous.
People cheerleading for 'their team'.
Neither side has moral superiority.
If you people want to argue over who has 'the truth' ... then go ahead.
But to argue moral superiority because you believe/disbelieve in God ... that's silly.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
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.

Lets take a closer look at this statement. You claim that the only reason a theist behaves ethically is because of a divine mandate. You said "MERELY BEHAVING ETHICALLY ONLY BECAUSE .. " It is true that 2 billion Christians have a bible that is used to help guide and inspire them to better moral behavior. You think with the absence of God then they would suddenly run around killing and raping? Doesn't that make them atheists behaving immorally? Well, if theists would do that, then so would the Atheists if secular rule of law was removed. Same/Same. Atheists have secular rule of law that helps guide them to better moral behavior. Are those secular rules of law the only reason atheists act morally? Must be because if the only thing making theists behave ethically is obedience to God, then the only thing making atheists behave ethically is obedience to secular law. What applies to one group applies to the other.

People who believe in God have a bloody history, but so do atheists.
Atheist communism being a big IMMORAL killer.

Atheist Myth - No One Has Ever Killed In The Name of Atheism
By July, AD 1796, nearly 500,000 Vendean Catholics were killed. All of these theists were killed at the hands of atheists.

Stalins Atheist Regime Killing Spree

Mass Killings Under Atheist Communist Regimes

Marxist-Leninist Atheism

100 Years of Atheist Communism and 100 Million Dead

Persecution of Christians in Atheist Eastern Block - up to 20 Million Dead

Encylcopedia of World Problems - Atheist Communism

Many More Have Died At Atheists Hands
...estimates the loss of human life from atheistic communism to range from 40 million to 259 million with a median estimate of 110 million.

100 Years of Atheist Communism and 100 Million Dead - Bolshevik plague that began in Russia

Some 32-45 million Christians were killed in various atheist communist uprisings in that same time period.

League of Militant Atheists
At this Second Congress of Atheists, Nikolai Bukharin, the editor of Pravda, called for the extermination of religion "at the tip of the bayonet.'

And just so we are clear ... every day atheists commit murders just like people who believe in God.

Chapel Hill Murders

Chapel Hill Shootings

10 People Who Give Atheists A Bad Name

SOutherland Springs Shooting

I could google all day long. Atheists commit murder, just like theists do. Atheists cheat on spouses, just like theists do. Atheists lie, just like theists do. Atheists steal, just like theists do.

When it comes to morality, neither theist nor atheist can say that they have a clean history, neither side can claim moral superiority, and BOTH have rules to live by that help guide them. If theists supposedly are "MERELY BEHAVING ETHICALLY ONLY BECAUSE' of that guide (bible) ... then atheists are MERELY BEHAVING ETHICALLY ONLY BECAUSE of their guide - secular rule of law.

Same/same.
The premise of this thread is dead.

A long but good read. I won't quote it. Too much to quote.

Psychology Today - Do Atheists Post A Threat to Morality

Goodness is inborn. Children want to do the right thing even when told that God is okay with doing the wrong thing. Toddlers, who don't know God yet, exhibit helpful behavior towards others without being given rewards for doing so. Theists give more in charity but atheists support higher taxes to give to social programs for the poor. Atheists are more prone to relativism, but at the same time most Atheists don't follow relativism. Theism promotes moral objectivism.

BOTTOM LINE OF ARTICLE - atheism does not undermine morality, but atheists' conception of morality may depart from traditional theistic conceptions.

And for those interested. A research paper on "Psychology, Atheism and Moral Intuitions". It requires signing in and I'm not going to do that. But some here may wish to.
Psychology, Atheism and Moral Intuitions

Some interesting studies comparing the moral compass of atheists vs theists.
Atheists and Theists don't have the same idea of what 'moral' is.


Live Science - Atheists and Believers Have Different Moral Compasses

The participants answered myriad questions about their personal histories, religious beliefs, political orientations and moral views. One part of the survey called the Moral Foundations Questionnaire was especially useful, as it asks about five central moral values. Questions on two of the values — caring and fairness — rated people's attitudes toward protecting vulnerable individuals and treating people fairly.

"Virtually everyone," atheists and believers alike, scored high on these two values, showing that they valued protecting the vulnerable and being fair toward others; and they saw these values as moral issues, Ståhl said. However, he found differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous).

"Those three values are thought to be serving group cohesion, keeping the group together," Ståhl explained. "When it comes to the binding values, there's a dramatic difference [between the groups]. Religious people score much higher on those — they view [them] as much more relevant for being moral compared to the disbelievers."

a reply to: FlyersFan

I could google all day long. Atheists commit murder, just like theists do. Atheists cheat on spouses, just like theists do. Atheists lie, just like theists do. Atheists steal, just like theists do.

When it comes to morality, neither theist nor atheist can say that they have a clean history, neither side can claim moral superiority, and BOTH have rules to live by that help guide them. If theists supposedly are "MERELY BEHAVING ETHICALLY ONLY BECAUSE' of that guide (bible) ... then atheists are MERELY BEHAVING ETHICALLY ONLY BECAUSE of their guide - secular rule of law.

Same/same.
The premise of this thread is dead.

Write it down folks.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: FlyersFan

I could google all day long. Atheists commit murder, just like theists do. Atheists cheat on spouses, just like theists do. Atheists lie, just like theists do. Atheists steal, just like theists do.

When it comes to morality, neither theist nor atheist can say that they have a clean history, neither side can claim moral superiority, and BOTH have rules to live by that help guide them. If theists supposedly are "MERELY BEHAVING ETHICALLY ONLY BECAUSE' of that guide (bible) ... then atheists are MERELY BEHAVING ETHICALLY ONLY BECAUSE of their guide - secular rule of law.

Same/same.
The premise of this thread is dead.

Write it down folks.

Although it's true you don't need a belief in the supernatural to have morals and to be decent, it's quite scary when your moral compass is driven by the belief in some supernatural entity that is a very revengeful and unpleasant character (see God of the old testament which is the basis of all three Abrahamic religions)

originally posted by: Venkuish1
it's quite scary when your moral compass is driven by the belief in some supernatural entity that is a very revengeful and unpleasant character

The moral compass (themselves and secular rule of law) driving Atheists isn't any better ... they lie, cheat, steal, murder, commit adultery, just like theists do.

originally posted by: daskakik

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.

It depends on how the mass of feathers was distributed. If the 1 kg was distributed as one feather over a large area, probably would float. But that's not because it doesn't weigh 1 kg. It's the distribution of mass over an area. If the 1 kg of feathers was concentrated into a small mass size excluding air, etc., it would sink just like the brick. Because of the shape of the object, other variables have to be considered.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
it's quite scary when your moral compass is driven by the belief in some supernatural entity that is a very revengeful and unpleasant character

The moral compass (themselves and secular rule of law) driving Atheists isn't any better ... they lie, cheat, steal, murder, commit adultery, just like theists do.

You don't know that but you are assuming they have the same moral standards. It could go both ways and you can find moral and immoral people in both groups but there is a huge difference. Atheists don't get their morals from religious books written thousands of years ago having very questionable moral standards (slavery, stoning women to death for adultery which is even practised to this day) or the belief in a supernatural creator who on occasions kills or even exterminates entire groups of people.