How can atheism have morality?

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.

double post

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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.

Let me reply to this but because you have made several points I may need to reply separately to what you said.

You said God hasn't been disproven. But the burden of proof is on those who claim God exists and is the character we find in the old testament or even in the new testament (you may want to include all other religions)

There is no evidence God exists and no evidence any God exists (I said any to include all religions and types of God people believed or believe).

The God of the old testament is not a real character and most of the stories told in the Bible are not real either. There is no biblical flood, no exodus, no resurrection from the dead and more importantly not much evidence Jesus existed and had the powers attributed to him.

We agree on the main topic of this thread.
You don't really need religion and faith in the supernatural creator to have morals. People and can be moral and immoral with or without a religion.

I will use an analogy going back to what I said at the beginning. God hasn't been disproven in the same way pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters haven't been disproven, but again no evidence exists for the existence of any God. The existence of a God has been asserted by religious people as a fact in the absence of any evidence.

The Abrahamic God has been debunked long time ago and is a figment of the imagination of the people who created him in the first place. You may want to read the books by Dawkins who describes him as a megalomaniac and very unpleasant character.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
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.

Doesn't matter. The outcome is the same.

Theists get their morals from themselves and from their religion.
Atheists get their morals from themselves and from secular rule of law.
Both have moral people.
Both have immoral people.
Both have murderers.
Both have those who self sacrifice to help others.
Both have people who are good parents.
Both have people who are bad parents.

Neither is morally superior to the other.
Same/same.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You said God hasn't been disproven. But the burden of proof is on those who claim God exists ...

No. You said God had no place in this time and age. You basically said he was disproven. He hasn't been. He hasn't been proven and he hasn't been disproven. Therefore, his place is just fine. There is no need to be rid of God in society when he hasn't been disproven. There is no burden of proof on those who believe in God. They don't have to provide one. Either you believe or you don't. Nothing else to it.

The God of the old testament is not a real character and most of the stories told in the Bible are not real either. There is no biblical flood, no exodus, no resurrection from the dead and more importantly not much evidence Jesus existed and had the powers attributed to him.

Some of that I agree with and some I disagree with. But let's say for a moment that's all true .... it's irrelevant to the topic of if atheist people are moral or not ... and irrelevant to the topic of if theists are moral or not.

The existence of a God has been asserted by religious people as a fact in the absence of any evidence.

Atheists say it's a fact that God doesn't exist. But they can't prove the negative ... that He doesn't exist.

Personal experience doesn't provide tangible evidence. If people believe in God ... SO WHAT? As long as that belief doesn't cause people to do immoral things, it's fine. Just like as long as people being atheist doesn't cause them to be doing immoral things and they want to be atheist, that's their business.

And that's the topic of this thread ... can people who are atheist be moral. The answer is yes. AND so can people who are theists. The flip is also true. Atheists can be immoral. I gave lots of links to that when someone here tried to claim Atheist morality was better than Theist morality. It's not.

Theists try to convert people to believing in God because they think they are doing something good for that person. Atheists try to convert people to be atheist because they think they are doing something good for that person. Both groups usually mean well but they can get a little arrogant.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
The Abrahamic God has been debunked long time ago and is a figment of the imagination of the people who created him in the first place. You may want to read the books by Dawkins who describes him as a megalomaniac and very unpleasant character.

Disagree. And no thanks. I like my relationship with God just fine.
I'd rather read about things like this - The Saints Who Saw Mary
Seems much more productive to me.
Enjoy your atheism. I would think it would be depressing ... but whatever.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
You said God hasn't been disproven. But the burden of proof is on those who claim God exists ...

No. You said God had no place in this time and age. You basically said he was disproven. He hasn't been. He hasn't been proven and he hasn't been disproven. Therefore, his place is just fine. There is no need to be rid of God in society when he hasn't been disproven. There is no burden of proof on those who believe in God. They don't have to provide one. Either you believe or you don't. Nothing else to it.

The God of the old testament is not a real character and most of the stories told in the Bible are not real either. There is no biblical flood, no exodus, no resurrection from the dead and more importantly not much evidence Jesus existed and had the powers attributed to him.

Some of that I agree with and some I disagree with. But let's say for a moment that's all true .... it's irrelevant to the topic of if atheist people are moral or not ... and irrelevant to the topic of if theists are moral or not.

The existence of a God has been asserted by religious people as a fact in the absence of any evidence.

Atheists say it's a fact that God doesn't exist. But they can't prove the negative ... that He doesn't exist.

Personal experience doesn't provide tangible evidence. If people believe in God ... SO WHAT? As long as that belief doesn't cause people to do immoral things, it's fine. Just like as long as people being atheist doesn't cause them to be doing immoral things and they want to be atheist, that's their business.

And that's the topic of this thread ... can people who are atheist be moral. The answer is yes. AND so can people who are theists. The flip is also true. Atheists can be immoral. I gave lots of links to that when someone here tried to claim Atheist morality was better than Theist morality. It's not.

Theists try to convert people to believing in God because they think they are doing something good for that person. Atheists try to convert people to be atheist because they think they are doing something good for that person. Both groups usually mean well but they can get a little arrogant.

I don't know if you read my long reply earlier but it's still true the burden of proof is on those who claim God exists and try to debate why they believe in him. All you have to do is to examine the evidence and there isn't even a single sign there is a God.

I replied earlier that nobody has disproven God the same nobody has disproven pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. They could exist but no evidence is available and just as God they seem to be figments of imagination of people. Without humans it's certain these entities will cease to exist.

There is no place for fictional creators in the 21st century (referring to the Abrahamic God. But given there is no evidence for God then we can generalise we don't need God in our century even if he existed.

Atheists don't believe in God because there is not a shred of evidence for his existence. You can't ask them to disprove God but you can ask the believers where is the evidence for his existence.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
The Abrahamic God has been debunked long time ago and is a figment of the imagination of the people who created him in the first place. You may want to read the books by Dawkins who describes him as a megalomaniac and very unpleasant character.

Disagree. And no thanks. I like my relationship with God just fine.
I'd rather read about things like this - The Saints Who Saw Mary
Seems much more productive to me.
Enjoy your atheism. I would think it would be depressing ... but whatever.

You may want to disagree but we all know the Bible refers to imaginary characters and events. No exodus, no flood, not even Jesus and his miracles (including resurrection).

There is nothing depressing in not believing fictional and imaginary supernatural entities.

Most people believe in God because of the fear of death and the fear of the unknown. But mostly because they know they will die in the future.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
There is no place for fictional creators in the 21st century (referring to the Abrahamic God. But given there is no evidence for God then we can generalise we don't need God in our century even if he existed.

Again ... you haven't disproven God so his place in the 21st century is just fine.
He can't be proven. He can't be disproven.
And if God exists or not is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Can atheists be moral?
The answer is yes.
Can atheists be immoral?
The answer is yes.
Same goes for theists - both moral and immoral.

The team cheerleading in this thread is ridiculous.
Atheists aren't more moral than theists and theists aren't more moral than atheists.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
It depends on how the mass of feathers was distributed.

That is why I said loose feathers.

And that was the point all along, without specifying details it is just assumed that heavier means density.

Steel is denser than water but if we say a functional steel boat then we know it won't sink. But if someone just says "steel is heavier than water" then we know they are referring to density.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
There is no place for fictional creators in the 21st century (referring to the Abrahamic God. But given there is no evidence for God then we can generalise we don't need God in our century even if he existed.

Again ... you haven't disproven God so his place in the 21st century is just fine.
He can't be proven. He can't be disproven.
And if God exists or not is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Can atheists be moral?
The answer is yes.
Can atheists be immoral?
The answer is yes.
Same goes for theists - both moral and immoral.

The team cheerleading in this thread is ridiculous.
Atheists aren't more moral than theists and theists aren't more moral than atheists.

I am not of the view atheists have better morals but I have argued (and most people agree) that you don't have to believe in God and the supernatural world so to have morals.

I don't need to disprove God just like I don't need to disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. There is zero evidence for both of these entities and the same is true for creationism.

There is no place for fictional characters in the lives of modern people who are rational and have knowledge and understanding of that people didn't have thousands of years ago.

It's erroneous to postulate God cannot be disproven. More of a logical fallacy I would say and you have to ask yourself why people who claim there is a God cannot find any evidence to support their views.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Phantom42338
It depends on how the mass of feathers was distributed.

That is why I said loose feathers.

And that was the point all along, without specifying details it is just assumed that heavier means density.

Steel is denser than water but if we say a functional steel boat then we know it won't sink. But if someone just says "steel is heavier than water" then we know they are referring to density.

I'm not sure what your argument is. I posted the metrics for density and weight. That's what differentiates the two. Cooperton posted textbook definitions. Physics requires clear definitions of measurements. How people use the terms in general can certainly confuse the issue. But 1 kg will always be 1 kg no matter where it is in the universe although its weight may vary due to gravitation. That's what I tried to explain in my post.

a reply to: Phantom42338
The beef started with you using heavier when you meant denser, here.

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.

Then they posted what they thought was a gotcha

Let me teach you something, it isn't because saline is heavier than crude oil that makes it sink, it's because it is denser than crude oil. You making such a novice mistake proves to me you aren't a scientist.

We have been arguing that the terms are interchangeable, depending on context.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
There is no place for fictional creators in the 21st century (referring to the Abrahamic God. But given there is no evidence for God then we can generalise we don't need God in our century even if he existed.

Again ... you haven't disproven God so his place in the 21st century is just fine.
He can't be proven. He can't be disproven.
And if God exists or not is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Can atheists be moral?
The answer is yes.
Can atheists be immoral?
The answer is yes.
Same goes for theists - both moral and immoral.

The team cheerleading in this thread is ridiculous.
Atheists aren't more moral than theists and theists aren't more moral than atheists.

We agree on the concept of morality and people can be moral or immoral with or without a religion.

I can't agree on the religious parts and faith. I forgot to answer part of your original post on a comment you made showing how religious people may or many not accept the big bang and evolution. You said many Christians accept these concepts but that doesn't change the dogma and the way religion describes how the universe was created.

It shows that religious people and religion can adapt and you even mentioned there can be no problem with the big bang or evolution because it was God who initiated the conditions. I can assure you that so far all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes as I said to cooperton many times. There is not a single one having supernatural causes.

I think you make things even more complicated by adding God into the equation and asserting it could be the cause of the big bang. Because this is an entity for which there is no evidence for its existence, no evidence he had a son who came to Earth to save humanity and was crucified-then resurrected and no evidence is the cause of the beginning of our universe.

From what I remember you try to detach the old testament from the current beliefs of Christians but the old testament is an integral part of the Christian tradition and faith and the basis for all three abrahamic religions. You cannot have a sanitized version of christianity.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
I think you make things even more complicated by adding God into the equation and asserting it could be the cause of the big bang.

What makes it even worse for me is that it has to be that one particular "God", in that one particular storyline.

Cooperton in some other thread started using the term "apex creator", trying to make it seem like a generic term that all religions might be alluding to, and I called them out and they just snapped right back with (paraphrasing) no I mean Jesus, I have never tried to hide that.

Straight up bible thumper.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You're missing the point and- like several people in this thread- are creating a false equivalency between atheism and theism. You cannot attribute anything to atheism alone, atheism is a simple lack of belief- and that's it, that's where the idea/concept of atheism ends. There are no doctrines, interpretations or laws or anything that could possibly inspire anyone to do anything from atheism alone, including murder. If someone specifically opposes theism, they are in fact anti-theists and atheism alone cannot inspire anti-theism. Anti-theism is a fully fledged philosophical position that theism should be opposed, it's not at all the same thing as a simple absence of belief. The fact is that people in this thread clearly do not understand the simplicity of atheism and want to make false comparisons to theism. Everything that can be logically attributed to theism cannot also be attributed to a much more basic/simple concept such as atheism, it's not possible. For instance, even if you literally believe in the god of your chosen theology- you are technically still 99% an atheist because you do not believe all other gods from all other theologies literally exist. It is a simple, inherent characteristic that all people share.


You reaffirmed a lot of the things that I stated earlier in the thread, that people are born with their moral senses intact and belief in a god certainly doesn't stop people from raping or murdering. It makes perfect sense that we would have instincts to behave cohesively since it is a huge part of our success as a species- how would innate hostility or greed be beneficial to the progress of the species? So you have this theology which takes basic morality and infuses it with extreme ego-centrism, to make people feel special and distract them from the fact that they are enslaving others or enslaved themselves.


The OP claims that atheism some how causes all subjective morality to be necessarily true and causes modal collapse in the context of morality. However even a simple analysis of that argument shows that the opposite is true- you need a more complex and fallible concept like distinct philosophies or theology to attribute something like modal collapse to it. Humans are atheist by default with a tendency to personify all things in the natural world (animism). There is just not enough of a concept or idea with atheism to be attributing it as a motivator for people like Stalin or Zedong. Especially in the case of Stalin and Hitler- christianity very obviously affected them more than simple atheism ever could, and they used orthodox concepts they had learned from the catholics. The number 1 thing that motivated Stalin was the end of tsarist Russia, which was in bed with the Russian orthodox church. The tsars of the 19th century delegated authority to the oberprokurors, who held a cabinet rank in the government and were the real heads of the entire administration of the church. An infamous oberprokuror was Konstantin Pobedonostev, advisor and tutor to Alexander III and Nicholas II. Pobedonostev was extremely conservative in his reasoning and had influence in the policy-making the two tsars are known for. Progressives wanted change in the church while conservatives wanted things to stay as they were- the church prospered while the working class suffered.



You intentionally keep quoting me about atheists being morally superior without the original context that both people in my scenario have equal morality. The person who can self-govern and do the right thing without thoughts of punishment or reward is morally superior and it has nothing to do with a lack of belief, it is in fact a lack of entitlement and narcissism that makes them markedly more noble. Theism is directly linked to narcissism and I can reasonably attribute it to theology because guess what- theology is a fully fledged fallible ideology- unlike atheism.


2 major aspects of narcissists are a grandiose sense of self-importance and the belief that they are exceptional and unique and can only associate with other exceptional, unique individuals. The integrated segregation of 'believers' and 'non-believers' plus the idea of a 'personal relationship' with a deity are already more than enough to facilitate these 2 aspects of narcissism in troubled individuals. Religious leaders are perfect examples of how theism feeds the brain with narcissistic ideals. As a religious leader, a narcissist would have- followers, power, attention, admiration, importance in the community, special privileges and their behavior would be above everyone else's judgment because they have a 'stronger relationship with god' (like the stupid ass pope, for instance)- a narcissist's wet dream.


I can go on all day about how theism erodes social cohesion and basic morality- but you cannot do the same for atheism. Atheism alone is not motivation enough... for anything, really. It is a simple characteristic, like the default lack of belief in snow or space dragons- until there is a valid reason to think otherwise these simple characteristics simply go unnoticed. Countless people have existed who didn't even notice, not once in their life, that they happened to be an atheist- nobody is a theist without noticing because it's an entire ideology, with it's own doctrines and philosophies. You can pretend that people were killed in the name of atheism alone or some other such illogical scenario, it does not change the fact that theism directly affects morality and atheism does not.

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.

The difference is that someone can commit murder purely in the name of theism or anti-theism- the same can not be said for a simple absence of belief. If someone is going around doing those things it's impossible to attribute the motivation to a simple characteristic such as atheism, however I could easily see how a theist would commit atrocities under the pretext that they can later seek salvation and be forgiven- for instance. It's much easier for a theist to twist their world-views to justify hurting another person- especially an inferior 'non-believer'. The theists throughout the world have a very bloody and distinct history, atheism has been a part of *all* of Human history. It's impossible to know how many people lived their lives as atheists throughout history, atheism has no history as it is not any kind of tangible way to group people. Theism, conversely, can be traced in history. We can make approximations of how many christians/muslims/jews ever existed to a point of reasonable accuracy because none of those mono-theologies are inherent to human life- there is a distinct emergence of these ideologies. If Atheists had to collectively share a belief, it is that we need information and proof before we can warrant anything as true. The premise of this thread was always dead.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Venkuish1
I think you make things even more complicated by adding God into the equation and asserting it could be the cause of the big bang.

What makes it even worse for me is that it has to be that one particular "God", in that one particular storyline.

Cooperton in some other thread started using the term "apex creator", trying to make it seem like a generic term that all religions might be alluding to, and I called them out and they just snapped right back with (paraphrasing) no I mean Jesus, I have never tried to hide that.

Straight up bible thumper.

But we all know the God of the Old Testament is a fabrication and Jesus most likely never existed. In this thread you can see neither poster arguing that the Old Testament somehow doesn't represent modern Christians.

The creation as described in the Bible has nothing to do with the way the universe began. And it becomes quite funny when religion tries to fill the gaps in knowledge we have by asserting God. Then when the gaps are filled and we get to know what happens they move to the next gap and so on.

It has become apparent religion can only fill gaps in knowledge (asserting God) for a short period of time and is always acting retrospectively by adopting new scientific knowledge after new information comes to light as a result of scientific process.

Have you ever seen a discovery made by religion that later on backed up by scientific research? It's always the other way around with science making the discoveries and religion trying to adapt to the new information. The example given by the other poster shows precisely what I am saying. They have argued that the big bang shouldn't be a problem because God initiated the process! I argued that all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and not a single is attributed to a supernatural cause.

It’s laughable that you think one must believe in an imaginary sky wizard to have a moral compass.

“I’m not a slave to a god that doesn’t exist” ~Marylin Manson

a reply to: Venkuish1
i ain't disagreeing with you. I'm just indicating a time when Coop tried to be slick, pretending they ain't a bible thumper and then blam, they went right back to what they were always doing, bible thumping.

Sad really, that they can't figure out why they do this, when it is so obvious to the rest of us.

originally posted by: daskakik
What makes it even worse for me is that it has to be that one particular "God", in that one particular storyline.

Cooperton in some other thread started using the term "apex creator", trying to make it seem like a generic term that all religions might be alluding to, and I called them out and they just snapped right back with (paraphrasing) no I mean Jesus, I have never tried to hide that.

Straight up bible thumper.

You don't know what I believe. You assume a broadbrush belief system on me because it helps your spiteful narrative. I've said multiple times throughout threads that God can allow people to know him without a Bible or the historical knowledge of Jesus. I refer to Jesus and the Bible because that is the predominant religion of this thread. I would go into more of my Theology but you don't care. So let's leave it at that.

originally posted by: daskakik

We have been arguing that the terms are interchangeable, depending on context.

Lol I told you phantom herself would eventually disagree with you. Facts prevail.

You can always order one of these for $31,000 to run some experiments.



www.coleparmer.com... rnd_NTM_Search_DSA&utm_term=coleparmer&utm_content=All%20Webpages