Can Atheists be Moral?

[Grumblenuts]

to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?

Well, isn’t that convenient.

Historically true as well since Christianity apparently began with three travelling "wise men" or "magi" {hucksters} "bearing" magical magnet fragments from a fallen "star" [meteor], wowing people along the way by demonstrating their properties with intertwined fantastic fables and pagan wisdom. Happen upon some poor woman having a baby in a manger and the rest is recorded history, ahem, fantasy. Perhaps literally the first snake oil salesmen.

Except magnets are of actual practical use beyond a placebo effect. But I digress, LOL!

 

[ding]

to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?

Well, isn’t that convenient.

Historically true as well since Christianity apparently began with three travelling "wise men" or "magi" {hucksters} "bearing" magical magnet fragments from a fallen "star" [meteor], wowing people along the way by demonstrating their properties with intertwined fantastic fables and pagan wisdom. Happen upon some poor woman having a baby in a manger and the rest is recorded history, ahem, fantasy. Perhaps literally the first snake oil salesmen.

Except magnets are of actual practical use beyond a placebo effect. But I digress, LOL!

Critical theory at its finest.

 

[ding]

JC on a cracker,.. I don't believe any religionist, faith based nonsense!

Do you believe that all behaviors have equal outcomes?

Or do you believe that some behaviors naturally lead to success and some behaviors naturally lead to failure.

If you believe the latter, then you do believe in faith based nonsense.

 

[Grumblenuts]

JC on a cracker,.. I don't believe any religionist, faith based nonsense!

Do you believe that all behaviors have equal outcomes?

Or do you believe that some behaviors naturally lead to success and some behaviors naturally lead to failure.

If you believe the latter, then you do believe in faith based nonsense.

I believe you're highly irrational and incoherent. Here's an idea, when you want to say something, just say it!

Example, instead of the weird dichotomy constructed above, reach down, grab your balls, and try:
I believe {something or other having to do with "outcomes"} because {something or other}.
Boom, done. Honest and straightforward, albeit likely still weird. At least you'd be saying something.

What's are "outcomes"?
Why do you associate them only with "behavior"?
Are people required or can groundhogs apply?
What is "success" or "failure"?
Why do you care?
Why should I care?

 

[james bond]

Ahhh, so I order to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?

Nope. See, it's not that hard to answer another poster's question.

 

[Grumblenuts]

See, it's not that hard to answer another poster's question.

See, don't suggest it's hard. Problem solved. Next..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do

Of course you do. You just use different descriptions for it than the word "magic", because you think your magical fetish is special.

You absolutely do require God to perform magic for you before you will believe.

100%, ass backwards wrong. One could never provide evidence of magic, inherently. But you keep deluding yourself, despite being corrected...it is your top skill, after all....

 

[Hollie]

Ahhh, so I order to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?

Nope. See, it's not that hard to answer another poster's question.

If it's not so hard, why do you avoid doing so?

It's just so convenient that you sidestep and evade when you're tasked with actually addressing your specious claims.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Critical theory at its finest.

Try learning something instead of just flapping your gums:

Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences.

In other words, it does not logically apply to anything beyond the realm of philosophy or the social sciences. Unlike belief in jeebus, evolution is deduced from scientific study of hard, physical evidence.

Subjective’ and ‘Objective’ sound very similar, but in fact they mean two very different things. ‘Subjective’ refers to information that is based on personal opinions, and ‘Objective’ refers to information that is based on factual evidence. They’re essentially descriptors for information or writing that help you decide whether they’re worthwhile sources.

Critical thinking is abstract, but forced into one sentence:

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.

Unlike jeebus theory,

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

 

[james bond]

Unlike jeebus theory,

It's the Jesus theory and that is the correct and true answer. There is only one truth, the creationists here have provided the evidence, and science backs up the Bible.

I can't help it if the atheists here can't answer simple questions, nor have normal reading comprehension, and are delusional about their "faith-based" beliefs. Like, at least one of the posters keep mentioning, they believe in magic.

Do they have morals? Probably not, but I'm not the one to judge unless I am a juror on one of the trials they were arrested for.

 

[james bond]

What about Carl Sagan? He was a skeptic.

My take.

 

[Hollie]

P

Unlike jeebus theory,

It's the Jesus theory and that is the correct and true answer. There is only one truth, the creationists here have provided the evidence, and science backs up the Bible.

I can't help it if the atheists here can't answer simple questions, nor have normal reading comprehension, and are delusional about their "faith-based" beliefs. Like, at least one of the posters keep mentioning, they believe in magic.

Do they have morals? Probably not, but I'm not the one to judge unless I am a juror on one of the trials they were arrested for.

No. Science does not back up the bibles. Naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

The development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables. ID'iot creationism has no plausible means to investigate its claims of supernatural creation. ID'iot Creationism doesn't even present a tentative hypothesis or a beginning of a framework to explain how magic and supernaturalism answers anything. So what useful role can "it happened by supernatural means" have in advancement of knowledge?

Arguments for ID'iot creationism only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

 

[ding]

JC on a cracker,.. I don't believe any religionist, faith based nonsense!

Do you believe that all behaviors have equal outcomes?

Or do you believe that some behaviors naturally lead to success and some behaviors naturally lead to failure.

If you believe the latter, then you do believe in faith based nonsense.

I believe you're highly irrational and incoherent. Here's an idea, when you want to say something, just say it!

Example, instead of the weird dichotomy constructed above, reach down, grab your balls, and try:
I believe {something or other having to do with "outcomes"} because {something or other}.
Boom, done. Honest and straightforward, albeit likely still weird. At least you'd be saying something.

What's are "outcomes"?
Why do you associate them only with "behavior"?
Are people required or can groundhogs apply?
What is "success" or "failure"?
Why do you care?
Why should I care?

I believe you are playing games.

We live in a logical universe where every effect has a cause. So it should not be a surprise that how we behave has consequences; both positive and negative. In fact, the basis for motivational based interviewing, which most Fortune 500 companies use to decide who to hire or not to hire, are successful and failed behaviors.

You can pretend to not understand what I am explaining to you but we both know you are just playing games. You ought to be able to use your own experiences as a guide.

 

[ding]

In life how we behave is important. If you believe this then you believe in faith based nonsense.

 

[ding]

If you believe that two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people, then you believe in faith based nonsense.

If you have to ask what does a better relationship mean or what does honest and dishonest mean, then you are most likely a dishonest person who knows he has lost the argument and needs to resort to playing games.

 

[ding]

Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do

Of course you do. You just use different descriptions for it than the word "magic", because you think your magical fetish is special.

You absolutely do require God to perform magic for you before you will believe.

100%, ass backwards wrong. One could never provide evidence of magic, inherently. But you keep deluding yourself, despite being corrected...it is your top skill, after all....

Let’s test this.

What evidence would you accept for the existence of God?

 

[ding]

Critical theory at its finest.

Try learning something instead of just flapping your gums:

Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences.

In other words, it does not logically apply to anything beyond the realm of philosophy or the social sciences. Unlike belief in jeebus, evolution is deduced from scientific study of hard, physical evidence.

Subjective’ and ‘Objective’ sound very similar, but in fact they mean two very different things. ‘Subjective’ refers to information that is based on personal opinions, and ‘Objective’ refers to information that is based on factual evidence. They’re essentially descriptors for information or writing that help you decide whether they’re worthwhile sources.

Critical thinking is abstract, but forced into one sentence:

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.

Unlike jeebus theory,

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice of criticizing what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. You confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something you don't seem capable of doing.

Critical theory is not logical at all. Critical theory has no valid application except to inflame. Which is why you practice it.

God loves science. He created it. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales and magic that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Now it's your turn to tell me why you don't believe God exists?

 

[ding]

Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do

Of course you do. You just use different descriptions for it than the word "magic", because you think your magical fetish is special.

You absolutely do require God to perform magic for you before you will believe.

100%, ass backwards wrong. One could never provide evidence of magic, inherently. But you keep deluding yourself, despite being corrected...it is your top skill, after all....

Have you considered that it only seems like magic to you because you can't comprehend what exists outside of space and time?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do

Of course you do. You just use different descriptions for it than the word "magic", because you think your magical fetish is special.

You absolutely do require God to perform magic for you before you will believe.

100%, ass backwards wrong. One could never provide evidence of magic, inherently. But you keep deluding yourself, despite being corrected...it is your top skill, after all....

Let’s test this.

What evidence would you accept for the existence of God?

Hmm...seeing him create a planet and then, explaining to me how he did it. Then, doing it again, while I watched. A small request. That would be fairly persuasive. But still, I woild suspect I was hallucinating or delusional (a foreign concept to you, no doubt). So he would then have to do it again for me and a panel of scientists, at least 10 or 20 more times.

But that still wouldn't mean I would worship him or even like him. If the nasty rag that is the bible is to be believed, he has a lot of explaining to do before i even think about not considering him to be a vile, nasty little god.

 

[ding]

Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do

Of course you do. You just use different descriptions for it than the word "magic", because you think your magical fetish is special.

You absolutely do require God to perform magic for you before you will believe.

100%, ass backwards wrong. One could never provide evidence of magic, inherently. But you keep deluding yourself, despite being corrected...it is your top skill, after all....

Let’s test this.

What evidence would you accept for the existence of God?

Hmm...seeing him create a planet and then, explaining to me how he did it. Then, doing it again, while I watched. A small request. That would be fairly persuasive. But still, I woild suspect I was hallucinating or delusional (a foreign concept to you, no doubt). So he would then have to do it again for me and a panel of scientists, at least 10 or 20 more times.

But that still wouldn't mean I would worship him or even like him. If the nasty rag that is the bible is to be believed, he has a lot of explaining to do before i even think about not considering him to be a vile, nasty little god.

He's already done that. He created existence. Everything which unfolded since the beginning of space and time were according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time. The creation of planets was just one part of that creation.

It seems to me that you are rather judgemental. That alone would not be so bad but you are making a judgement without knowing him. Most of your opinions are built upon faulty interpretations which were never placed in the proper context because you suffer from bias.