Atheists Rise in Reason: which is what the commenter responded too

“Damien, like how dumb are you, least you know there is a God that’s a start.” – Challenger

My response, who knows a what a god claim really is as its all make believe. I mean come on, you don’t know a god anything as you only remember the myths don’t you or you make up your own that are no, better right? All I have ever hear are evidence lacking claims or misinterpreted nature claimed as being god or evidence of god but not one god claim ever is any truer than any others as they are all reality confused claims, yes most are quite dumb outright as not once has magic ever been proven, not even in small ways. So, claims of super magic gods are thus even more ridiculous claims to believe, right?

“Magic Gods. Oh the laughter…so the 10 commandments isn’t nothing to go by either right.” – Challenger

My response, I will give you my thoughts on the 10 commandments. 42 Principles Of God Maat 2000 Years Before Ten Commandments. Maat was an Egyptian Goddess. From Tour Egypt:

Ma’at, unlike Hathor and Nephthys, seemed to be more of a concept than an actual goddess. Her name, literally, meant ‘truth’ in Egyptian. She was truth, order, balance and justice personified. She was harmony, she was what was right, she was what things should be. It was thought that if Ma’at didn’t exist, the universe would become chaos, once again!

From Wikipedia: Maat or Ma’at was the ancient Egyptian concept of truth, balance, order, harmony, law, morality, and justice. Maat was also personified as a goddess regulating the stars, seasons, and the actions of both mortals and the deities, who set the order of the universe from chaos at the moment of creation. From the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the 42 Principles of Maat, commonly known as the “Negative Confessions.”

I have not committed sin.

I have not committed robbery with violence.

I have not stolen.

I have not slain men or women.

I have not stolen food.

I have not swindled offerings.

I have not stolen from God/Goddess.

I have not told lies.

I have not carried away food.

I have not cursed.

I have not closed my ears to truth.

I have not committed adultery.

I have not made anyone cry.

I have not felt sorrow without reason.

I have not assaulted anyone.

I am not deceitful.

I have not stolen anyone’s land.

I have not been an eavesdropper.

I have not falsely accused anyone.

I have not been angry without reason.

I have not seduced anyone’s wife.

I have not polluted myself.

I have not terrorized anyone.

I have not disobeyed the Law.

I have not been exclusively angry.

I have not cursed God/Goddess.

I have not behaved with violence.

I have not caused disruption of peace.

I have not acted hastily or without thought.

I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern.

I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.

I have not worked evil.

I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds.

I have not polluted the water.

I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly.

I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds.

I have not placed myself on a pedestal.

I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess.

I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased.

I have not taken food from a child.

I have not acted with insolence.

I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess

It should be pointed out that these are similar to the Biblical 10 Commandments. Biblical accounts say that Moses was an Egyptian, meaning that he grew up to worship Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. It’s likely that he was familiar with Maat and the 42 Principles. So, let’s sum up and recap the ten commandments for those of you who may have missed church last Sunday, like I always do… They, also known as the ritual decalogue, are a set of biblical principles relating to ethics and worship, which play a fundamental role in Judaism and Christianity.

The 10 Commandments List, Short Form:

  1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
  2. You shall not make idols.
  3. You shall not take the name of the lord your god in vain.
  4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
  5. Honor your father and your mother.
  6. You shall not murder.
  7. You shall not commit adultery.
  8. You shall not steal.
  9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  10. You shall not covet.

Ten Commandments and the Hittite treaties

There is an important distinction between the Decalogue and the “book of the covenant” (Exodus 21-23 and 34:10–24). The decalogue, it can be hypothesized was modeled on the suzerainty treaties of the Hittites (and other Mesopotamian Empires), that is, represents the relationship between god and Israel as a relationship between king and vassal, and enacts that bond. “The prologue of the Hittite treaty reminds his vassals of his benevolent acts (compare with Exodus 20:2 “I am the lord your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”) The Hittite treaty also stipulated the obligations imposed by the ruler on his vassals, which included a prohibition of relations with peoples outside the empire, or enmity between those within.” (Exodus 20:3 “you shall have no other gods before me.”) Viewed as a treaty rather than a law code, its purpose is not so much to regulate human affairs as to define the scope of the king’s power. Thus Exodus 34 is distinct from the Jahwist document, identifying it with king Asa’s reforms around 2,913 years ago. The book of the covenant, bears a greater similarity to Mesopotamian law codes (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi which was inscribed on a stone stele). So the function of this “book” is to move from the realm of treaty to the realm of law: (Exodus 21 to 23; and 34), which is no official state law, but a description of normative Israelite judicial procedure in the days of the Judges, is the best example of this process” then, this body of law too predates the monarchy. The phrasing in the decalogue`s instructions suggests that it was conceived in a mainly polytheistic milieu, evident especially in the formulation of “no-other-gods-before-me” commandment. If the ten commandments are based on Hittite forms that would date it somewhere between the 2,140-2,120 years ago.

The ten commandments believed to be written by god, the first thing that comes to mind is why is god so bad at writing things on stone. Why did he use two large stone tablets? When he, if god, more reasonably could have done it on one small manageable tablet. You would only think a stone craftsman of that time would need two large stone tablets to engrave on with crude tools stolen from Egypt, right? Not a god!!! The second rational thought is, if this “ten commandments” was to be taken serious as a rule of law, why is it not organized with some resemblance to rational forethought such as murder before honoring your father and mother, right? So then onto the “first commandment,” two things come to mind. How god acknowledges the existence of other gods, he did not simply state there is no god but to stop worshiping other gods. As well the wording seems to imply you don’t have to remove other gods, you are just to put yahweh the god of Moses first. Believers cannot simply say I am interpreting it wrong. Because would not that say god did not know how to communicate or did not mean what he said the way he said it. So now to the” second commandment,” then the part about graven images is not really that simple as one verse as often reported. It could literally be any ART. People act as if it is just no god idols which it is not! Then, if jealousy is a sin, why is god allowed to sin and be jealous? Those who practice jealousy will not inherit the kingdom of god; Galatians 5:20-21. Then god’s sinful jealousy is likewise unjust by punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the fourth generation. But hey, if you get to make the rules, you at least get to break them, right? Exodus 20:4 you shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. Exodus 20:5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the lord your god, am a jealous god, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. So, to recap, the ten commandments are the rules of conduct given by Yahweh to Moses in Exodus 20:1-17, prescribing worship of Yahweh and honor for parents while prohibiting killing, adultery, theft, false witness, and covetousness. Of the ten commandments, the first four indicate an insecure god afraid of losing his authority. Only three commandments 6,8,9 can be related to sensible legal prohibitions (against murder, theft, and perjury/fraud). The remaining three commandments 5,7,10 in a rational secular America would only be seen as good advice. ref

“Wow biblically smart u seem but id rather believe with all my ❤ then to not to believe and doomed for hell.” – Challenger

My response, threats of Hell are Humanistically Wrong. Tell me again, that for the non-crime of disbelief will head me to the abyss. A plague of darkness you say none who lack belief can miss. And yet you wish to say this threatened evil dead, is the purported behavior of a loving god, what did you miss? For, it is injustice, so for anyone to be so ethically confused, sadly something humanistically wrong must be amidst. The claim of hell is ridiculous and immoral, not just false. Just think with ethics and empathy if you are a father with a child it is also your direct responsibility to care and be responsible for that child and there is nothing you should put your child to death for, especially the non-crime of not believing in a parent’s love nor rejecting the parent, either would you? Likewise, you would not think it right to torture them forever, either would you? And furthermore, to do so would be ridiculous and immoral. Whereas it is claimed a god will put you in hell (kill you forever) for the non-crime of not believing in or rejecting the god would be ridiculous and immoral. So, to me a god would have to be ethical or that claimed god is a moral monster not an ethical being at all. Thus, to me it is a preposterous Idea of any moral Deity would create Hell. No, I don’t believe in goddess(es) or god(s). I cannot believe in the possibility of any deity and definitely not the even more preposterous idea of a psychopathic deity that would create hell with an eternity of torture. Any being so malevolent would not play with the nonsense of staying so invisible to the extreme that there is not even the slightest bit of evidence of any kind that such a being exists. If this deity is so all-powerful and malevolent who wants to create a mass amount of fear and terror which could be done immediately by proving it exist in the real external world, by not proving or even allowing some evidence for the possibility of it to be true then it has to be false. Moreover, many say this all-invisible god is all benevolent, but if so, why would such a god create a psychopathic deity’s hell with its eternity of torture. By doing so, it would no longer be a benevolent god. In addition, if god were all-benevolent, it would not stay so invisible to the extreme that there is not even the slightest bit of evidence of any kind that such a being exists. If this deity is so all-powerful and benevolent who wants to create a mass amount of hope and peace which could be done immediately by proving it exist in the real external world, by not proving or even allowing some evidence for the possibility of it to be true then it has to be false. Then some may say god plays the biggest game of hide and seek by staying invisible to evidence in every way because god wants belief without evidence. However, what about the proposed evidence in holy books? Are they not a reference of when gods (always so long ago) supposedly provided evidence you are not to believe even if it is disproved by science or archaeology evidence? In addition, what about gods reported enemy the devil, why does the devil also stay so invisible to such an extreme that there is not even the slightest bit of evidence of any kind such a being exists in an external world reality. Well my simple answer is because both gods and devils are myths that are not worthy of justified true belief and actually, not reasonable for any belief at all when one accepts the reality of the external world as in supernatural free. Lastly, any god that threatens with the human horror of injustice that would be hell cannot be also called a god of love, because a just loving god would not torture anyone for eternity, especially people not guilty of grievously harming others. Then “hell god” supports say, but god does not torture you for eternity, it is you, who puts yourself there by your own choices, “aka” people’s own free will. For a true ethically minded individual “hell god” as a “loving god” is absurd. A loving god would appreciate our reason, skepticism, and freethought. A true “loving god” would totally get that faith devoid of evidence and contrary to evidence is not only not enough it’s rationally repugnant.

“So we die that’s it huh? Wow. I sometimes wonder if i was. God why did he make earth and a chance we might go to hell why didn’t he just make Heaven in the beginning. Just humble your self you can’t have a answer for everything…js but yeah u have free will. u just need something to believe in…😃 smile.” – Challenger

My response, yep “Dead is Dead” no ghosts, spirits or souls…Like science shows us. No ghosts are not possible, as at no time did magic get added to our natural evolution. However, ghost believers say but it’s not magic, its reality, it’s a scientific fact that once energy is created, it can never cease to exist, it just changes form. Nevertheless, they are in error, they seem to be confusing two things, as energy is mindless not aware of what it was in a previous form. Science is against ghosts and souls and stating that energy can go on is a non sequitur to infer that proves ghosts is like saying that because we were once star stuff we turn back into stars. Ghost believers will most likely keep believing and close in on the belief while also closing out the reason and evidence debunking the belief in ghosts. They can believe as they wish and no amount of that belief makes a thing such as ghosts true. Let’s address the thinking that if energy cannot be created or destroyed but only change form, what happens to our body’s energy when we die, why not ghosts

According to Benjamin Radford, a Live Science Contributor, it may seem like a reasonable assumption — unless you understand basic physics. The answer is very simple, and not at all mysterious. After a person dies, the energy in his or her body goes where all organisms’ energy goes after death: into the environment. The energy is released in the form of heat, and transferred into the animals that eat us (i.e., wild animals if we are left unburied, or worms and bacteria if we are interred), and the plants that absorb us. There is no bodily “energy” that survives death to be detected or seen. So are ghosts real? Science says NO. Ref

You still believe in ghosts because you think you have seen or felt them? Well think again it’s all just in your head.

Scientists Created “Ghosts” in the Lab: This sensation is commonly reported in people with certain neurological or psychiatric disorders, or those exposed to extreme conditions. In 1970, mountaineer Reinhold Messner reported seeing a “phantom” climber descending the slopes of a particularly extreme summit alongside him. This also happens in people who have recently experienced another extreme condition: the loss of a spouse. In most cases, the sufferer reports the very real sensation of an unseen presence. This is the stuff of which ghost stories are made, but researchers say they know why this feeling occurs, and they’ve even recreated it in the lab. Ref

“Where hell we come from?” – Challenger

Well, you likely came from your mother I would guess. Lol Are you asking me about evolution?

“Yeap and posts a sarcastic picture with sponge bob square pants.” – Challenger

The ever-changing world we now live shows its evolution because of Plate tectonics forming breaking up and reforming land masses on this planet. The Earth’s earliest supercontinent was Vaalbara and it was formed around 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago. Then 3 billion years ago Ur assembled and is the smallest of supercontinents. Then 2.7 billion years ago the third supercontinent Kenorland was assembled and was responsible for one of the planet’s greatest climate disasters essentially it also allowed for life as we know it to exist. Then around 1.8 to 1.9 billion years ago the supercontinent Columbia, also known as Nuna was assembled. Then around 1.3–0.9 billion years ago the supercontinent Rodinia was assembled. Then around 650 to 600 million years ago the supercontinent Pannotia, also known as Vendian was assembled. Then around 300 million years ago the supercontinent Pangaea or Pangea was assembled.

Creationism is a Debunked Religious Conspiracy Theory

Creationism is a debunked religious conspiracy theory, just like its wolf in sheep’s clothing cousin, intelligent destine. The theory of evolution originated with Charles Darwin but left hypothesis, when it was supported by study of DNA combined with physical evidence. Creationism debunking examples which support the Theory of Evolution are a universality in the worlds genetic code along with cross species genetic commonalities. While it is scientifically understandable to grasp that we share DNA with great apes including orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos; which can share up to approximately 98% of human DNA but it does not end there by a long shot. Humans also share DNA with other animals, as we all evolved together in a since or more accurately share common evolutionary ancestors. You may be amazed to learn mice seemingly so different then us can share up to approximately 90% of human DNA, dogs can share up to approximately 80% of human DNA but then all mammals have a DNA similarity; in fact, we share DNA genes with plants and with every other living organism. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended; because of DNA evidence that appears to be shared by all life on Earth. Then there is the other very strong proof of the fossil record, from the simplest fossils in the oldest rocks to the vast amount of skeletal remains all accumulatively supporting evolution again and again. Therefore, evidence supporting evolution presented must be added with so many other things that could not just fill a book on its own, like common traits in embryos, extra. The terrain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is so vast it is less like a mountain of evidence, than a mountain range of evidence from multiple areas of science creating a unified whole. Moreover, there is simply so much more valid and reliable reason and evidence confirming the theory of evolution that to reject evolution, is paramount to one accepting that they can be view as a discredited unscientific magical conspiracy theorist. Ref:

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is evidence of evolution, so to those questioning, yes we can see and measure evolution. We’ve quantifiably measured multiple speciation occurrences. The 3 spined stickleback fish are a good example. The three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is a fish native to most inland coastal waters north of 30°N. It has long been a subject of scientific study for many reasons. It shows great morphological variation throughout its range, ideal for questions about evolution and population genetics. Most populations are anadromous (they live in seawater but breed in fresh or brackish water) and very tolerant of changes in salinity, a subject of interest to physiologists. It displays elaborate breeding behavior (defending a territory, building a nest, taking care of the eggs and fry) and it can be social (living in shoals outside the breeding season) making it a popular subject of enquiry in fish ethology and behavioral ecology. Its antipredator adaptations, host-parasite interactions, sensory physiology, reproductive physiology, and endocrinology have also been much studied. Facilitating these studies is the fact that the three-spined stickleback is easy to find in nature and easy to keep in aquaria. Ref:


Super-fast evolving fish splitting into two species in same lake?

Some thought it was impossible. But a population of stickleback fish that breed in the same streams is splitting into two separate species before our eyes, and at rapid speeds. Three-spine sticklebacks were introduced to Lake Constance in Switzerland around 150 years ago – a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. But since then, the fish have begun splitting into two separate types: one that lives in the main lake, and another that lives in the streams that flow into it. The main lake dwellers are bigger, with longer spines and tougher armour. In theory, these differences could be due to lifestyle rather than evolution – perhaps lake fish survive longer and grow larger.  But David Marques of the University of Bern and colleagues have found that there are already clear genetic differences between the two types. “We could be glimpsing the beginnings of two species,” he says. What makes this finding extraordinary is that both types of fish breed in the same streams at the same time of year. They have been interbreeding all along, and still do, yet they are splitting into two genetically and physically different types.

Splitting apart?

This kind of speciation, known as sympatry, was once thought to be extremely unlikely, says Chris Bird of Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, who studies how organisms are evolving by analysing their genomes. The conventional view is that speciation almost always requires two populations to be physically separated to prevent interbreeding, for example, living on different sides of a mountain, or on different islands in an archipelago. This is because when animals mate, a process called recombination mixes up gene variants, meaning the genes of a mother and a father will be shuffled together in future generations. As long as interbreeding continues, it’s unlikely that two groups with distinctly different genetic traits will arise. But Marques’ team found that the genetic differences between the two fish types are concentrated on the parts of chromosomes that are less likely to undergo recombination. As a result, the sets of gene variants that give the two types their distinct characteristics are less likely to get split up.

Rapid change?

We cannot know for sure that the Lake Constance sticklebacks will continue evolving until they become two non-interbreeding species, says Marques. But evidence for sympatric speciation is growing, from mole rats in Israel to palms on Lord Howe Island, Australia, leading some evolutionary biologists, including Bird, to think it could be surprisingly common. There is another case where sympatric speciation seems to be occurring nearly as fast as in the sticklebacks, Bird points out: apple maggots evolved from hawthorn maggots within two centuries of apples being introduced to North America. As for the speed of the sticklebacks’ separation, there are now innumerable other examples of recent evolution that show how fast it can happen, from cancers becoming resistant to drugs and bedbugs becoming resistant to pesticides, to fish getting smaller to avoid becoming our dinner. It’s possible that such rapid evolution may even be the norm, rather than the exception. Journal reference: PLOS Genetics, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005887


Moreover, we have proof of human evolution in how the HSV-1 herpes virus is the result of ancient codivergence and HSV-2 arose from a cross-species transmission event from the ancestor of modern chimpanzees to an extinct Homo precursor of modern humans, around 1.6 Ma.

Why do I reject gods and religions, is because I perfect what is true? Religions my friend, like their little god myths, are on the whole little more than Conspiracy Theories of “reality.”

Axiological Morality Critique of Pseudo-Morality/Pseudomorality?

To me, “Pseudo Morality” is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral in to something highly moral.

One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudomorality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral.
The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudomorality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well.
They all are using “pseudomoral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral.
True morality is not as simple as the golden rule…
True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves.
Which is why I do not agree with the so called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others.
I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom and equality.
True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated.
Real Morality is referring to “ethics” we use in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal.
One can chouse to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/socal valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to).
I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools understanding motivation and behavior such as biopsychosocial model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, kohlberg’s moral development theory and formal axiology interactions across multiple levels.
Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world).
I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals and ethics) or a main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals and ethics.
Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioral persuasion. Values are the internal catlist often motivating our thinking and behaviors.
Such as, a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you to not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness.
Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics.
Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal ethics standards (public morality) and not our moral proclivities that are not universal on others, as morals are for us (personal morality).
Axiology: Two Worlds in Three Dimensions of Value