Jump to content


Photo

God's moral code


  • Please log in to reply
504 replies to this topic

#21 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 10 August 2010 - 06:50 AM

Why is it unfair? Look, my moral code, though based on what I believe God commanded, is not an exact copy of the religious right. I believe in contraception but against abortion, I am pro euthanasia, etc. I have my own MORAL CODE. And yes, again, it is mostly based on my THEIST beliefs.

The thing is, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. What are your beliefs? Aside from God does not exist that is. TO what ends is your atheism? I mean, these are things you should really think about. If God does not exist does "goodness" even matter?

Edited by skitz, 10 August 2010 - 06:51 AM.


#22 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 10 August 2010 - 01:02 PM

Why is it unfair? Look, my moral code, though based on what I believe God commanded, is not an exact copy of the religious right. I believe in contraception but against abortion, I am pro euthanasia, etc. I have my own MORAL CODE. And yes, again, it is mostly based on my THEIST beliefs.

The thing is, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. What are your beliefs? Aside from God does not exist that is. TO what ends is your atheism? I mean, these are things you should really think about. If God does not exist does "goodness" even matter?

Your assumption is that the aforementioned moral codes and variants thereof (depending on place and time) come from a god. What if it really does come from the collective subconscious and is thus from man?

#23 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 10 August 2010 - 04:12 PM

^^ Well, the US constitution (after which the Philippine constitution was patterned) itself "implores the aid of God". So there is BASIS for claiming that that is Godly-inspired, or at least formulated by men who believed in God (and whose morals are influenced by God's moral code).

Yes, the atheists NEED to formulate their own moral code if they wish to totally reject the God notion. I am not saying that it should be any different from what theists claim to be God's moral code. What I am saying is, why should atheists follow a code based on NOTHING (since God, according to the atheists, does not exist).

Let me help you atheists out. DEMOCRACY is a purely man-made idea (that I think is a good idea). You will not find that in any holy scriptures. God never commanded to have free elections every six years or so. So there, that is one.

#24 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 10 August 2010 - 04:32 PM

Oh yeah, before I get too side-tracked. Either formulate your own moral codes or just admit that God's moral code still MATTERS.

#25 Niru

Niru

    Wanton

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philippines

Posted 10 August 2010 - 11:28 PM

"What is there to stop me (if I had the power to implement laws) to start killing off genetically mutated humans, at first. Then raise the bar, and start killing physically weak, below average IQ humans, etc.? Why is this wrong? Is this wrong? I tell you, if I am an atheist (which I am not), I would seriously follow this rule. STUPID people, fat people, short people, etc., should not be allowed to propagate their genes into the next generation."

this wrong...

human life will always go from perfect to imperfect...not the other way around like your stating here that the good ones will be left the bad ones exterminated...(fair that all of us should be, not the choosen) Not being an anti-religon here for they have been always a good influence and guidance but we cannot simply disregard what nature has taught us that whatever religion or race or status of life you represent humans will grow into an imperfect being. we may become a moral person in many ways, we may grow mature in life but its nothing but an illusion that evey religion now days claim that were heading to become perfect like God. From frustations to all the negative emotions we can experience that our religion only withold us from our most dangerous potential and thats were the killing and all the irregularities man can do comes.


on my opinoin this is nothing but a temporary solution, a mere hopeless and another publicity stunt of a politician just want to say that there really concern of this world...then ofcourse that politician would be either a theist or an atheist or none.

#26 Niru

Niru

    Wanton

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philippines

Posted 10 August 2010 - 11:32 PM

okay heres a hint... it still does matter, Gods Moral Code to an "INDIVIDUAL PERSON", and to claim that it does still matter to the majority well that would be like enforcing something you believe is right to others that dont belive its right...

okay-kokei!

Edited by Niru, 10 August 2010 - 11:33 PM.


#27 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 11 August 2010 - 06:59 PM

I am sorry Niru, I think you missed that I was being IRONIC with that post (you reacted to). That was a challenge for the atheists to debunk that contention without resorting to God's moral code (since atheists do not believe in God). As to imposing GOD's moral code on anyone, I am not doing that here. All that I am doing is ASKING ALL ATHIESTS to create then DEFEND your moral code sans GOD.

Edited by skitz, 11 August 2010 - 07:01 PM.


#28 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 11 August 2010 - 11:50 PM

Skitz, since the dawn of written history, every culture has morals, are you now trying to say that all were divinely inspired?

Could it possibly be that morals are indeed the development of the collective subconscious?

Your challenge is to INVENT a moral code. What makes you so certain that moral codes were handed down from an invisible being up there rather than being developed?


#29 Niru

Niru

    Wanton

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philippines

Posted 12 August 2010 - 03:05 AM

sorry too skitz, i over reacted ata...Nyehhhh!!!

anyway seriously speaking its really interesting to know the side of the atheist, they just simply dont beleive in God cause they dont need a God (anymore?)

its like growing up...since childhood we seek the company and support of our parents and time comes that we are able to walk and decide for our selves...its kinda like that. atheist doesnt beleive in God not because they demand a literal form or an evidence that support existence of God but simply the "need for support" is not the same as before...in time everything change for better or for worst.

anyway we really just cant blame them for what they are and what they believe cause in first place christians was the "condemned religion" too 2000 years ago. maybe in the future majority will end being atheist and here it comes a "new" anti-atheist religion/philosophy.

on the Atheist side.

they simply question this, why on earth did we have all the rules/guide (golden rule) and life here on earth still sucks??? they just question the "still" effectiveness of the church from all different sects and etc...i think they are not "nagmamarunong" what should be done or followed...unless im wrong that would be another story.

same as before speaking for myself.

#30 ksredna

ksredna

    Chaser

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 80 posts

Posted 14 August 2010 - 12:49 PM

Skitz, since the dawn of written history, every culture has morals, are you now trying to say that all were divinely inspired?

Could it possibly be that morals are indeed the development of the collective subconscious?

Your challenge is to INVENT a moral code. What makes you so certain that moral codes were handed down from an invisible being up there rather than being developed?


Written history is a very recent event in human evolution. Moral did not emerge with written history or culture. If they where necesary prerequisites, then we as a species would never have got as fra as having a written or any other history.

"Morality, then, is “firmly rooted in sentiment.” For those who feel that culture and religion contain the answers to moral questions, De Waal points out that organized religions are only a few thousand years old. There is no reason to think that human psychology has changed much since religions arose. The deeper point De Waal makes, repeatedly and effectively, is that the “building blocks of morality clearly predate humanity.” Even though moral rules tell us when and how to express our empathy, our capacity to be empathetic has “been in the works since time immemorial.” - http://dangerousinte...our-inner-ape/"

#31 vheRR

vheRR

    Atheist

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manila

Posted 14 August 2010 - 10:47 PM

The question is WHY? Why should I follow this moral code? What appears "logical" to you may not be logical to me -- a naturalist (not really, just for the sake of argument). Being a naturalist, I believe that the strong should destroy the weak. Improve the genetic pool. Not let the inferior genes of the retards and half-wits infect the next generation. I say k*ll (or at the very least, sterilize) everyone whose IQ falls below 100. This is more logical. It is NATURAL. This is SERVICE TO OUR SPECIES. (I believe the NAZIs actually implemented such a program in reality). I am NOT saying that atheists THINK THIS WAY. NO. NOT AT ALL. My point is, debunk that argument from your ATHEISTS standpoint. Why is that "code", immoral?

And oh, do not bother throwing the problem back at the theists. KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING IS BAD BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO.

So atheists, why is killing another human being bad? Is it bad even? How about stealing? How about cheating?



(1)

ANO nga ba ang PUMIPIGIL sa isang HAYOP na PATAYIN ang KANYANG ANAK?

Ano nga ba ang pumipigil sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na patayin ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?


ANO nga ba ang NAG-UUDYOK sa isang HAYOP na IPAGTANGGOL ang KANYANG ANAK?

Ano nga ba ang nag-uudyok sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na ipagtanggol ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?




(2)

MAKASARILING TAO 1: "AYAW KO na MANAKAWAN!"

MAKASARILING TAO 2: "AKO rin. AYAW KO rin na MANAKAWAN!"

MAKASARILING TAO 3: "Lalo na AKO. SINO bang MAY GUSTO na MANAKAWAN?!"


NAG-USAP ang 3 at NAGKASUNDO:

"BAWAL ang MAGNAKAW!"

"MASAMA ang MAGNAKAW!"


(Pero siyempre, MASAMA at BAWAL kapag IKAW ang NINANAKAWAN…

… ngunit kung IKAW na ang NAGNANAKAW, NAG-IIBA ang USAPAN. :lol:)


#32 ksredna

ksredna

    Chaser

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 80 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 05:48 PM

The people who claim that moral can only come from god has a problem if they use the Bible or the Koran as the source from which we should get our moral.

Assuming that humans does not have ability on their own to see the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

Then humans would not be able to tell if the moral code to be followed should be the one revealed in scripture A or B. Even if these were mutually contradicting and incompatible.

Furthermore then humans would not be able to pass judgment on the details on specific details in the Moral code revealed in the true moral code scripture. All would be equally important and morally valid. We would not be able to say that the commandment not to eat shrimp is more or less important than not having other gods or not desire a wife of another man or not having gay sex. Or that love is the central moral code. How would we be able to say so? We would, if we used god's moral code as given in the Bible, have to accept that we should stone adulterers and people who worked on a sabbath, k*ll all enemies without mercy, beat our children, turn the other check and love our enemies etc. We would have to accept all biblical laws in full without exceptions.

The moment you claim that we can say any of the biblical commandmenta are to disregarded because we find it appalling, then you contradicts the assumption that humans can only get it's moral code from god.

The problem with claiming that we can only use the scripture as basis for our moral code is that it advocates such a horrible moral and the very fact that we can determine items in the code as horrible and inhuman contradicts that we can only get our moral from god e.g. scripture.

Of course you may say that we does get the moral code from god via scripture, but that it is in some way inspired or imbued in us. But then how can we know that what we feel based on this god imbued or inspired feeling of moral is from god and not from humans?

#33 Niru

Niru

    Wanton

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philippines

Posted 15 August 2010 - 10:16 PM

i agree with ksredna.

we have evolve entirely different from our ancestors. we have grown familiar to whats right and whats wrong because of exposure from it. any ordinary folk wether he/she is an active participant in church activities or not know whats right and the only difference
they have is a different perspective in a different scenario. if there would be a "Gods Moral Code" for sure it would agree on both parties meaning both will able to relate and accept it.

ofcourse any ordinary people can do that with the right mind. can be a group of people, can be an ordinary experienced individual person.

then if something right(moral) came from a ordinary individual or group of without authority to majority of people it will just end another bright idea that will be forgotten in given time.

so maybe thats why they call it "GODS MORAL CODE" cause it benefit both antagonist and protagonist coming from a powerful deity who has authority and we call him GOD.

it aint that bad. why question where it came from when both can and will benefit from it. atleast we learn and that counts. did we??? (hahaha...ehem)

Edited by Niru, 15 August 2010 - 10:23 PM.


#34 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 20 August 2010 - 10:43 AM

Let me get this, ATHEISTS are not questioning the moral code which theists believe God gave man. In fact, they are owning it? Under the qualification that it is man-made (of course). I think this thread has turned a strange corner.

(still busy at the moment, will make more detailed posts at a later date)

#35 bustermanny

bustermanny

    Virgin

  • (02) Sinless
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2010 - 03:25 PM

That's pretty unfair to the atheist, don't you think? You're expecting them to build a "moral code" on their own (in their own lifetime, no less) rather than base their "moral code" on years of human history...


I think its a fair challenge , atheist created their own belief, then why not create their own rules!

Well me? I'm pretty sure that my God was; is the author of morality.

How would you know na masama ang magnakaw kung walang nagsabi sa iyo?

#36 Crashman

Crashman

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Location:Manila
  • Interests:Philosophy, alcohol, cigarettes, movies, books, running, girls and guitar-playing. In that order.

Posted 23 August 2010 - 08:31 PM

Q: God's Moral Code, do we still need it?
A: The question is whether or not we still need it, but whether or not it is still relevant.

Seeing that the monkeys already hacked at the old testament laws (which, by the way, was a weak attack considering that skitz' initial stand was "love god and love one another" and not the ten commandments), let me point out why following that moral code can be next to ridiculous.

It is quite understandable that a smaller population can be quite easier to handle. Thus in the old times, these moral codes might have been more effective. Why? Because it was easier to check if people were following them not to mention that it was easier to distinguish the ones who were not following the code from those who actually were. It was easier to gather a consensus whether a person should be punished for not following the code. Case in point was barabbas, who, despite being a criminal was freed by the people. If you would take into consideration the point of view that morality was established to promote the welfare of the species, understanding the decisions made back then may be easier to do. If the people were to ask themselves, "Is barabbas aiding us or is he not?", they could simply answer it and make judgement. They did the same thing with Jesus and the people judged accordingly. Note that when they judged Jesus, they at least thought that they were doing it in the name of God.

Now, consider the same scenario in modern times. Considering a very large population, can we use the same method? No. We cannot simply gather everyone and judge then and there. We wouldn't get anything done that way. Therefore, any moral code must have to be agreed upon by the majority of the people but detailed enough so that it would cover most cases. In cases that are not covered by the said code, then either the people convene in order to discuss such a thing or representatives of the people can be appointed so that the majority's voice can be heard. (Notice that I am now building up my code from scratch and with explanations, although the code I am making seem to be very familiar)

What I am saying is that God's laws are irrelevant. While, in a certain instance, I may think that I am doing a right thing to my friend, my friend may think otherwise. In those cases, who's gonna be the judge? If it is a mere mortal who will judge, then the parameters must be detailed enough in order to avoid error as much as possible.

The law is this code. It is not perfect but at least it is ever evolving to integrate into the system the new things that come to our lives as citizens. Therefore, it is also our duty to help enforce and uphold the law and help improve the law. As citizens we have this power, only we do not always exercise it.

If you don't believe in God, the law is a general guideline. Needless to say, exploiting the weaknesses of the law for personal gain at the expense of others defeats this purpose which is why we have the judicial system that we have.

But as I have said, it is far from perfect. But definitely better than God's Laws as it is more detailed and reduces the room for error in judging.

As to who gets to decide what is wrong and what is right. The answer is easy. The majority. This comes from the assumption that the majority will decide for the benefit of the majority and thus at all times (at least in theory), a system like this will benefit the most number of people.

#37 Niru

Niru

    Wanton

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philippines

Posted 23 August 2010 - 09:37 PM

hope to add some info here...might help clear this one.

all the people in this world are created differently. if we want to simplify it there are two types of people.

One is the kind of people that you need to continuously tell them, inspire, educate to what should be done, whats morally good in this world.
They are the majority of people and can be easily mislead if only some lunatic would want to.

the other are kind of people that are created to be what they are. they have principles in life, it might come from reason, might come from instinct.
And to this type of people were politicians and philantropist came from, Angels and Demons or BOTH...etc etc.

off topic. just an additional info.

#38 skitz

skitz

    almost happy

  • Ambassador
  • 7362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:QC
  • Interests:Wine, women, and song. Not to be confused with liquored up whiny women who sing.

Posted 24 August 2010 - 01:57 PM

Finally, a Crashman post.

Clarification Crashman, I offered the simplistic "love God, love one another" as the foundation of God's moral code if only to avoid going into a detailed discussion of the literal text of the bible (or other scriptures). This is NOT about that. Catholics and Fundamentalists can debate on another thread.

What I want this thread to accomplish is to find out what atheists have done with their atheism (in relation to what theists believe to be God's moral code). "I do not believe in God, but hey, what the theists say is God's moral code seems ok. I will not even challenge that." At least, that's what I've been getting on this thread so far. Which is a little funny (if not ironic). What gives atheists?

So again, what's your moral code atheists? And on what principle do you base this moral code on?

Look, Crashman here has offered the foundation of his moral code. Which I read to be as "democracy". Correct me if I am wrong, Crashman. And do backread a little -- I did give the atheists that one clue, "democracy" being a purely man-made idea, and a good one, I think.

However, that said, let me air out my problems with the "majority rule" principle. "Popular" becomes obsolete in a matter of years. In NAZI Germany, majority decided that hating the minority (Jews) was ok. In that part of the world at least, that was the "majority rule". Who knows, in 5 years time, if we let the "popular" become the guiding principle in our lives, fatty foods might become illegal, killing dogs for food illegal (well it is now in most countries), abortion ok, etc. etc. Save the cute animals, but exterminate the ugly ones. These, I believe, are purely "random" man-made principles of the "moment". It is neither true nor false. It is just the popular notion at that moment in history. "Popular" is not universal that can stand the test of time.

And yes, I believe that GOD'S MORAL CODE is still relevant. But I do not, in anyway, mean to suggest that that code should take the place of man made laws. Yes, Crashman, you have clearly pointed out that that code is insufficient to address the needs of the times. I agree. But still relevant, in the sense that that code is still the principle by which the individuals who crafts these man-made laws are guided by. The US Constitution (and the Philippine Constitution) "implores the aid of God/Divine Providence/Almighty". It says so in the preamble. And that is good (I think). Our man-made laws are the updated interpretations of God's moral code (well, should be anyway -- legalizing abortion, I believe is not, which is the case in the US).

Edited by skitz, 24 August 2010 - 02:13 PM.


#39 complicated8

complicated8

    Addicted to the game ;)

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 02:53 PM

US Preamble or state preambles?

#40 Crashman

Crashman

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Location:Manila
  • Interests:Philosophy, alcohol, cigarettes, movies, books, running, girls and guitar-playing. In that order.

Posted 24 August 2010 - 05:26 PM

Yeah, I must admit that the lawmakers themselves are guided, or at the very least, influenced, by the same moral code in the scriptures.

I have one question though it might be a bit off topic. If, for example, the whole world suddenly agrees to a NO GOD policy, seeing that the current atheist set of morals does not need God anymore and yet seem to provide us with what we need. What do you think will happen? Will we suddenly break out into a worldwide rock concert with sex, drugs and rock and roll?

I guess my point is, God's moral code may indeed be relevant but can the same code survive without the god concept? If we do not believe in God, do you think we will k*ll? Dishonor our parents? Hate one another?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users