Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What this thread is about is to settle whether the MORAL CODE that GOD (according to theists) gave man is still relevant today. So whether God exists or not, as far as this thread is concerned is IMMATERIAL. There is a MORAL CODE that theists believe God gave man. This moral code exists, though the details may vary from interpretation to interpretation of the various religious sects. But let us agree, this moral code, can be summarized as thus "LOVE GOD, LOVE ONE ANOTHER".

 

It is my contention that without this code, man would be lost. And given that we have the technology to end our species, we would self-destruct. Atheists hate to admit it, but even as they hate the idea that God exists, they still reference their own morals based on the standards set by this code. They do not adhere to it, but they want to know how far from the straight and narrow they have strayed.

 

Without the God-given moral code, an atheist would need to build from the ground-up his own moral code. What would this code be like? Let us see, hmmmm... something like, it is illegal to k*ll dogs for meat, but abortion is legal; prayer in schools is illegal, but gay marriages are legal (do these people even know who invented "marriage" and what it means?) -- just two examples of purely random man-made "moral" standards.

 

Alright, that's the opening statement, tell me what's your take.

(For me) for an atheist, "love god" - is removed. Is man lost? Love one another can be evaluated and see if it serves a purpose - useful, economic, etc. For me, the atheist wouldn't need to build it from the ground-up. But edit it to remove the god portions and build on man's history as it's basis. Build on laws that have worked and improve on it or remove the ones that don't work.

 

Is this acceptable? How about the social scientific principle of reciprocity?

 

I think a wrong assumption is made that suddenly there are no laws/god given moral code because you are an atheist. You change/modify the laws/code because you don't believe in the God given one.

 

If that is the assumption that there are no God given code from the beginning, then you'll have to think back to early history and try to assume how man will develop/progress thru the years. Who knows maybe scientific discovery may have been more and man's progress in technology faster. Or the opposite that we could've killed each other and man is extinct or a lot less than the over production/high population of man.

Link to comment

Finally, a good answer! Yes complicated8, you make a very good point. And furthermore, I'd like to thank you for being the sole atheist (so far) who didn't squirm around the question.

 

But now let me try to punch some holes into your proposition (haha... discussion lang naman, ok?).

 

The God Moral Code (that theists believe in) is only true because "God says so therefore it is true". So without God, NONE of it will be true -- or rather, the foundation of the truth of the proposition is no longer valid. If you are going to change/modify, as you say, the God moral code sans God then rebuild from it your own moral code, it still lacks the foundation for it to be true. Refer to the Math analogy on the other post.

 

Why is killing another man (except in self defense) not good, true? That one appears to be an easy and very basic principle. But remember whatever FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH/ARGUMENT that you would apply on that specific example should apply to all other instances. How would the foundation you supply to that principle apply to abortion? How about in times of war?

 

I have a little trouble accepting "reciprocity" as a valid foundation. The US and USSR during the cold war had the mutually assured destruction policy. That worked. But if that is the case, killing someone who can not fight back is ok? This is the reason why abortion is ok? Because babies in the womb can not fight back? So exterminating the Jews in Nazi Germany was ok because they didn't have the means to reciprocate?

 

Alright, you've stated your moral code. Now supply the argument for it to be true.

Link to comment

The God Moral Code (that theists believe in) is only true because "God says so therefore it is true". So without God, NONE of it will be true -- or rather, the foundation of the truth of the proposition is no longer valid. If you are going to change/modify, as you say, the God moral code sans God then rebuild from it your own moral code, it still lacks the foundation for it to be true. Refer to the Math analogy on the other post.

I think my point was you don't live according to the code but according to laws. So the truth foundation actually isn't relevant anymore. So I don't have to reverse engineer the code from the man-made laws. But like I said modify the laws to remove God.

 

Why is killing another man (except in self defense) not good, true? That one appears to be an easy and very basic principle. But remember whatever FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH/ARGUMENT that you would apply on that specific example should apply to all other instances. How would the foundation you supply to that principle apply to abortion? How about in times of war?

I have a little trouble accepting "reciprocity" as a valid foundation. The US and USSR during the cold war had the mutually assured destruction policy. That worked. But if that is the case, killing someone who can not fight back is ok? This is the reason why abortion is ok? Because babies in the womb can not fight back? So exterminating the Jews in Nazi Germany was ok because they didn't have the means to reciprocate?

Alright, you've stated your moral code. Now supply the argument for it to be true.

Reciprocity - would you want anyone else to k*ll you? It's innate in everyone to survive/live. That's an instinct. Why would you want to k*ll another when you are taking away their chance for life when you don't want anyone else to take that chance from you. In times of war, do you follow a code or do you follow the law? The law says that this general/president/PM/commander-in-chief tells you to attack or to defend and k*ll.

 

Reciprocity simply states that people feel obliged to give back to others who have given to them. If you are a "bad" person who wants to beat other people, then you actually accept that it's ok to be beaten up by others.

 

The truth is based on man's nature. But I am not about proving the truth. Rather, the usefulness and applicability of it.

Edited by complicated8
Link to comment

WRONG ANSWER na naman. See Sohryu? There is a wrong answer and the atheists have found it.

 

Typical ATHEIST diversionary tactic. I repeat, as far as this thread is concerned, GOD DOES NOT EXIST. So ano pa ang next diversionary tactic ng atheist na hindi marunong sumagot sa simpleng tanong?

I think it would help naman sir not brand people automatically with such posts I'm not an atheist. Just wanted to ask an question to be sure I was on the right page when reading other people's posts, basic forum ethics lang sir. =/

Link to comment

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)

 

Kung sa DIOS NYO NAGMULA ang MORALITY…

… at WALA KAYONG PATUNAY na TOTOO ang DIOS NYO,

… so WALA rin KAYONG PATUNAY na NAGMULA nga sa DIOS NYO ang MORALITY. :lol:

 

 

 

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na MAYROON ang TAO…

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na nasa UTAK na ng TAO…

 

… at ang ATHEIST, GAYA ng THEIST, ay "TAO" rin,

 

… so, KANINO ba, SINO nga ba ang "NAG-MA-MAY-ARI" sa MORALITY?

 

Link to comment

If I can use a math/geometry analogy, if one is able to debunk/destroy the definition of a point or a line (by Euclid), then there is no more point in using/following Euclidean geometry. One has to develop an entirely different brand of math. God is the "point" of the "God moral codes", Without God, none of it will be true. And as an atheist, you should revisit ALL these moral codes that theists claim came from God. Is killing another human being bad, TRUE? Then why? Based on what? Theists say it is bad because God commanded so. IF it so happens that atheists are able to develop a similar moral code then well and good. But it has to based on something. You've removed God from the equation. All "truth" in the "God moral code" is now up reexamination.

 

 

Alright, let me attempt to clarify my point with a specific example.

 

To THEISTS, it's easy. Given a question whether abortion is right or wrong, we simply have to look at scripture and find out what God's commandment is on the matter is. For atheists, your decision making process should be based on something else other than God's commandment (since He does not exist). What is that? Economics? Politics? Pragmatism? Etc. Etc. So what atheists? On what do you base your moral code on?

 

 

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na MAYROON ang TAO…

Ang MORALITY, "LIKAS" na nasa UTAK na ng TAO…

 

 

 

Reposting,

 

(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?

 

 

Moral Judgments Can Be Altered: Neuroscientists Influence People's Moral Judgments by Disrupting Specific Brain Region

 

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329152516.htm>

 

"Previous studies have shown that a brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) is highly active when we think about other people's intentions, thoughts and beliefs. In the new study, the researchers disrupted activity in the right TPJ by inducing a current in the brain using a magnetic field applied to the scalp. They found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions -- for example, a failed murder attempt -- was impaired."

 

 

 

Emotions Key to Judging Others: New Piece to Puzzle of How Human Brain Constructs Morality from Study of Harmful Intent

 

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324121008.htm>

 

"Patients with damage to this brain area, known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), are unable to conjure a normal emotional response to hypothetical situations in which a person tries, but fails, to k*ll another person. Therefore, they judge the situation based only on the outcome, and do not hold the attempted murderer morally responsible."

 

 

 

Moral Judgment Fails Without Feelings

 

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070321181940.htm>

 

The subjects with VMPC damage stood out in their stated willingness to harm an individual -- a prospect that usually generates strong aversion.

 

"Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life. They lack empathy and compassion," said Ralph Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech.

 

"In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that conflict," said co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience at USC.

 

 

 

Sleep Deprivation Affects Moral Judgment, Study Finds

 

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070301081831.htm>

 

"The findings suggest that continuous wakefulness has a particularly debilitating effect on judgment and decision making processes that depend heavily upon the integration of emotion with cognition, said Killgore, adding that the results provide further support to the hypothesis that sleep loss is particularly disruptive to the ventromedial prefrontal regions of the brain, which are important for the integration of affect and cognition in the service of judgment and decision making."

 

 

 

Is Morality Innate and Universal?

 

Pasted from

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=0>

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=1>

<http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?searchterm=morality&b_start:int=2>

 

What is the evidence that we draw upon unconscious principles when making moral decisions?

 

Let's take two examples. A trolley is coming down a track, and it's going to run over and k*ll five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will k*ll one but save the five. Most people think that's morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, "Doctor, we've got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?" No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they're identical in that sense. So why the flip-flop? People of different ages, people of different religious backgrounds, people even with different educations typically cannot explain why they think those cases differ. There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection.

 

 

What is the evidence that infants already have a moral code ingrained in their brains?

 

I don't think we're ready to say. Studies have shown that infants as young as 15 months are*sensitive to the beliefs of others—true versus false beliefs. That's crucial to the moral domain.*

 

There's also this from the work of Elliot Turiel [a cognitive scientist at the University of California at Berkeley]. He said, Look, there's a very important distinction between a social convention and a moral rule. Children by at least the age of 3 or 4 understand that distinction. Here is a simple way of putting it. If a teacher comes into a classroom and says, "Today, class, instead of raising your hand when you want to ask a question, just ask your question. Don't raise your hand." If you ask kids, "Is that OK?" kids will say, "OK, fine." If you tell them, "In our class, we raise our hands to ask questions, but in France they never raise their hands. Is that OK?" "OK." So it's basically open to authority; it's culturally variable.*

 

So that's a social dimension. But now imagine the following situation. The teacher comes into the class and says, "If you're annoyed by a child sitting next to you, just punch him!" You're going to have moral outrage. You can't say that! If you say, "But in France they do," they'd say, "Well, the French are weird; the French can't say that." So it's completely not open to authoritarian override, in a sense, and it's not culturally variable. So you get this kind of fundamental distinction that's coming on fairly early. But first the question is: How does the kid know that it's in the moral zone as opposed to merely the social zone? We don't know.

 

 

Do you mean that people give the same answers to objective tests of moral reasoning regardless of religious background?

 

One hundred percent. So far, exactly the same. Here's an example that comes from MIT philosopher Judy Thomson. She was interested in a question of whether the fetus has an obligatory right to the mother's body. So she gives an incredibly apocryphal, crazy example: A woman is lying in bed one morning, and she wakes up to find a man lying in bed unconscious next to her. Another gentleman walks up to her and says: "I'm terribly sorry, but this man right next to you is a world-famous violinist, and he's unconscious and in terrible health. He's in kidney failure, and I hope you don't mind, but we've plugged him into your kidney. And if he stays plugged in for the next nine months, you will save him."*

You ask people, "Is that morally permissible?" They're like: "No, it's insane. Of course not." Well, that makes [Thomson's] point exquisitely. It would be nice if she said, "Sure, I love this guy's playing; plug him in." But she's not obligated to do so. Now let me make it like the abortion case. She says, "Yes, I love this guy's violin playing!" Two months into it, she goes: "You know what? This really is a drag," and she unplugs. Now people all of a sudden have a sense that's less permissible than the first case. But here, people who are pro-choice or pro-life do not differ. So the point is, if you take people away from the familiar and you capture some of the critical underlying psychological issues that play into the real-world cases, then you find that the religious effects are minimal.

 

 

Do other species have any form of moral faculty?

 

Certainly sympathy, caretaking, cooperation;*those things*are there in some animals. The crucial questions are, "Do animals have any sense of what they ought to do?" and "To what extent will animals judge transgressions of others as being wrong in some way?" How we'd ever understand that, I don't know.*

 

 

 

Whose Life Would You Save?

Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution

 

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Whose Life Would You Save? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

 

Pasted from <http://forums.mukamo.com/grey-areas/12006-can-morality-exist-without-religion-8.html>

 

 

 

So, SAAN naka-BASE ang MORALITY ng ATHEIST…

… naka-BASE ito sa "UTAK",

… sa "UTAK", sa "ISIPAN" ng BAWAT TAO.

Link to comment

I think it would help naman sir not brand people automatically with such posts I'm not an atheist. Just wanted to ask an question to be sure I was on the right page when reading other people's posts, basic forum ethics lang sir. =/

I think it would help too that before someone posts in a thread asking a question containing contentious words like "flying spaghetti monster" one would backread first. There was a genuine effort put into the posts explaining what the thread is all about. The thread is only 3 pages. What? We should all go over that again for your benefit? Since backreading is beneath you?

Link to comment

vherr,

 

I know I am going to regret this but...

 

So nasa utak ang morality. Ayon na rin yan sa post mo. Pag nasa utak, ito ba ay totoo o hindi?

 

 

complicated8,

 

I did not ignore your last post. I just need more time to frame a better response. Ok. :)

Edited by skitz
Link to comment

I think my point was you don't live according to the code but according to laws. So the truth foundation actually isn't relevant anymore. So I don't have to reverse engineer the code from the man-made laws. But like I said modify the laws to remove God.

The truth foundation isn't relevant? Follow laws that aren't true to begin with? But hey, add the qualifier "remove God" while your at it, willya. That's the whole point isn't it? Whatever law it is, be it true or false, just as long as God has nothing to do with it, is fine by you.

 

Reciprocity - would you want anyone else to k*ll you? It's innate in everyone to survive/live. That's an instinct.

 

But there are 6 billion "yous" and counting. So which "you" will outweigh another "you" when their "want" come into conflict? I don't think anyone would want to have been aborted, but some women feel their "want" is being infringed upon if you ban abortion. Which weighs more?

 

Reciprocity simply states that people feel obliged to give back to others who have given to them.

Ah, so useless people who can not "give" anything do not count?

 

If you are a "bad" person who wants to beat other people, then you actually accept that it's ok to be beaten up by others.

And what do we do with people like this? There are many people like this, you know. What kind of reciprocity do we inflict upon them? Beat them up?

 

The truth is based on man's nature. But I am not about proving the truth. Rather, the usefulness and applicability of it.

 

Pragmatism? Reciprocity is "pragmatic"? And it doesn't matter if this statement is true or false, right?

 

 

Let me help you out.

 

First state an axiom we can all agree is true (axioms are accepted to be true by convention which is ultimately nothing more than an agreement between men). From this axiom start building your case. State a starting premise (again that we can all agree upon). Then from there, form your moral code.

 

For example, the US constitution is primarily founded upon the premise which is the Bill of Rights. The framers of the US constitution agreed between themselves that all items on that list is true. Tis the reason that no law in the US can ever be passed that supersedes or contradicts any item on that list. But as I have stated before, the US constitution was framed by men who are mostly (if not entirely) believers in God. So as an atheist, this does not bother you (given that the Philippine Constitution was patterned after the US Constitution)? The laws of the land, currently, is still the same law (more or less), we theists believe was handed by God Himself. So what good is your atheism then? Ah, yes, just remove God from the credits and it is all fine by you. Fine then. God does not exist, end of story.

Edited by skitz
Link to comment

There, right there, someone finally answers the question. A MIXTURE OF INFLUENCES which includes religion. Thank you Sohryu. But for clarification purposes, can you please state whether you are an atheist or not? The whole point of this exercise is to challenge the atheists on what their moral code is and their justification for it.

 

 

quite frankly... i do not know as i dont know what makes an atheist...nor their diffrence with other people. is it the school my mom cant afford? ^_^

 

given the other situations... i see hypocrisy (spelling pls..) on their point.

Link to comment

The truth foundation isn't relevant? Follow laws that aren't true to begin with? But hey, add the qualifier "remove God" while your at it, willya. That's the whole point isn't it? Whatever law it is, be it true or false, just as long as God has nothing to do with it, is fine by you.

Yes. I seem to remember some quotes on the road about laws - "Is it fair to all concerned?", etc. Laws are man-made - for the benefit of man. I think that's better to take ownership of what you implement as a law. So that we blame lawmakers instead of God for crappy laws. Instead of a law being "true" because it was influenced/given by "God". What do you do with a psychopath serial killer when "God says thou shalt not k*ll"? - Smile and turn the other cheek?

 

But there are 6 billion "yous" and counting. So which "you" will outweigh another "you" when their "want" come into conflict? I don't think anyone would want to have been aborted, but some women feel their "want" is being infringed upon if you ban abortion. Which weighs more?

That's the beauty of "man-made" laws. "Some" women will just have to live with what "more" women "think" is a better law for some time until "more" women "think" that abortion is a "better" law. Isn't that better than God is against your "proposed law" so it will never be one?

 

Ah, so useless people who can not "give" anything do not count?

Who said? Like I said put yourself in their shoes. What if you have a kid who's "useless"? What do you want for him? You "feel obligated" is an automatic response. When you're "rich", you also "feel obligated" to help out the less fortunate ones, don't you? Or maybe "you" don't feel it? Do I "feel obligated" to help those who do not even try to help themselves and use a life of crime to live? At least you give of your own volition instead of "God's" code/law to give 10% or whatever amount.

 

And what do we do with people like this? There are many people like this, you know. What kind of reciprocity do we inflict upon them? Beat them up?

Get a consensus about laws to deal with this. Is this automatic? No, it all depends on backgrounds and progress of man.

 

Pragmatism? Reciprocity is "pragmatic"? And it doesn't matter if this statement is true or false, right?

Let me help you out.

 

First state an axiom we can all agree is true (axioms are accepted to be true by convention which is ultimately nothing more than an agreement between men). From this axiom start building your case. State a starting premise (again that we can all agree upon). Then from there, form your moral code.

 

For example, the US constitution is primarily founded upon the premise which is the Bill of Rights. The framers of the US constitution agreed between themselves that all items on that list is true. Tis the reason that no law in the US can ever be passed that supersedes or contradicts any item on that list. But as I have stated before, the US constitution was framed by men who are mostly (if not entirely) believers in God. So as an atheist, this does not bother you (given that the Philippine Constitution was patterned after the US Constitution)? The laws of the land, currently, is still the same law (more or less), we theists believe was handed by God Himself. So what good is your atheism then? Ah, yes, just remove God from the credits and it is all fine by you. Fine then. God does not exist, end of story.

"Framers" - a group of people who we chose to represent the "people" to create the laws of the land? Did these framers think that they should believe in one and the same God? To be fair and just, the constitution had to be written in spite of different beliefs. Don't you agree?

 

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god

 

Why is there divorce in the US and not in the Philippines (you said we patterned our constitution with them)? God's code/law said that no one can break a married couple. I'd rather create laws because they improve the lives of the people here on earth or a specific society.

 

Atheism allows you to break the clamps/boundaries that limit man. Free-will isn't handicapped by believing that God handed his moral code/laws to man? Why do some "people" have no belief in doctors but believe God will cure their illness?

 

Who's god is better when two God believing countries fight a war against each other? I'd rather blame the leaders of those countries rather than blame their belief in a particular God.

 

I ask you when you are in the sea with a great white shark. Will you k*ll the shark to live? Or does your belief in God tell you that the shark has the right to eat you because you are in his domain? After all, God created the shark.

 

You don't have to help me out. I gave my opinion on the matter.

 

Why do you follow/believe God's moral code? Even thinking "evil" thoughts is a sin, right? But you're not breaking the law of man by just thinking.

Edited by complicated8
Link to comment

vherr,

 

I know I am going to regret this but...

 

So nasa utak ang morality. Ayon na rin yan sa post mo. Pag nasa utak, ito ba ay totoo o hindi?

 

 

Ang TAO ba, maging ang HAYOP, kapag GUTOM…

 

… LIKAS na INAALAM muna kung sila'y TOTOOng GUTOM o HINDI?

Ang TAO ba, maging ang HAYOP, kapag GALIT…

… LIKAS na INAALAM muna kung sila'y TOTOOng GALIT o HINDI?

Link to comment

Ang MORALIDAD...

 

... NAG-MULA nga bang talaga sa DIOS? :lol:

 

 

 

Afghanistan's dirty little secret

Joel Brinkley

Sunday, August 29, 2010

 

Pasted from <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL>

 

 

 

[excerpt]

 

In Kandahar, population about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are a popular, often weekly, pastime. Young boys dress up as girls, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home. A recent State Department report called "dancing boys" a "widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape."

 

So, why are American and NATO forces fighting and dying to defend tens of thousands of proud pedophiles, certainly more per capita than any other place on Earth? And how did Afghanistan become the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

 

"How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful."

 

Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: "Women are for children, boys are for pleasure." Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are "unclean" and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli's team "how his wife could become pregnant," her report said. When that was explained, he "reacted with disgust" and asked, "How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?"

That helps explain why women are hidden away - and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved. Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But the pedophiles explain that away. It's not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren't in love with their boys.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Be Like Others

 

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Like_Others>

 

Be Like Others (also known as Transsexual in Iran) is a 2008 documentary film written and directed by Tanaz Eshaghian about transsexuals in Iran. It explores issues of gender and sexuality while following the personal stories of some of the patients at a Tehran clinic. The film played at the Sundance Film Festival and the Berlin International Film Festival, winning three awards.

 

Overview

Although homosexual relationships are illegal (punishable by death) in Iran, sex reassignment operations are permitted. In 1983, spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini passed a fatwa allowing sex-change operations as a cure for "diagnosed transsexuals".[3] Be Like Others shows the experiences of male and female patients at Dr. Bahram Mir-Jalali's Mirdamad Surgical Centre, a sex-reassignment clinic in Tehran.[4] One of them is Ali Askar, a 24 year-old man who faces harassment from other men due to his feminine appearance and behaviour. He does not want to become a woman but sees no other options for him in Iranian society. He decides to go ahead with the surgery despite death threats from his father and finds support from Vida, a post-operative transsexual he meets at the clinic. By the end of the film, Ali has become a woman named Negar. She has been disowned by her family, experienced depression and has had to work as a prostitute. 20 year-old Anoosh is another young man who has been ostracised due to his femininity. His boyfriend feels more comfortable when Anoosh dresses as a woman, and in contrast to Ali, Anoosh's mother is supportive of his desire to change sex. The end of the film shows Anoosh — now Anahita — happy and engaged to her boyfriend. However, her boyfriend has become increasingly distant since Anahita had her surgery.[3][5]

 

Throughout the film, the patients of the sex-reassignment clinic assert that they are not homosexual, seeing homosexuality as something that is shameful and immoral.[6] Eshaghian's opinion is that this shame is the driving force behind so many Iranians deciding to change their sex. She says that identifying as transsexual rather than homosexual allows them to live free from harassment.[3]

 

 

 

Link to comment

Ang TAO ba, maging ang HAYOP, kapag GUTOM…

 

… LIKAS na INAALAM muna kung sila'y TOTOOng GUTOM o HINDI?

Ang TAO ba, maging ang HAYOP, kapag GALIT…

… LIKAS na INAALAM muna kung sila'y TOTOOng GALIT o HINDI?

 

And my initial regret is justified. Still can not answer a simple direct question. That's atheism vherr version for you! lol. Master the art of non-responsiveness and there you go. The perfect atheist.

Link to comment

Why do you follow/believe God's moral code? Even thinking "evil" thoughts is a sin, right? But you're not breaking the law of man by just thinking.

Other parts of your post has been snipped out as I will respond to it later (if I find the time).

 

Brief explanantion. God's moral code (as I believe them to be) is prescriptive. Meaning, it is just a suggestion. The punitive part, was man-made. The universe itself was created by God to "punish" those who sin. DO bad things and bad things will happen to you. So God "suggested" that you do not sin. Parang tatay mo lang yan na sinasabihan ka na wag magpa-ulan. Ngayon kung magkasakit ka, yun ang punishment mo.

Edited by skitz
Link to comment

Other parts of your post has been snipped out as I will respond to it later (if I find the time).

 

Brief explanantion. God's moral code (as I believe them to be) is prescriptive. Meaning, it is just a suggestion. The punitive part, was man-made. The universe itself was created by God to "punish" those who sin. DO bad things and bad things will happen to you. So God "suggested" that you do not sin. Parang tatay mo lang yan na sinasabihan ka na wag magpa-ulan. Ngayon kung magkasakit ka, yun ang punishment mo.

No hurry, skitz. This is just an exchange of "biased" ideas.

 

If it is just a suggestion, why do you need to emphasize the basis of laws from it?

 

Kung may punishment, ano ang reward sa pagsunod sa "suggestion"? Hindi ka magkaka-sakit? Kung hindi ka nagkasakit pagkatapos mo magpa-ulan, ano ang punishment mo? May punishment ba dapat? Reward/punishment system ba ang "gusto" ni God?

 

There's something wrong again with the analogy of a father. As far as I know a father should love the offspring in spite of mistakes/sins/faults. Yet, why do some disown their children? If they disown their kids, do they still love them? In stating paternal love/care, why do you give conditions? If God is like a father, then he will still love and forgive his children for whatever they do.

 

Unless you have a different definition of God, that requires you to do this and that and therefore be rewarded after death.

Edited by complicated8
Link to comment

 

And my initial regret is justified. Still can not answer a simple direct question. That's atheism vherr version for you! lol. Master the art of non-responsiveness and there you go. The perfect atheist.

 

Wag mong sabihin na HINDI MO NAUNAWAAN ang SAGOT KO? :lol:

At "OBLIGADO" ba AKO na SUMAGOT sa "PARAAN" na GUSTO MO? :lol:

 

 

Ang MORALIDAD, NAGMULA sa UTAK ng TAO…

 

… HINDI GALING sa DIOS MO, SAPAGKAT HINDI TOTOO ang DIOS MO,

 

 

Ang BUKOD TANGING NAITULONG ng "PANINIWALA sa DIOS" ay…

 

… ay ang PAPANIWALAIN ang mga NANINIWALA na "MAY GANTIMPALA ang LAHAT ng SUSUNOD",

 

… at "MAY PARUSA ang LAHAT ng SUSUWAY".

Link to comment

Other parts of your post has been snipped out as I will respond to it later (if I find the time).

 

Brief explanantion. God's moral code (as I believe them to be) is prescriptive. Meaning, it is just a suggestion. The punitive part, was man-made. The universe itself was created by God to "punish" those who sin. DO bad things and bad things will happen to you. So God "suggested" that you do not sin. Parang tatay mo lang yan na sinasabihan ka na wag magpa-ulan. Ngayon kung magkasakit ka, yun ang punishment mo.

 

Ang "LAHAT" ba ng GUMAGAWA ng MASAMA sa "UNIVERSE" ay NAPAPARUSAHAN rin sa "UNIVERSE"? :lol:

 

Ang "LAHAT" ba ng GUMAGAWA ng MABUTI sa "UNIVERSE" ay NAGAGANTIMPALAAN rin sa "UNIVERSE"? :lol:

 

 

 

Kung MASAMA ang "CAUSE"…

 

… sa "LAHAT" ba ng PAGKAKATAON ay MASAMA rin ang "EFFECT"? :lol:

 

Kung MABUTI ang "CAUSE"…

… sa "LAHAT" ba ng PAGKAKATAON ay MABUTI rin ang "EFFECT"? :lol:

… hindi ba't kaya nga "INIMBENTO" ng THEIST ang "PARUSA na PAGKA-IMPIYERNO" at ang "GANTIMPALA na WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY",

 

… upang PAPANIWALAIN ang THEIST na ang "LAHAT" ng GUMAGAWA ng MASAMA ay "NAPARURUSAHAN",

 

… at ang "LAHAT" ng GUMAGAWA ng MABUTI ay "NAGAGANTIMPALAAN". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

On this thread, we set aside for the meantime the question on the existence of God. That part of the debate, if you wish to engage on that, can be done on the other threads.

 

What this thread is about is to settle whether the MORAL CODE that GOD (according to theists) gave man is still relevant today. So whether God exists or not, as far as this thread is concerned is IMMATERIAL. There is a MORAL CODE that theists believe God gave man. This moral code exists, though the details may vary from interpretation to interpretation of the various religious sects. But let us agree, this moral code, can be summarized as thus "LOVE GOD, LOVE ONE ANOTHER".

 

It is my contention that without this code, man would be lost. And given that we have the technology to end our species, we would self-destruct. Atheists hate to admit it, but even as they hate the idea that God exists, they still reference their own morals based on the standards set by this code. They do not adhere to it, but they want to know how far from the straight and narrow they have strayed.

 

Without the God-given moral code, an atheist would need to build from the ground-up his own moral code. What would this code be like? Let us see, hmmmm... something like, it is illegal to k*ll dogs for meat, but abortion is legal; prayer in schools is illegal, but gay marriages are legal (do these people even know who invented "marriage" and what it means?) -- just two examples of purely random man-made "moral" standards.

 

Alright, that's the opening statement, tell me what's your take.

 

Forgive me if instead of backreading I just comment on one of your original thoughts. This is just my take, which is amateur at best but…whatever. First off, this is a great topic and timely, too, as there is a push elsewhere to remove religion from schools. To ask ourselves 'what are we without our belief in a supreme being' is a necessary part of being alive. Can we humanly progress without the moral code you’ve expressed?

 

I think it would be very difficult to, as a lot of the greatness we’ve achieved has been due to some struggle to adhere to a moral code.

 

People would be hard put to come up with their own codes (something not already based on society’s agreed-upon codes) and abide by these same rules because they could very easily change their codes all the time depending on their unique situations in life. Much like a false prophet would have to keep changing "the laws of God" that he preached to his followers if these later on proved to be a threat to his reputation or his position as a prophet. He would have to make an amendment to correct the imperfect set of rules he originally authored. Perhaps some inconsistencies we find in certain religions may be due to this.

 

I don't know if we would self-destruct without a moral code but we might teeter on the brink of destruction a lot. I'm sure there will always be a few who do not believe in God but have constructed a code for themselves that they are determined to follow, and do follow successfully throughout their lives. These could be individuals who have contemplated the direction of their lives or the lives of others and have concluded that they would like their existence to count for something. And so they do right by humanity.

 

But for the entirety of humanity, how possible is that to achieve without a belief in the existence of a god who will see to it that everyone is accorded fair treatment for their adherence/non-adherence to a universal set of laws? Even with so many people believing in a supreme god, it is difficult to achieve, because we cannot agree on a supreme moral code.

 

An unbending, perfect code is necessary. That code would have to be divinely inspired to meet that criteria. Otherwise, it would be challenged endlessly, and the lines would never be clear.

Link to comment

DB,

 

Thank you for sharing your insight. A little backgrounder, if I may. What prompted me to start this thread is when I stumbled upon on youtube a little debate between atheists and theists (yes, even there, sometimes I just have to blast the sheer ignorance of these so called "enlightened" atheists). So there was this video of one teenage girl who was supposed to be an atheist. One of the reasons she says, was that the church does not allow gay marriages. Someone should have told her, why would an atheist insist/want to enter an INSTITUTION built by the church in the first place?

 

And that right there was a little eureka moment of sorts. Why do atheists want to be "good" (when goodness is a "God concept"). God is a cruel God therefore God does not exist -- goes one popular (and fallacious) atheist argument.

 

So ok, let us remove God from the equation. Without God, what moral code would man create for himself. What would be the foundation of its truth?

 

Strange twist to this thread so far, no godless moral code has been offered by the atheists, only the argument that the "God moral code" came from man and not God. So there ends the debate, and the need for this thread (if they are continue with this tact). The debate shall once again go back to whether God exists or not. And that is subject for almost all the other threads here.

 

My conclusion? Man still needs "God's moral code" -- even the atheists adhere to it. And that is really something to lol about.

Link to comment

So ok, let us remove God from the equation. Without God, what moral code would man create for himself. What would be the foundation of its truth?

 

Strange twist to this thread so far, no godless moral code has been offered by the atheists, only the argument that the "God moral code" came from man and not God. So there ends the debate, and the need for this thread (if they are continue with this tact). The debate shall once again go back to whether God exists or not. And that is subject for almost all the other threads here.

 

My conclusion? Man still needs "God's moral code" -- even the atheists adhere to it. And that is really something to lol about.

 

Well why don't you be your own devil's advocate and proffer your own moral code, see if you can do any better.

 

Your question seems to be in two parts, though - first you ask if a code can be created without a nod to any god or religion, then you ask if this man-made code (by itself) can save man from self-destructing. The way I read it, you want to determine if we can provide a superior code to any of those provided by Judaism, Christianity, etc. You want to know if we can be good on our own. ?

 

---

 

Oh, and pragmatism is not universal. And it's not unchangeable.

Edited by dungeonbaby
Link to comment

Ok, let me give it a shot. Fellow theists, be reminded, this is just an exercise in mental masturbation (lol).

 

PRAGMATISM in the context of "what is best for humanity is what is true". By humanity, I mean to say not just the current population living now but also includes future generations. All laws under this concept shall then be guided accordingly. To illustrate, killing another human being is BAD because killing another human being (indiscriminately) foments chaos. And chaos is not good for humanity. On the other hand stem-cell research has the potential to serve humanity and therefore should be allowed (take note atheists, the religious right does not want stem cell research to be conducted! why didn't you offer some moral code to justify why this should be allowed?!).

 

If the above premise is an acceptable "truth" to everyone, then I shall continue on with further details on what I think it would be like in my "pragmatic world".

Edited by skitz
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...