God's moral code

[skitz]

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.

[Niru]

God Moral Code...

 

yes there are many different interpretations. and they have all different approach for a solution...

 

hope not to be the antagonist here, ive always believed that "Life is simple as it is Sacred." without high regard for human life believing or faith in any religion would be useless.

 

about the "it is illegal to k*ll dogs for meat, but abortion is legal; prayer in schools is illegal, but gay marriages are legal " <-- are just one in million flaws of being human, do i have to be an atheists or does only atheists belive or accept this kind of philosophy???

 

for a conservative country and tries not to be like the Philippines, ofcourse we cannot accept this kind of situations but still it happens.

were living in a democratic country were freedom is for everyone until we abuse it, we believe in a religion were free-will is its doctrine but we believers choose to be reliant.

 

Gods Moral Code...is it still relevant today???

 

my answer is, base to the majority of people. is NO. (i hope im wrong)

 

this society has become a "survival of the fittest, were you cannot live normally without taking advantage of other people. people will choose the easier path because in the first place they already suffered. they did not suffer doing the right thing? they suffered from the day they were born and was normal to them. Poor quality of human life here in Phil is one of the reason why i said NO. its not my place nor i condemn the people hopeless but they will naturally choose the easier path.

 

ofcourse speaking for myself.

[slim_dude]

I belong under the umbrella group of what you call atheists -- in my experience there are many different kinds of atheists, just as there are many denominations within christianity (fundamentalists, lutherans, roman catholics), and still more variations of belief in god (christians, muslims, the jewish).

 

Since atheists do not give much authority to revelation or anything "god-given" then yes, we really do try to build ourselves a moral code from the ground up. Sometimes these moral codes coincide with something that other religions have, the Golden Mean being the obvious example. Sometimes this moral code is based on a person's reason or sense of fairness, sometimes it's based on selfish desire, so just as christianity and islam has it's share of bad apples, so does atheism.

 

When you say 'just two examples of purely random man-made "moral" standards' what exactly do you mean? That you chose two random examples of atheist thought, or that atheists just came up with these randomly? Because the latter is insulting, it implies that atheists pull their ideas of right and wrong out of their asses without much thought. If that is what you think of atheists, then you're really starting off on the wrong foot.

 

Also, are you saying that ONLY atheists believe in legalized abortion and gay marriage? Because that's utterly ludicrous - Ellen Degeneres believes in god. She's not roman catholic, but she's not an atheist either.

[skitz]

Alright, for the purposes of this thread, let us try to separate the personalities from their beliefs. It is grossly unfair to cite Ellen Degeneres then declare that all theists are for gay marriages, in the same way that it is grossly unfair to cite Charles Manson and say that all atheists are serial killers. For our purposes, everything that is based on scripture is THEIST and everything else is ATHEIST. Fair enough?

 

I cited gay marriage as example because I saw one youtube video of an atheist giving that as an example why she doesn't believe in the church (or God). Perhaps she didn't realize the irony of an atheist demanding the right to enter an institution invented by THEISTS. Haha. As for dog meat, I find it ironic that these very same people opposed to that are more likely to be pro-abortion than not. Such RANDOM morals, I believe, is but a sample of what will happen if mankind totally abandons God's moral code.

 

Let's see you atheists build from the ground up your moral code, and JUSTIFY it by science or logic, or whatever justification you may prefer to make that CODE "true". Why should people follow your moral code?

[TheSmilingBandit]

Can a non-atheist/non-theist butt in for a second skitz?

 

My moral code is, admittedly a fairly short and strange one, but I think it is logical.

 

Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. <--Payback is a bitch, so think twice, then think it over again before doing something bad.

Killing someone is a no-no. <--You never know if you'll need them for something at a later time. Death is so hard to reverse.

 

Wow, that is a short moral code isn't it?

Edited August 8, 2010 by TheSmilingBandit

[slim_dude]

When you say "scripture" do you mean just the bible? What about the other holy texts of other religions? Because not all christian denominations agree perfectly on what is right or wrong. Anglicans/episcopalians believe in god and jesus christ, and also allow for divorce, something that roman catholics do not. So we already have disagreements on god's moral code between denominations of one religion, what more between religions? Or are we starting from the assumption that only roman catholics are theists and everybody else (muslims, the jewish, mormons, episcopalians, baptists, atheists) are atheists?

 

In the case of our lovely Ellen Degeneres, I included her name because I like backing up what I say with factual examples. Ellen is a living example of someone who believes in god and also believes in gay marriage, so it can therefore never be said that the only people who believe in gay marriage are atheists. In no way did I assert that because one person who believes in gay marriage is a theist, all people who believe in gay marriage are theists -- that's fallacious.

 

One thing to note is the use of the term "pro-abortion". This is very misleading and inflammatory name. People who are pro-choice do not endorse abortion, and they would also like to live in a world where nobody would need to have one. What they're really supporting is a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses to have one.

 

Would I be mistaken in assuming that whatever moral code I come up with will be compared to your "god's moral code"? That's what I gathered when you challenge atheists to present their moral code and 'justify' it. The act of justifying something means we'd be trying to reconcile our code with yours - it presupposes that "god's moral code" is the standard by which all other codes must adhere to. What would be the point in that? Atheists already acknowledge that not all their beliefs are congruent with roman catholic beliefs - that's how some atheists got their start, after all.

[BnF95]

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.

From the start, the basic premise of this thread is already in doubt. What are you trying to argue, that the moral code was god given or that without a moral code, god given or otherwise, man would be unable to advance and prosper?

 

Can you please change the title to something less theist inspired/derived?

 

That slight tantrum over, I shall endeavor to put my point of view on the whole morality issue.

 

Let's take a closer look at the basic concept of morality, at least from a Christian point of view.

 

The whole moral code of the Christians is taken In Toto from the Jews in the form of the Ten Commandments.

 

1. 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
   
2. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
   
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 your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

Let us try to summarize the whole thing though. The first 4 basically says "Love God above all else" and thus from a theistically neutral point of view don't really count. So we are left with 6.

1. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
   
2. 'You shall not murder.'
   
3. 'You shall not commit adultery.'
   
4. 'You shall not steal.'
   
5. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
   
6. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

Now 3, 4, and 6 are all basically saying the same thing (remember that in ancient times daughters were considered the property of the father and thus adultery is basically stealing your neighbor's daughter or his wife since adultery is defined as an extramarital affair. They can be summed into "You shall not covet that which is not thine." Stealing being a form of coveting after all.

 

1. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
   
2. 'You shall not murder.'
   
3. 'You shall not covet that which is not thine.'
   
4. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

 

Now we are down to 4 commandments, but can we compress this further?

 

Of course we can.

 

Murder too is a form of stealing, you are stealing the life of another, ergo you are coveting it.

 

Now we are down to the 3 commandments.

1. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
   
2. 'You shall not covet that which is not thine.'
   
3. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

 

Now the whole false witness thing, what is that? Let's see if we can firm it up a little. "You shall not lie." Okay, that's pretty much a distinct thing. "Honor your father and mother", fine that can be cut short to "Honor your parents" and seems pretty distinct too.

 

Wait

 

Are they distinct? Can't we make it more succinct and boil it down to "Love others as you love yourself", surely you would honor your parents if you love them as yourself, you wouldn't lie to yourself, well for most people, some people seem to like lying to everyone including themselves, and the whole coveting thing would fall in with loving others as you love yourself since you wouldn't covet anymore.

 

So now we have the commandment

LOVE OTHERS AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF.

 

Now, is that really a god given rule? That's for another day.

[ksredna]

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.

 

 

I find the opening text to the thread to be arrogant by the theists and insulting to atheists.

 

What an arrogance to claim that only you have morals.

 

No atheists, or as most of us atheists are we do not take our morals from your scriptures, such as the bible or koran or from your religious traditions and interpretation. We, or many of us, find them utterly disgusting. We do not think that they are a precondition for moral conduct, but that they are a hindrance for moral conduct.

 

No we do not give any higher authority to any human construct of moral, just because the followers make reference to the authority of an imaginary supernatural author of books that we find disgusting.

 

What you call “MORAL CODE that GOD gave man”, does not differ in its authority from any other moral constructed by man. They are all human or cultural constructs. Because moral can only come from humans.

 

It is not so that without a scripture endorsing slavery, stoning of people, eye for an eye, women as inferior to men, genocide, original sin, etc, mankind would be lost without a moral to guide them.

 

As I see it human moral are derived from and closely related to human biology, human and societal discourse and experience. Human moral is not a thing given one time. It's constantly evolving. It is generally improving over time. Our moral today is wastely improved over brutal middle eastern bronze age moral such as those that we find in scriptures.

 

Moral is evolving and it should always be evolving. By referring to moral as god or scripture given, then you try to stop any future discussion and evolution. Human societies do not evolve by shutting down the conversation and critical debate. Our moral just as any other human or societal institution needs and thrives on an open discourse and our experiences.

[BnF95]

For a more logical look at any moral code, I suppose we first have to define morality.

 

Since I am an indolent creature at heart, I shall copy the wikipedia definition.

 

Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is a passive indifference toward morality. Morality has three principal meanings:

 

1. In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.[clarification needed] This sense of the term is also addressed by descriptive ethics.

2. In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by a moral skepticism, in which the unchanging existence of a rigid, universal, objective moral "truth" is rejected, and supported by moral realism, in which the existence of this "truth" is accepted. The normative usage of the term "morality" is also addressed by normative ethics.

3. In its "ethics" sense, morality encompasses the above two meanings and others within a systematic philosophical study of the moral domain. Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).

 

A key issue is the meaning of the terms "moral" or "immoral". Moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism), merely the speakers' sentiments (emotivism), or an unsupported belief that there are objective moral facts (moral nihilism). Like the cultural relativist, the moral relativist holds that there is no correct definition of right behavior, and that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position often cites empirical evidence from anthropology of sharply contrasting views of "good" as supporting its claims. Poles apart are the views of moral realism, which hold that there are true moral statements that report objective moral facts. For example, while moral universalists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. This may be the philosphical view propounded by supporters of the science of morality (ethical naturalists), however not all moral realists accept that position (e.g. ethical non-naturalists). Positions which claim that morality is derived from reasoning about implied imperatives (universal prescriptivism), the edicts of a god (divine command theory), or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational being (ideal observer theory), are considered anti-realist in one ("robust") sense, but are considered realist in the sense synonymous with moral universalism.

 

A disambiguation in the usage of the word 'morality' can be made. In teleological ethics the word 'moral' is used as a synonym for ethical. In deontological ethics the word 'moral' is used in a more narrow sense: that act of which one can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law. A remarkable consequence of this is that teleological ethics is immoral from a deontological viewpoint.

 

“Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations.

[skitz]

Alright atheists, do not get your panties in a wad. Go back to the original text of what I wrote (and do not read anything into it that wasn't there). I was CAREFUL to qualify my sentences with "ACCORDING TO THEISTS" -- meaning, I acknowledge the BIAS, and did not present that as a STATEMENT OF EMPIRICAL FACT. Ok? Clear enough to you all?

 

The challenge is simple. IGNORE the MORAL CODE given by GOD (again, according to theists), build your own moral code from the ground up and DEFEND THAT CODE. Why should we follow that code?

 

Would I be mistaken in assuming that whatever moral code I come up with will be compared to your "god's moral code"? That's what I gathered when you challenge atheists to present their moral code and 'justify' it. The act of justifying something means we'd be trying to reconcile our code with yours - it presupposes that "god's moral code" is the standard by which all other codes must adhere to. What would be the point in that? Atheists already acknowledge that not all their beliefs are congruent with roman catholic beliefs - that's how some atheists got their start, after all.

No it will not. We shall try to project how that moral code will affect the status quo if everyone follows your moral code (if ever you are able to justify why people should follow it in the first place). DO NOT WORRY PEOPLE, even as I am a THEIST, I still consider myself largely AMORAL (I wouldn't be in MTC if I wasn't). But still, a "sinner" I may be, I still prefer the "religious" setting the moral code than the "misguided and godless hollywood icons". Let me put it this way, I never liked that my mother set a curfew for me (when I was growing up), but I'd be more bothered if she didn't.

 

Can a non-atheist/non-theist butt in for a second skitz?

 

My moral code is, admittedly a fairly short and strange one, but I think it is logical.

 

Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. <--Payback is a bitch, so think twice, then think it over again before doing something bad.

Killing someone is a no-no. <--You never know if you'll need them for something at a later time. Death is so hard to reverse.

 

Wow, that is a short moral code isn't it?

 

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?

Edited August 9, 2010 by TheSmilingBandit

[ksredna]

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?

 

We are as most other primates social beings. We live in societies and are dependent on collaborations. We do compete, but the ability to collaborate is to a large extend what gives us competitive edge.

 

Moral is derrived from our biology, It evolves in a social debate. In the discourse it has been agreed more or less universally that killing, cheating, lying, stealing and not keeping promises is wrong. These moral principles are the foundation for collaboration, friendships and business.

 

Societies that has not arrived at a consensus of a moral with do not k*ll, do not lie or cheat, do not steal and keep you promises moral and used empathy as a basis guidance in life and love (Do not unto others what you not...), have found it hard to establish conditions for stable collaborations for societies to thrive. Societies which did not arrive at such moral preconditions for collaborations would most likely not have survived for long.

 

Today societies that can further and refine the preconditions for collaboration will be most likely to succeed.

 

DO NOT WORRY PEOPLE, even as I am a THEIST, I still consider myself largely AMORAL (I wouldn't be in MTC if I wasn't).

 

You do confirm that prejudice that theists often are amoral people, while atheists often are the moral people. We do not accept things or moral instructions upon faith.

 

Question. Why do you think it is amoral to be in MTC?

Edited August 9, 2010 by TheSmilingBandit

[cocoy0]

The principle of Utilitarianism, perhaps? I don't know much philosophy, pero the survival of the species is a good reason for norms and ethics.

[skitz]

Since we are going to examine the "truth" in the moral codes of both the atheists and the theists, as far as this exercise is concerned, I am going to have to ask both parties to unburden themselves with their notions of the traditional contextual meanings of the word. "Moral", unless specifically stated is the god-given moral code, and is the theist standard of what is right and what is wrong (which may or may not be true).

 

What I am asking the atheists is to create their own moral code (from the ground up), ignoring the moral code of the theists (since they do not believe in God, and therefore should IGNORE His commandments). And the DEFEND the "truth" of that moral code.

Edited August 9, 2010 by skitz

[BnF95]

Since we are going to examine the "truth" in the moral codes of both the atheists and the theists, as far as this exercise is concerned, I am going to have to ask both parties to unburden themselves with their notions of the traditional contextual meanings of the word. "Moral", unless specifically stated is the god-given moral code, and is the theist standard of what is right and what is wrong (which may or may not be true).

 

What I am asking the atheists is to create their own moral code (from the ground up), ignoring the moral code of the theists (since they do not believe in God, and therefore should IGNORE His commandments). And the DEFEND the "truth" of that moral code.

That is a bit silly isn't it, to build a moral code from the ground up? Morality is often a subconscious collective decision on what is considered right and wrong. It varies from place to place and from time to time. Even the theist morality has changed over the centuries as it adapts to the subconscious collective needs. If the moral code were indeed given by a god it would not change however it does change.

 

Your challenge is one sided it seems.

 

An example of a theist moral code that has changed is the number of wives allowed to a man.

[skitz]

Societies that has not arrived at a consensus of a moral with do not k*ll, do not lie or cheat, do not steal and keep you promises moral and used empathy as a basis guidance in life and love (Do not unto others what you not...), have found it hard to establish conditions for stable collaborations for societies to thrive. Societies which did not arrive at such moral preconditions for collaborations would most likely not have survived for long.

 

Today societies that can further and refine the preconditions for collaboration will be most likely to succeed.

 

Societies that flourish today are the societies that EXPLOITED, KILLED, ENSLAVED weaker societies. America is america because the European invaders virtually exterminated the natives of that land. This is "natural". The strong shall and should destroy the weak (if NATURE be the standard of our moral code).

 

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.