God's moral code

[sohryu]

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.

[skitz]

^^ Haha... HONESTY! A refreshing breath of honesty on these parts. Thanks.

Edited September 5, 2010 by skitz

[complicated8]

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 September 6, 2010 by complicated8

[vheRR]

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?

[vheRR]

Ang MORALIDAD...

 

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

 

 

 

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]

 

 

 

[skitz]

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.

[skitz]

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 September 6, 2010 by skitz

[complicated8]

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 September 7, 2010 by complicated8

[fashiznit78]

is god's moral code moral because god said so? or did god had this code because it is moral?

[vheRR]

 

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?

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

 

 

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".

[vheRR]

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"?

 

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

 

 

 

Kung MASAMA ang "CAUSE"…

 

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

 

Kung MABUTI ang "CAUSE"…

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

… 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:

[dungeonbaby]

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.

[skitz]

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.

[dungeonbaby]

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 September 28, 2010 by dungeonbaby

[skitz]

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 September 29, 2010 by skitz