God's moral code

[friendly0603]

he most likely meant the monotheistic religions' (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) God. that said, i can't speak for the threadstarter. at any rate, it's pretty irrelevant since no one has come up with a moral code of their own that's not based, in part or in full, on religious beliefs or on a rationale that acknowledges human life as sacred.

This might be a good read to start.

 

http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/articles/the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god/

[vheRR]

vheRR seems to be out his mind. He lost some level of basic wisdom. If I were him, he should consult his Philo 101 professor (was it Acuña in Diliman?) or re-read his textbook. Or the problem is if vheRR did not even take his studies seriously. That's why his level of thinking remains at 1-2 out of the possible 10. vheRR, pls study again. Atheism is not cool anymore!

 

 

Nice idea. But before that, we must ascertain that the debaters are of the same educational level. Is vheRR done with his Master's? Did he graduate from Ateneo or UP with honors? If the answer to those questions are negative, then vheRR doesn't deserve a single iota of our precious time. I'm done with my Master's from a great US university and I'm now getting some PhD units. Why would I face a kindergarten kid like vheRR in a debate? Let him sing some "melodies" of long-time-dead atheistic principles and let him listen to these himself. I prefer to just ignore him.

 

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk...

 

... kapag nga naman "hindi kayang ipagtanggol ang kanilang salita't paniniwala",

 

... ano ang mainam na "palusot",

... ang "mag-mataas",

... mga brod, magkaiba ang "mahusay ka" sa "mahusay ka at mapatutunayan mo".

[viral]

Russell's teapot, of course, stands for an infinite number of things whose existence is conceivable and cannot be disproved. That great American lawyer Clarence Darrow said, 'I don't believe in God as I don't believe in Mother Goose.' The journalist Andrew Mueller is of the opinion that pledging yourself to any particular religion 'is no more or less weird than choosing to believe that the world is rhombus-shaped, and borne through the cosmos in the pincers of two enormous green lobsters called Esmerelda and Keith'.32 A philosophical favourite is the invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn, disproof of which is attempted yearly by the children at Camp Quest.* A popular deity on the Internet at present - and as undisprovable as Yahweh or any other - is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who, many claim, has touched them with his noodly appendage.33 I am delighted to see that the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has now been published as a book,34 to great acclaim. I haven't read it myself, but who needs to read a gospel when you just know it's true? By the way, it had to happen - a Great Schism has already occurred, resulting in the Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

The point of all these way-out examples is that they are undisprovable, yet nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence. Russell's point is that the burden of proof rests with the believers, not the non-believers. Mine is the related point that the odds in favour of the teapot (spaghetti monster / Esmerelda and Keith / unicorn etc.) are not equal to the odds against.

 

The fact that orbiting teapots and tooth fairies are undisprovable is not felt, by any reasonable person, to be the kind of fact that settles any interesting argument. None of us feels an obligation to disprove any of the millions of far-fetched things that a fertile or facetious imagination might dream up. I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.

 

All of us feel entitled to express extreme scepticism to the point of outright disbelief - except that in the case of unicorns, tooth fairies and the gods of Greece, Rome, Egypt and the Vikings, there is (nowadays) no need to bother. In the case of the Abrahamic God, however, there is a need to bother, because a substantial proportion of the people with whom we share the planet do believe strongly in his existence. Russell's teapot demonstrates that the ubiquity of belief in God, as compared with belief in celestial teapots, does not shift the burden of proof in logic, although it may seem to shift it as a matter of practical politics. That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can be neither proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent.

 

Richard Dawkins

The God Delusion

pp. 52 - 54

 

.... ngayon, sa iyong palagay, totoo ba si Optimus Prime?

 

... o hindi?

 

... o ewan mo?

 

Kaso, Dios ang pinag-uusapan natin, hindi si Optimus Prime.

 

Kaso, sila Zeus, etc. wala nang naniniwala. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, other major religions have followings, and they share belief in common attributes of a supreme being. That's why a thread like this exists and we argue.

 

And for every Russell's teapot, for every Richard Dawkins, there are theologians from different religions who have presented compelling, logical arguments for the existence of God.

 

As for whether God's existence is "probable," if you look at the logic prompted by scientific evidence (not theories) about whether there was supernatural intervention which made conditions for life on earth possible -- conditions which are so precise -- the preponderance favors the probability of a creator.

Edited May 7, 2012 by viral

[vheRR]

Kaso, Dios ang pinag-uusapan natin, hindi si Optimus Prime.

 

Kaso, sila Zeus, etc. wala nang naniniwala. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, other major religions have followings, and they share belief in common attributes of a supreme being. That's why a thread like this exists and we argue.

 

... si Optimus Prime at ang dios mo (assuming na theist ka),

... parehong "produkto ng imahinasyon",

 

 

... unless na kaya mong "patunayang totoo" ang dios mo.

And for every Russell's teapot, for every Richard Dawkins, there are theologians from different religions who have presented compelling, logical arguments for the existence of God.

 

... at wala bang "logical argument for the existence" of Russell's teapot?

 

... wala bang "logical argument for the existence" of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

As for whether God's existence is "probable," if you look at the logic prompted by scientific evidence (not theories) about whether there was supernatural intervention which made conditions for life on earth possible -- conditions which are so precise -- the preponderance favors the probability of a creator.

 

... paki-elaborate nga kung paano "nahulaan", este, na-kwenta ang "probability" na mayroon ngang creator.

[U.P. AdMU2008]

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk...

 

... kapag nga naman "hindi kayang ipagtanggol ang kanilang salita't paniniwala",

 

... ano ang mainam na "palusot",

... ang "mag-mataas",

... mga brod, magkaiba ang "mahusay ka" sa "mahusay ka at mapatutunayan mo".

 

 

Vherr, you tend to quote so much on Logic. As if everything is under a Conditional Syllogism or Disjunctive or Conjunctive inference. Did you graduate from UP? OMG, you should have been failed by Acuña or de Castro! Pls review Wittgenstein and Leibniz's explanation and "destruction" of the usual defective logical process. And you'll find out that your Logic is very elementary!!!

 

Vherr, you're just an elementary kid. Period.

[SaintPeter5858]

... si Optimus Prime at ang dios mo (assuming na theist ka),

... parehong "produkto ng imahinasyon",

 

 

... unless na kaya mong "patunayang totoo" ang dios mo.

 

... at wala bang "logical argument for the existence" of Russell's teapot?

 

... wala bang "logical argument for the existence" of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

 

 

... paki-elaborate nga kung paano "nahulaan", este, na-kwenta ang "probability" na mayroon ngang creator.

 

VheRR, have noticed? Wala ka na kakampi dito ah! Please review Kant's Universalizability Test as quoted by Ateneo and UP Professors.

It's like this: you are just one Unbeliever VheRR versus 3 Billion Believers! Kung eleksyon yan, lahat kami boboto para sa Diyos, at ikaw lang ang hindi. Paano ka mananalo? That's democracy, numbers game yan VheRR! Bulag ka ba?

[vheRR]

Vherr, you tend to quote so much on Logic. As if everything is under a Conditional Syllogism or Disjunctive or Conjunctive inference. Did you graduate from UP? OMG, you should have been failed by Acuña or de Castro! Pls review Wittgenstein and Leibniz's explanation and "destruction" of the usual defective logical process. And you'll find out that your Logic is very elementary!!!

 

Vherr, you're just an elementary kid. Period.

 

 

VheRR, have noticed? Wala ka na kakampi dito ah! Please review Kant's Universalizability Test as quoted by Ateneo and UP Professors.

 

It's like this: you are just one Unbeliever VheRR versus 3 Billion Believers! Kung eleksyon yan, lahat kami boboto para sa Diyos, at ikaw lang ang hindi. Paano ka mananalo? That's democracy, numbers game yan VheRR! Bulag ka ba?

 

... "Logic"? "Conditional Syllogism or Disjunctive or Conjunctive inference"? "Wittgenstein and Leibniz's"? "Kant's Universalizability Test"?

... wow, heavy, bigat mga bro,

 

 

... so, bakit hindi nyo "maipagtanggol" ang inyong mga sinabi?

 

SaintPeter5858, on 02 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

 

Without God's code, we would all be killing each other

 

U.P. AdMU2008, on 14 April 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

 

Without God's commands, then we're all living like beasts.

 

 

 

 

... at ukol sa "eleksyon", sinasabi mo bang ang "katotohanan" at ang "imahinasyon" ay pawang "numbers game" lamang?

... na ang pinaniniwalaan mong totoo, "nakadepende lang" sa dami ng naniniwala?

... so kaninong "version" ng dios pala ang "mas" totoo? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

[dungeonbaby]

sana kasi sagutin na lang yung tanong ni skitz di ba, imbes na pagalingan ng pag quote mula sa ibang site. wala na ngang original thought, off topic pa.

[SaintPeter5858]

vheRR, I don't state what's obvious

[vheRR]

vheRR, I don't state what's obvious

 

... na hindi mo "kaya" na ipagtanggol ang sinabi mo't paniniwala?

[U.P. AdMU2008]

VheRR, have noticed? Wala ka na kakampi dito ah! Please review Kant's Universalizability Test as quoted by Ateneo and UP Professors.

It's like this: you are just one Unbeliever VheRR versus 3 Billion Believers! Kung eleksyon yan, lahat kami boboto para sa Diyos, at ikaw lang ang hindi. Paano ka mananalo? That's democracy, numbers game yan VheRR! Bulag ka ba?

 

 

Mang Vherr, pls comment on the statement by Sir Saint Peter na lang. Mahirap mamatay mag-isa, di ba? Isa ka lang versus billions of us!

[U.P. AdMU2008]

Suggestion for you Mang Vherr: During a big rally of El Shaddai or the GEM of Iglesia ni Cristo, go upstage then grab the microphone from the main speaker, then tell the mammoth audience that there is no God. Let's see what will happen to you. C'mon Mang Vherr, do it!

[vheRR]

Mang Vherr, pls comment on the statement by Sir Saint Peter na lang. Mahirap mamatay mag-isa, di ba? Isa ka lang versus billions of us!

 

... "mahirap mamatay mag-isa",

... sinasabi mo bang "gusto mo na may kasama pag namatay ka"?

... "mahirap mamatay mag-isa",

 

... ke masarap o mahirap na kamatayan, isa lang din naman ang kababagsakan, "kamatayan".

... at ipagpalagay na nating mag-isa nga lang ako,

 

... therefore ano?

 

Edited May 9, 2012 by vheRR

[U.P. AdMU2008]

Evading the practical question uli. We don't talk at your level Vherr. You are blind to religious politics hehehe. Mag-aral ka muna kapatid. Read... read... and read social and religious events! Para matuto at maging matalino.

[U.P. AdMU2008]

The quotations below that you have borrowed from Russell and Dawkins are marks of close-minded thinking process. They were wrtitten at a time when the authors were at their lowest spiritual/philosophical state of mind. So what do you expect? Even Russell himself was no longer like that in his later books and pronouncements. I suggest that you read all Russell's books and then balance with other authors like Kierkegaard, Adorno, and others.

 

Go ahead Bro!

 

 

We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.

Richard Dawkins (1941 - )

British ethologist.

The Selfish Gene

 

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

British philosopher and mathematician.

The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell

[friendly0603]

sana kasi sagutin na lang yung tanong ni skitz di ba, imbes na pagalingan ng pag quote mula sa ibang site. wala na ngang original thought, off topic pa.

Is this for me? It's not OT. If you read it, that tribe existed without a god or concept of heaven and hell. And they were still able to live their lives without killing each other.

 

Caring for the old was reciprocity. They don't stock up on food. They just share. You probably have to read more about them if you want specifics on other concerns you may have.

[dungeonbaby]

Is this for me? It's not OT. If you read it, that tribe existed without a god or concept of heaven and hell. And they were still able to live their lives without killing each other.

 

Caring for the old was reciprocity. They don't stock up on food. They just share. You probably have to read more about them if you want specifics on other concerns you may have.

 

no it wasn't about you. and sorry, i don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. i guess i'll have to backread now since it looks like you are actually on topic, which means i have to wade through the others' posts again *groan*

[U.P. AdMU2008]

There's no way you can get away with "numbers game". Majority rule is always upheld anywhere.

Edited May 9, 2012 by U.P. AdMU2008

[dungeonbaby]

This might be a good read to start.

 

http://ffrf.org/publ...ss-without-god/

 

oh you meant this link. you want me to read that lengthy article by a professor who went to the amazon and lost his faith? it doesn't even have any nice photos!

 

so these piraha have no concept of God, and justice is something like whacking your husband on the head because he slept with another woman. is that the moral code you meant? what do you think? is the fact that these people are happy (or so they say in their monolingual way) proof that they understand morality? how is immediacy of experience a moral code? or do you think their promiscuity and penchant for having lots of sex during the full moon a code of some sort?

 

 

your turn.

[MVP3]

God's moral codes can easily be applied to all people beyond religious divides.

[JayZip]

wow i was supposed to post something but i got so lost in the myriad of vheRR's rhetorical questions that it spaced me out

(no seriously vheRR, im not angry at you or picking a fight - i am just merely suggesting that you end your answers with a period for a change)

 

anyway, to specifically answer the question "God's moral code - do we still need it?"

(and please pardon my amateur-ish post)

 

I'd say it depends.

 

if we put God (or any other deity) out of the equation as per Skitz's initial argument then NO. that is why you have atheists or people who have their own sets of morals who base their beliefs on something that isnt related to any god or religion. it could be scientifically based or plainly something out of their own minds. (which basically i think is what vheRR is driving at)

 

if we put God into the equation then YES. i think we (yes i believe in God) just cannot avoid basing our morals on lets say the Bible or the Koran. just like i am pro contraception but anti abortion (get it? there's always a reference to "do not k*ll" which is a basic Bible teaching). --- (jhp is a good example if you back read).

 

but if there is something i will (or can) agree on is that we need a Moral Code whether its God based or not. something "unbendable" (to quote dungeonbaby) because without basis we are nothing. we actually dont have to believe it per se - its sort of a starting point where people can agree on and from there move on to what they think is right or wrong. whether it be that God created all human beings or we evolved from some kind of bacteria (or we were just thought of by someone and poof there goes jayzip).

[vheRR]

Suggestion for you Mang Vherr: During a big rally of El Shaddai or the GEM of Iglesia ni Cristo, go upstage then grab the microphone from the main speaker, then tell the mammoth audience that there is no God. Let's see what will happen to you. C'mon Mang Vherr, do it!

 

 

... at kung ano man ang "mangyari" sa akin,

... therefore, totoo ang kanilang dios?

... kunsabagay, paano nga ba napatunayan ng mga Kastila na totoo ang kanilang dios nang dumating sila sa Pilipinas?

[vheRR]

Evading the practical question uli. We don't talk at your level Vherr. You are blind to religious politics hehehe. Mag-aral ka muna kapatid. Read... read... and read social and religious events! Para matuto at maging matalino.

 

... "evading"?

... sumagot ako, sumasagot ako, at sasagot ako,

... eh "ikaw"?

... again, magkaiba ang "mahusay ka" sa "mahusay ka at mapatutunayan mo".

[vheRR]

sana kasi sagutin na lang yung tanong ni skitz di ba, imbes na pagalingan ng pag quote mula sa ibang site.

 

... sinagot na.

 

wala na ngang original thought, off topic pa.

 

... so, ang mga kaalaman na natutunan mo sa paaralan at sa ibang tao, hindi mo ba ginagamit?

[vheRR]

The quotations below that you have borrowed from Russell and Dawkins are marks of close-minded thinking process. They were wrtitten at a time when the authors were at their lowest spiritual/philosophical state of mind. So what do you expect? Even Russell himself was no longer like that in his later books and pronouncements. I suggest that you read all Russell's books and then balance with other authors like Kierkegaard, Adorno, and others.

 

Go ahead Bro!

 

 

We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.

Richard Dawkins (1941 - )

British ethologist.

The Selfish Gene

 

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

British philosopher and mathematician.

The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell

 

... ginagamit ko ang quotation depende sa kung ano ang "nilalaman" ng quotation at hindi sa kung ano ang estado ng pag-iisip ng author,

... at bago ka magbigay (muli) ng payo, "ipagtanggol" mo muna ang iyong "sinabi",

... uulitin ko uli, magkaiba ang "mahusay ka" sa "mahusay ka at mapatutunayan mo".