God's moral code

[skitz]

Ano ulet yung sagot dun sa simpleng tanong?

[JHP]

Sige vHeRR. walang lihisan. Just answer Skitz's question. And don't tell me morality comes from nature. Ang aso kumakantot ng kahit anong aso kung taglibog at may pagkakataon.

[JHP]

Hindi kaya IDINAAN MO lang sa "SARCASM" ang PAGKA-UNAWA MO?

Hindi kaya IPINAGTATANGGOL MO lang ang isang "KAKAMPI" sa PANANAMPALATAYA?

Lihis na naman. Res ipsa loquitur.

 

 

... kay DALI na 'SABIHIN" na IBUBUWIS MO ang BUHAY MO,

... kay DALI rin kayang "GAWIN"?

i have actually been in life and death situations when i have put myself in harm's way to protect others, when the outcome could have resulted in death or serious injury to me, instead of them. i did not need to, but i was prepared to take the consequences, knowing full well what they could be. This is not an armchair discussion, vHeRR. Some of us take our moral code seriously. Perhaps to you these things are all just words to jest about in verse.

... BAKIT nga ba ISINASAKRIPISYO ng MAGULANG ang SARILI PARA sa KALIGTASAN ng KANYANG ANAK?

... BAKIT nga ba ISINASAKRIPISYO ng INANG "ASO" ang SARILI PARA sa KALIGTASAN ng KANYANG ANAK?

 

... BAKIT nga ba IPINAGTATANGGOL ng MIYEMBRO ang KANYANG KA-GRUPO?

See my previous post, vhhERR.

... hindi nga ba't AYON sa DIOS MO,

... WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY ang GANTIMPALA NYA sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA?

... so kung ISINA-SAKRIPISYO MO ang BUHAY MO PARA sa IBA,

... ANO ang KAPALIT?

... WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY?

For me, selfishness is when i come first. But if in this life i have put others first when it really counted, there is no selfishness if i am rewarded after this earthly life. Hard for you to understand no, vHeRR?

WALA bang PAGKAKA-IBA ng MORAL CODE ang MGA THEIST?

... ang MABUTI ba AYON sa ISANG THEIST, ay MABUTI rin AYON sa LAHAT ng THEIST?

Yes, there are overwhelmingly more substantial agreements than variances.

 

 

KAILANGAN nga uli ISINILANG ang DIOS MO?

As always, you miss the point. No matter when Christ was born, there still is a Christmas. And if you were really an atheist, you would not join anything that had to do with Christmas, because it would be against your atheist beliefs, di ba?

 

 

Finally, just answer the question posted by skitz, vHeRR, because it is a valid question. At huwag mong sabihin sawsaw suka ha?

[cbr600rr]

He! He!

Hey guys, maybe we should'nt pick on vheRR.

 

Tutal, he's the one who offered a totally different view on the topic, and I feel he should be appreciated for that.

 

From my understanding, his difference in view is not a question of having a moral code or not, but rather the source of this moral code.

 

vheRR's existentialist view is that the moral code is built into MAN's instinct, being a social animal. Thus, man is the source of this code... Fundamentally, and effectively, man is the end all, be all of everything.

 

The opposing view by some is that moral code is from God. Or that the urge to follow a moral code (called a conscience by some), comes from a deity or a being higher than man. And God, not man is the end all, be all of everything.

 

On the surface, both schools of thought sets up a moral codes that may yield similar positive results. But, the fundamentals, or the source of this code, are different.

[dungeonbaby]

From my understanding, his difference in view is not a question of having a moral code or not, but rather the source of this moral code.

 

vheRR's existentialist view is that the moral code is built into MAN's instinct, being a social animal. Thus, man is the source of this code... Fundamentally, and effectively, man is the end all, be all of everything.

 

The opposing view by some is that moral code is from God. Or that the urge to follow a moral code (called a conscience by some), comes from a deity or a being higher than man. And God, not man is the end all, be all of everything.

 

Okay. But if "man is the end all, be all of everything" as you summarize it, he will preserve himself before others, at the expense of others. Vherr belabors the point that man would also preserve his family. Or, more precisely, that a dog would preserve his pup. But maternal instincts or familial love aside, if a man's primary motivation is to think of himself, then he would sooner k*ll than be killed. That's JHP's point. There's not been an argument for why a man wouldn't just k*ll his fellow man if the latter was infected with a deadly disease. Except a God-given moral code.

 

Socrates said we hold on to beliefs that we think are common sense. But when we are questioned we discover that these beliefs are not always sound. That's the point here. We're trying to find out if, without God and a moral code, humanity would survive itself.

 

On the surface, both schools of thought sets up a moral codes that may yield similar positive results. But, the fundamentals, or the source of this code, are different.

 

So far, no one's convinced that a code that's based on man or the self will yield the positive result that you are speaking of.

[complicated8]

Okay. But if "man is the end all, be all of everything" as you summarize it, he will preserve himself before others, at the expense of others. Vherr belabors the point that man would also preserve his family. Or, more precisely, that a dog would preserve his pup. But maternal instincts or familial love aside, if a man's primary motivation is to think of himself, then he would sooner k*ll than be killed. That's JHP's point. There's not been an argument for why a man wouldn't just k*ll his fellow man if the latter was infected with a deadly disease. Except a God-given moral code.

 

Socrates said we hold on to beliefs that we think are common sense. But when we are questioned we discover that these beliefs are not always sound. That's the point here. We're trying to find out if, without God and a moral code, humanity would survive itself.

Didn't some extinct civilizations have a God(s)?

 

So far, no one's convinced that a code that's based on man or the self will yield the positive result that you are speaking of.

Are you convinced of the opposite? Do you think because of God's moral code that this country will actually be better or just continue on it's downward spiral I think it's time to try something new.

[cbr600rr]

..... if a man's primary motivation is to think of himself, then he would sooner k*ll than be killed. That's JHP's point. There's not been an argument for why a man wouldn't just k*ll his fellow man if the latter was infected with a deadly disease. Except a God-given moral code.

 

Socrates said we hold on to beliefs that we think are common sense. But when we are questioned we discover that these beliefs are not always sound. That's the point here. We're trying to find out if, without God and a moral code, humanity would survive itself.

 

So far, no one's convinced that a code that's based on man or the self will yield the positive result that you are speaking of.

 

I acknowledge and agree with your argument that the natural instinct of man to preserve self and kin would negatively impact humanities ability to survive itself and will probably not have a positive result.

 

However, if you will, try to differentiate this natural instinct, from the instinct that vheRR could be referring to (correct me if I'm wrong), which he referrs to as man's "SOCIAL ANIMAL" instinct - oftentimes expressed in acts of kindness, compassion; things that make our society more livable. It seems that his proposal (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the "goodness" in man's heart is something built-in him because of man being a "social animal", and does not come from a God.

 

It seems his proposal is that man does indeed need a moral code, but this moral code does not come from God, but rather built into man, man being a "SOCIAL ANIMAL" as he calls it.

 

Complic8ed's observation that some monotheisthic societies in history collapsed (I presume she's referring to the Mayan society, among others) also seems to further the point that having a God does not ensure mankind's survival;

so therefore furthering vheRR's proposal that you don't need a God to have a moral code, as opposed to your view, and JHP's view that man's moral code comes from God.

Edited December 18, 2010 by cbr600rr

[sohryu]

this is a good thread and i havent been here in a while. btw, i dont know it its been pointed out already but i think the name of the thread is a bit off...

 

u know.. i remember reading something that says "as far as this thread is concerned, GOd doesnt exist". imhp, maybe its better if its "MORAL CODE.."

[dungeonbaby]

I acknowledge and agree with your argument that the natural instinct of man to preserve self and kin would negatively impact humanities ability to survive itself and will probably not have a positive result.

 

However, if you will, try to differentiate this natural instinct, from the instinct that vheRR could be referring to (correct me if I'm wrong), which he referrs to as man's "SOCIAL ANIMAL" instinct - oftentimes expressed in acts of kindness, compassion; things that make our society more livable. It seems that his proposal (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the "goodness" in man's heart is something built-in him because of man being a "social animal", and does not come from a God.

 

It seems his proposal is that man does indeed need a moral code, but this moral code does not come from God, but rather built into man, man being a "SOCIAL ANIMAL" as he calls it.

 

Complic8ed's observation that some monotheisthic societies in history collapsed (I presume she's referring to the Mayan society, among others) also seems to further the point that having a God does not ensure mankind's survival; so therefore furthering vheRR's proposal that you don't need a God to have a moral code, as opposed to your view, and JHP's view that man's moral code comes from God.

 

Where has it been stated here that having a God ensures mankind's survival? Nowhere. But maybe that was a typo and you meant that what's being argued from "our" perspective is that having a God-given moral code ensures mankind's survival? Well, that argument isn't the one theists here are making either. So complicated's example of extinct civilizations' belief in gods does not apply. It's flawed as well, since a code may not have been the cause for the extinction.

 

Ancient civilizations were most likely not destroyed by a mere belief in their moral code. Theirs was probably not a monotheistic belief system, in any case. But that's irrelevant, since there are so many other things that may have contributed to their demise - foreign disease, starvation, natural disaster, etc.

 

So let's instead look at the main argument, your/vherr's Man-as-social-animal proposal. The best way to simplify the argument is to reduce the sample population to two men, let's make them strangers, living on a tiny island - one is your "social animal," and the other is ridden with a highly contagious, debilitating, and deadly disease. What do you think has the power to stop your guy from performing an ultimately life-saving act, murdering the latter --- kindness or a moral code?

 

You are saying that if it were you or vherr, your built-in compassion will save the other man's life and shortly put a painful end to yours. Even when there is almost no social advantage to saving that life, and obviously no long-term physical gain.

 

What the other side is saying is only adherence to a God-based moral code will consistently give a man the strength to battle his basic instinct for self preservation.

[complicated8]

Where has it been stated here that having a God ensures mankind's survival?

Your statement: We're trying to find out if, without God and a moral code, humanity would survive itself.

 

Well, that argument isn't the one theists here are making either. So complicated's exhample of extinct civilizations' belief in gods does not apply. It's flawed as well, since a code may not have been the cause for the extinction.

It isn't that the code is the cause for extinction. Whatever the cause of extinction was, a God given moral code couldn't prevent it. With or without, it wouldn't matter. But if there is a limiter to God/moral code, that wasn't explicitly stated and I retract my example then.

[JHP]

@vHeRR, after you answer skitz's question first, i've been meaning to ask you another: Where does your "man is a social animal" concept end, and where does the quote in your signature from Richard Dawkins start? The quote: "We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."

 

Please tell us how the two concepts are reconcilable with each other.

[vheRR]

Ano ang dapat gawin sa mga HIV infected individuals? Ibigay ang moral (or logical) justification that would support your answer.

 

Kaya bang sagutin ng ATHEIST na si Vherr o hindi? Hahahahahaha...

 

 

 

… kung ANO ang GINAGAWA ng TAO sa HIV INFECTED "NGAYON",

 

 

… MINAMAHAL AT KINUKUTYA,

 

… INAALAGAAN AT PINANDIDIRIHAN,

… PINUPROTEKTAHAN AT NILALAYUAN.

 

[vheRR]

Sige vHeRR. walang lihisan. Just answer Skitz's question. And don't tell me morality comes from nature. Ang aso kumakantot ng kahit anong aso kung taglibog at may pagkakataon.

 

 

"ASO" lang ba…

… ang "HAYOP na ALAM MO"?

[vheRR]

Lihis na naman. Res ipsa loquitur.

AAMININ MO ba…

 

… kung SAKALING "TAMA AKO"?

 

i have actually been in life and death situations when i have put myself in harm's way to protect others, when the outcome could have resulted in death or serious injury to me, instead of them. i did not need to, but i was prepared to take the consequences, knowing full well what they could be. This is not an armchair discussion, vHeRR. Some of us take our moral code seriously. Perhaps to you these things are all just words to jest about in verse.

 

 

… ang TANONG,

"… kay DALI rin kayang GAWIN?"

"KAY DALI MO bang GAGAWIN na IBUWIS ang BUHAY MO"...

… sa "LAHAT" ng "PAGKAKATAON"?

 

"KAY DALI MO bang GAGAWIN na IBUWIS ang BUHAY MO"...

 

… sa "LAHAT" ng "TAO"?

 

 

See my previous post, vhhERR.

 

… so, BAKIT nga?

 

For me, selfishness is when i come first. But if in this life i have put others first when it really counted, there is no selfishness if i am rewarded after this earthly life. Hard for you to understand no, vHeRR?

Ah…

 

Eh…

 

 

… "HINDI MO ba ALAM",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… KAPAG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

 

… "HINDI KA ba NANINIWALA",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… HABANG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

 

… "HINDI KA ba NAKATITIYAK",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… HABANG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

… hard for you to understand?

 

Yes, there are overwhelmingly more substantial agreements than variances.

… and so,

 

… balikan natin,

 

 

… MAY mga THEIST ba na PUMATAY ng PARA sa KANYANG DIOS?

 

… MERON o WALA?

 

… at kung MERON ang ISASAGOT MO,

 

… "MABUTI ba o MASAMA" ang PUMATAY ng PARA sa KANYANG DIOS?

 

 

As always, you miss the point. No matter when Christ was born, there still is a Christmas. And if you were really an atheist, you would not join anything that had to do with Christmas, because it would be against your atheist beliefs, di ba?

 

As always, you miss the point…

 

… "NATITIYAK" MO na TOTOO ang DIOS MO,

 

… NGUNIT "HINDI MO MATIYAK" kung "KAILAN" nga ba IPINANGANAK ang DIOS MO? :lol:

[vheRR]

So let's instead look at the main argument, your/vherr's Man-as-social-animal proposal. The best way to simplify the argument is to reduce the sample population to two men, let's make them strangers, living on a tiny island - one is your "social animal," and the other is ridden with a highly contagious, debilitating, and deadly disease. What do you think has the power to stop your guy from performing an ultimately life-saving act, murdering the latter --- kindness or a moral code?

 

You are saying that if it were you or vherr, your built-in compassion will save the other man's life and shortly put a painful end to yours. Even when there is almost no social advantage to saving that life, and obviously no long-term physical gain.

 

What the other side is saying is only adherence to a God-based moral code will consistently give a man the strength to battle his basic instinct for self preservation.

 

LIKAS na MAKASARILI ang TAO…

…isang SOCIAL ANIMAL ang TAO,

 

… MAGKAKA-IBA ang BAWAT TAO,

 

 

… so,

 

…"DEPENDE" sa KUNG ANONG KLASENG TAO ang NASA "ISLA" MO,

 

 

… KAYA MAAARING "PATAYIN" NIYA ang TAONG MAY SAKIT,

 

… MAAARING "TULUNGAN" NIYA ang TAONG MAY SAKIT,

… MAAARI rin namang "LAYUAN" na lamang NIYA ang TAONG MAY SAKIT.