God's moral code

[TheSmilingBandit]

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?

I didn't say you should follow my code skitz, I was just saying that that is my code, simple and short. However, for the sake of argument, I'll try to see where this is leading.

 

Killing is not forbidden in most moral codes, murder is what is forbidden. There is a difference. As for euthanasia and genetic purging, why stop at 100? Why not sterilize/eradicate anyone with an IQ below 200? The problem with such progroms is that in the end, it bites back at you. Where does it end?

 

Oh and while we are at it, Heinrich Himmler was a devout Roman Catholic, what does that really say about relative morality. In fact, the Spanish inquisition probably murdered more people than Himmler, so please don't point to the Roman Catholics as paragons of morality.

 

Religions of any kind tend to spout out holier than thou art holy phrases that they want their followers to obey, yet they often make exemptions if given enough incentives (see Church dispensations, history of).

Edited August 9, 2010 by TheSmilingBandit

[skitz]

Killing is not forbidden in most moral codes, murder is what is forbidden. There is a difference. As for euthanasia and genetic purging, why stop at 100? Why not sterilize/eradicate anyone with an IQ below 200? The problem with such progroms is that in the end, it bites back at you. Where does it end?

Why stop at 100? Simple. 100 IQ is the norm. Fall below that and you are in for culling. This is done with cattle. We stop at 100 because we want to maintain a certain genetic variance. This can be logically defended (if you are into breeding stocks). Oh yes, it will bite someone in the ass. And yes, it will probably include a LOT OF individuals (which may or may not include us). But why are "we" so important? I can argue that for the benefit of the species, less than average genes should immediately be culled out. It makes perfect sense.

[extrarice3]

I am a theist but I believe in one member that said it is unfair for the atheist to be left out of the morals that the theists have. Lets just say that there are a lot of common morals shared by both parties.

[skitz]

Yes. I believe that is true. And I am not trying to exclude the atheists from the "morals of the theists". What this exercise is all about is trying to find out why atheists subscribe to mostly the same morals as the theists? If I were an atheist, I wouldn't subscribe to MOST of the morals as defined by the theists. I'd steal, cheat, maybe even k*ll and hopefully get away with it -- which is really very easy. Think about it, criminals are mostly just dumb that's why they get caught! I know I can get away with a very lucrative criminal life.

 

Why is killing (ok, murdering) another human being bad? If I can get away with it and it improves my lot in life, why not?

 

There is this video on youtube, which is mostly a strawman fallacy, but anyway, I find that video really funny because it is an atheist defending atheism by basically saying that THEY ARE GOOD (as measured by the morals of the theists) even if they do not believe in God. If God does not exist, why do these atheists even bother measuring their "goodness" with the yardstick which the theists claim was given by God? It's like the jilted girlfriend syndrome which compels these people to prove that they are over the old boyfriend.

 

Think about it, if God does not exist, does "goodness" even matter?

[artvader]

That's pretty unfair to the atheist, don't you think? You're expecting them to build a "moral code" on their own (in their own lifetime, no less) rather than base their "moral code" on years of human history...

[skitz]

Why is it unfair? Look, my moral code, though based on what I believe God commanded, is not an exact copy of the religious right. I believe in contraception but against abortion, I am pro euthanasia, etc. I have my own MORAL CODE. And yes, again, it is mostly based on my THEIST beliefs.

 

The thing is, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. What are your beliefs? Aside from God does not exist that is. TO what ends is your atheism? I mean, these are things you should really think about. If God does not exist does "goodness" even matter?

Edited August 9, 2010 by skitz

[TheSmilingBandit]

Why is it unfair? Look, my moral code, though based on what I believe God commanded, is not an exact copy of the religious right. I believe in contraception but against abortion, I am pro euthanasia, etc. I have my own MORAL CODE. And yes, again, it is mostly based on my THEIST beliefs.

 

The thing is, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. What are your beliefs? Aside from God does not exist that is. TO what ends is your atheism? I mean, these are things you should really think about. If God does not exist does "goodness" even matter?

Your assumption is that the aforementioned moral codes and variants thereof (depending on place and time) come from a god. What if it really does come from the collective subconscious and is thus from man?

[skitz]

^^ Well, the US constitution (after which the Philippine constitution was patterned) itself "implores the aid of God". So there is BASIS for claiming that that is Godly-inspired, or at least formulated by men who believed in God (and whose morals are influenced by God's moral code).

 

Yes, the atheists NEED to formulate their own moral code if they wish to totally reject the God notion. I am not saying that it should be any different from what theists claim to be God's moral code. What I am saying is, why should atheists follow a code based on NOTHING (since God, according to the atheists, does not exist).

 

Let me help you atheists out. DEMOCRACY is a purely man-made idea (that I think is a good idea). You will not find that in any holy scriptures. God never commanded to have free elections every six years or so. So there, that is one.

[skitz]

Oh yeah, before I get too side-tracked. Either formulate your own moral codes or just admit that God's moral code still MATTERS.

[Niru]

"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."

 

this wrong...

 

human life will always go from perfect to imperfect...not the other way around like your stating here that the good ones will be left the bad ones exterminated...(fair that all of us should be, not the choosen) Not being an anti-religon here for they have been always a good influence and guidance but we cannot simply disregard what nature has taught us that whatever religion or race or status of life you represent humans will grow into an imperfect being. we may become a moral person in many ways, we may grow mature in life but its nothing but an illusion that evey religion now days claim that were heading to become perfect like God. From frustations to all the negative emotions we can experience that our religion only withold us from our most dangerous potential and thats were the killing and all the irregularities man can do comes.

 

 

on my opinoin this is nothing but a temporary solution, a mere hopeless and another publicity stunt of a politician just want to say that there really concern of this world...then ofcourse that politician would be either a theist or an atheist or none.

[Niru]

okay heres a hint... it still does matter, Gods Moral Code to an "INDIVIDUAL PERSON", and to claim that it does still matter to the majority well that would be like enforcing something you believe is right to others that dont belive its right...

 

okay-kokei!

Edited August 10, 2010 by Niru

[skitz]

I am sorry Niru, I think you missed that I was being IRONIC with that post (you reacted to). That was a challenge for the atheists to debunk that contention without resorting to God's moral code (since atheists do not believe in God). As to imposing GOD's moral code on anyone, I am not doing that here. All that I am doing is ASKING ALL ATHIESTS to create then DEFEND your moral code sans GOD.

Edited August 11, 2010 by skitz

[TheSmilingBandit]

Skitz, since the dawn of written history, every culture has morals, are you now trying to say that all were divinely inspired?

 

Could it possibly be that morals are indeed the development of the collective subconscious?

 

Your challenge is to INVENT a moral code. What makes you so certain that moral codes were handed down from an invisible being up there rather than being developed?

[Niru]

sorry too skitz, i over reacted ata...Nyehhhh!!!

 

anyway seriously speaking its really interesting to know the side of the atheist, they just simply dont beleive in God cause they dont need a God (anymore?)

 

its like growing up...since childhood we seek the company and support of our parents and time comes that we are able to walk and decide for our selves...its kinda like that. atheist doesnt beleive in God not because they demand a literal form or an evidence that support existence of God but simply the "need for support" is not the same as before...in time everything change for better or for worst.

 

anyway we really just cant blame them for what they are and what they believe cause in first place christians was the "condemned religion" too 2000 years ago. maybe in the future majority will end being atheist and here it comes a "new" anti-atheist religion/philosophy.

 

on the Atheist side.

 

they simply question this, why on earth did we have all the rules/guide (golden rule) and life here on earth still sucks??? they just question the "still" effectiveness of the church from all different sects and etc...i think they are not "nagmamarunong" what should be done or followed...unless im wrong that would be another story.

 

same as before speaking for myself.

[ksredna]

Skitz, since the dawn of written history, every culture has morals, are you now trying to say that all were divinely inspired?

 

Could it possibly be that morals are indeed the development of the collective subconscious?

 

Your challenge is to INVENT a moral code. What makes you so certain that moral codes were handed down from an invisible being up there rather than being developed?

 

Written history is a very recent event in human evolution. Moral did not emerge with written history or culture. If they where necesary prerequisites, then we as a species would never have got as fra as having a written or any other history.

 

"Morality, then, is “firmly rooted in sentiment.” For those who feel that culture and religion contain the answers to moral questions, De Waal points out that organized religions are only a few thousand years old. There is no reason to think that human psychology has changed much since religions arose. The deeper point De Waal makes, repeatedly and effectively, is that the “building blocks of morality clearly predate humanity.” Even though moral rules tell us when and how to express our empathy, our capacity to be empathetic has “been in the works since time immemorial.” - http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/04/empathy-and-thus-morality-predates-modern-moral-codes-a-review-of-frans-de-waals-our-inner-ape/"