God's moral code

[SaintPeter5858]

You just repeated what you already said before. It's non-sense

[vheRR]

You just repeated what you already said before. It's non-sense

 

Sang-ayon ka ba o hindi na...

 

... With or Without (your) god's code, magpapatayan pa rin ang tao?

... simpleng "Oo" o "Hindi" lang ang kailangan mong isagot.

[viral]

Pareng Vherr, paano mo alam na tama ang paniniwala mo na walang dios? May katibayan ka ba?

[U.P. AdMU2008]

Sang-ayon ka ba o hindi na...

 

... With or Without (your) god's code, magpapatayan pa rin ang tao?

... simpleng "Oo" o "Hindi" lang ang kailangan mong isagot.

 

That's a leading question. As if there are no gray areas. Besides, your thoughts are very limited. So you think purely of things which are, like you, destined to last only for a few days and die.

[friendly0603]

That's a leading question. As if there are no gray areas. Besides, your thoughts are very limited. So you think purely of things which are, like you, destined to last only for a few days and die.

His thoughts are limited by reality. It's really funny when people like you think they are sure that there is life beyond this. If that is true, what is the purpose of this life? To gain access to the next? It just means that your material pursuits in this life are meaningless and that you should be above material things. Follow your God and get rid of your material possessions and live your life spreading his word. You probably don't need the internet and MTC as well

[vheRR]

Pareng Vherr, paano mo alam na tama ang paniniwala mo na walang dios? May katibayan ka ba?

 

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?

[vheRR]

That's a leading question. As if there are no gray areas. Besides, your thoughts are very limited. So you think purely of things which are, like you, destined to last only for a few days and die.

 

... pinupuna mo ang pagpuna ko sa post ng "iba",

... samantalang ung pagpuna ko sa post "mo",

 

... hindi mo ba "napuna"?

 

... ayaw mo bang "punahin"?

... at ukol sa sinasabi mong "leading question",

... tinutulungan ko lamang "siya" na ipagtanggol niya ang kanyang sinabi na,

 

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

 

... eh kung ikaw kaya ang "lumagay sa puwesto niya",

 

... halimbawang ikaw ang nagsabi na "Without God's code, we would all be killing each other", at sa iyo ko kaya itanong ito,

 

With or Without (your) god's code, magpapatayan pa rin ang tao?

 

... maliban sa "oo" at "hindi", anu-ano pa ba kaya ang magiging "sagot mo"?

... at panghuli, ukol sa "thoughts" ko na ayon sa iyo ay "very limited",

 

... malawak rin naman ang aking kaisipan, lalo na ang aking "imahinasyon",

 

... hindi ko lang alam kung kasing lawak ba ng iyong kaisipan ang akin, o kung higit pa,

 

... pero ang alam ko ay ang kaibahan ng imahinasyon sa katotohanan, "ikaw ba"?

[gb17]

this is an interesting thread but people here seem to be taking things to the personal level instead of dealing with the issues objectively. accusing someone of being "narrow-minded" is not good form and does not contribute to the furthering of the discussion at hand.

 

i would like to see good and objective debates on this thread. maybe we could ask a few ground rules from the thread starter?

[SaintPeter5858]

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!

[U.P. AdMU2008]

this is an interesting thread but people here seem to be taking things to the personal level instead of dealing with the issues objectively. accusing someone of being "narrow-minded" is not good form and does not contribute to the furthering of the discussion at hand.

 

i would like to see good and objective debates on this thread. maybe we could ask a few ground rules from the thread starter?

 

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.

Edited May 6, 2012 by U.P. AdMU2008

[U.P. AdMU2008]

His thoughts are limited by reality. It's really funny when people like you think they are sure that there is life beyond this. If that is true, what is the purpose of this life? To gain access to the next? It just means that your material pursuits in this life are meaningless and that you should be above material things. Follow your God and get rid of your material possessions and live your life spreading his word. You probably don't need the internet and MTC as well

 

That's a contradictory statement Bro!!! God is the creator of all material things seen and unseen. Without God, you wouldn't have been born in the first place.

[dungeonbaby]

the threadstarter's objective was not to debate the existence of God but to see what kind of a moral code atheists could come up with that wasn't based on any code that societies have traditionally held to have been from a Supreme Being. so far as some of us that have stuck around can see, that objective has not been accomplished.

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.

[gb17]

the threadstarter's objective was not to debate the existence of God but to see what kind of a moral code atheists could come up with that wasn't based on any code that societies have traditionally held to have been from a Supreme Being. so far as some of us that have stuck around can see, that objective has not been accomplished.

 

 

Well, the thread starter should make it clear which God's moral code he is talking about. Is he talking about the Islamic God Allah, the old Roman God Jupiter, the Celtic God Alator, the Greek God Zeus, the great God Amaterasu of Japan, or the Norse God Odin? I'm presuming the thread starter is talking about the Christian God, but I could be wrong.

[dungeonbaby]

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.

[friendly0603]

That's a contradictory statement Bro!!! God is the creator of all material things seen and unseen. Without God, you wouldn't have been born in the first place.

Not really bro. Material things die. You want everlasting life, don't you? What is my being born have to do with it?