God's moral code

[dungeonbaby]

... sinagot na.

 

 

 

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

 

ginagamit. but there's a distinct difference between arguing via someone else's thought processes and synthesizing what you've learned and offering it here to push the dialogue forward.

[friendly0603]

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.

He isn't just a professor. He was a christian missionary. Here's a photo. I'm not sure what is nice for you.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,620030,00.jpg

 

I'm just saying that they have their own moral code. I wouldn't compare it with mine as I have been influenced by a different culture.

The assumption is that a moral code can only be god given. No one gave them their moral code.

 

Imagine if the spaniards never came. Who would you be worshipping? Anitos?

 

They do not bother themselves with what will happen after death. There is undisputable truth in their immediacy of experience at least.

 

And they are happy. Being born with sin is a bad start for me.

 

Are they going to k*ll each other as stated here because they have no god?

Edited May 10, 2012 by friendly0603

[dungeonbaby]

He isn't just a professor. He was a christian missionary. Here's a photo. I'm not sure what is nice for you.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,620030,00.jpg

 

I'm just saying that they have their own moral code. I wouldn't compare it with mine as I have been influenced by a different culture.

The assumption is that a moral code can only be god given. No one gave them their moral code.

 

Imagine if the spaniards never came. Who would you be worshipping? Anitos?

 

They do not bother themselves with what will happen after death. There is undisputable truth in their immediacy of experience at least.

 

And they are happy. Being born with sin is a bad start for me.

 

Are they going to k*ll each other as stated here because they have no god?

 

are you then equating happiness with justice? if you are, do we at least agree that there is a fundamental problem with that in the sense that anytime you have a dispute between two parties (i.e., a woman and her cheating partner in your example) there is one party that is happy and there is another that is not. whose happiness then is just? if the cheating man accepts that his head will be banged against the ground until his woman is appeased, then who stipulates how long she can do this, until she is happy again? what if she wasn't satisfied until his brain was permanently damaged? what is stopping them from killing each other?

 

 

there is a tribe called the Ik in Uganda who were studied by the anthropologist Colin Turnbull. they live only in the present. they have no moral compass because the only thing that matters is surviving. if an infant is born into their community and it's mother cannot feed that child, that mother is thrilled when she finds out that an animal has eaten her baby. there is no feeling of guilt there for being negligent. you could call that their version of the immediacy of experience.

 

you assume i'm christian. being told that one is born with sin doesn't apply to everyone. and if i believed in anitos, which i don't, but if i did, my moral code would still be based on a societal acceptance of an hierarchy of gods and the belief that there must be some reckoning for all i do in this life.

[vheRR]

ginagamit. but there's a distinct difference between arguing via someone else's thought processes and synthesizing what you've learned and offering it here to push the dialogue forward.

 

... at ano ang problema dun?

... "requirement" ba na kailangan ay produkto ng isang "synthesis" ang isang idea bago ito maging katanggap-tanggap?

... at kung 100% kang sumasang-ayon sa isang idea, bakit mo "babaguhin"?

[vheRR]

there is a tribe called the Ik in Uganda who were studied by the anthropologist Colin Turnbull. they live only in the present. they have no moral compass because the only thing that matters is surviving. if an infant is born into their community and it's mother cannot feed that child, that mother is thrilled when she finds out that an animal has eaten her baby. there is no feeling of guilt there for being negligent. you could call that their version of the immediacy of experience.

 

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ik_people>

 

"Much of the work, however, focuses on the then-current condition of the Ik people during a severe famine brought on by two consecutive drought years... "

 

 

"While highly popular, the book was controversial, and the accuracy and methodology of Turnbull's work has been questioned..."

[dungeonbaby]

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ik_people>

 

"Much of the work, however, focuses on the then-current condition of the Ik people during a severe famine brought on by two consecutive drought years... "

 

 

"While highly popular, the book was controversial, and the accuracy and methodology of Turnbull's work has been questioned..."

 

 

good for you, vherr! this kind of post i can actually understand.

 

1. if i remember correctly, after the severe famine, when turnbull returned to the Ik, he found that they had not changed their ways.

 

2. ALL academic works have been questioned at one time or another, it is the nature of research. even your beloved dawkins. does that stop you from quoting him?

 

3. since friendly cited a tribe, i thought i'd do the same. neither examples change the veracity of the questions i posed. so someone post an answer.

[iRapedSatan]

Just let Ma'am Vherr be. She doesn't know anything about proper timing.

[iRapedSatan]

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ik_people>

 

"Much of the work, however, focuses on the then-current condition of the Ik people during a severe famine brought on by two consecutive drought years... "

 

 

"While highly popular, the book was controversial, and the accuracy and methodology of Turnbull's work has been questioned..."

 

 

 

That's an irrelevant explanation Vherr.

[friendly0603]

are you then equating happiness with justice? if you are, do we at least agree that there is a fundamental problem with that in the sense that anytime you have a dispute between two parties (i.e., a woman and her cheating partner in your example) there is one party that is happy and there is another that is not. whose happiness then is just? if the cheating man accepts that his head will be banged against the ground until his woman is appeased, then who stipulates how long she can do this, until she is happy again? what if she wasn't satisfied until his brain was permanently damaged? what is stopping them from killing each other?

Is there happiness with injustice? You're already pondering about their justice system. Even with the current moral code in the phils, there's injustice.

 

there is a tribe called the Ik in Uganda who were studied by the anthropologist Colin Turnbull. they live only in the present. they have no moral compass because the only thing that matters is surviving. if an infant is born into their community and it's mother cannot feed that child, that mother is thrilled when she finds out that an animal has eaten her baby. there is no feeling of guilt there for being negligent. you could call that their version of the immediacy of experience.

Do you feel guilt if you survived a tragedy and your relative didn't? Is there something you could do? Is this specific example the downfall of this tribe? How come God didn't show up in their tribe?

 

you assume i'm christian. being told that one is born with sin doesn't apply to everyone. and if i believed in anitos, which i don't, but if i did, my moral code would still be based on a societal acceptance of an hierarchy of gods and the belief that there must be some reckoning for all i do in this life.

What if that society didn't accept a god(s)? If you actually were born into one of these tribes, what would your moral code? How can you state that your moral code would be based on the acceptance of hierarchy of gods? Which religion do you belong to so I can have some clarification?

[friendly0603]

3. since friendly cited a tribe, i thought i'd do the same. neither examples change the veracity of the questions i posed. so someone post an answer.

I cited a tribe to show that some version of moral code can and does exist without a god. That tribe didn't k*ll themselves because of a lack of God-given moral code as mentioned by some believers.

 

I'm not saying that their moral code is better. I'm saying that the moral code/beliefs in this country would've been different if our colonization had been different and it isn't impossible to have one without god(s).

Edited May 11, 2012 by friendly0603

[vheRR]

good for you, vherr! this kind of post i can actually understand.

 

1. if i remember correctly, after the severe famine, when turnbull returned to the Ik, he found that they had not changed their ways.

 

... at ang "basehan" mo ay "nasaan"?

 

2. ALL academic works have been questioned at one time or another, it is the nature of research. even your beloved dawkins. does that stop you from quoting him?

 

3. since friendly cited a tribe, i thought i'd do the same. neither examples change the veracity of the questions i posed. so someone post an answer.

 

... nagbigay ka ng impormasyon, nagbigay ako ng karagdagang impormasyon.

[U.P. AdMU2008]

... at ang "basehan" mo ay "nasaan"?

 

 

 

... nagbigay ka ng impormasyon, nagbigay ako ng karagdagang impormasyon.

You really cannot fully discuss God academically. I asked a lot of great theologians from Ateneo's Loyola School of Theology (that's the best theological school in Asia according to European scholars) most of whom have taught in great European and American universities, and they always emphasize some level of mystery whenever we discuss about God.

 

Take it from Dan Brown, one of the most controversial but very popular authors today, in the movie (and book) "Angels and Demons". In the character of Harvard prof Langdon, he said "faith is a gift which I am yet to receive".

[vheRR]

I could be wrong but I think what dungeonbaby is trying to say is that there is a difference between arguing using someone else's beliefs and arguing combining (synthesizing) what you have learned from these beliefs to make your own argument using your beliefs based on other's beliefs. I'm not a philosophy major nor do I delve into philosophy so I won't argue with you here on this thread. I think it's not a requirement but it would be better to use your own beliefs than someone else's beliefs as per dungeonbaby.

 

.... uulitin ko, kung 100% kang sumasang-ayon sa isang idea, bakit mo babaguhin?

... kung naging "atheist" ako ng dahil sa mga idea na natutunan ko, hindi ko ba maaaring gamitin ang parehong idea sa anumang argumento ng dahil lamang sa hindi ito produkto ng isang "synthesis" o ng dahil sa hindi ko ito "orihinal" na idea?

... at ano ba ang mahalaga sa paggamit ng idea sa isang argumento, kung orihinal ba ito o ang validity nito?

[vheRR]

Just let Ma'am Vherr be. She doesn't know anything about proper timing.

 

That's an irrelevant explanation Vherr.

 

... either tuta ka ng isang inis-talong member,

... or may isang inis-talong member dito na 2 ang gamit na account?

[vheRR]

You really cannot fully discuss God academically. I asked a lot of great theologians from Ateneo's Loyola School of Theology (that's the best theological school in Asia according to European scholars) most of whom have taught in great European and American universities, and they always emphasize some level of mystery whenever we discuss about God.

 

Take it from Dan Brown, one of the most controversial but very popular authors today, in the movie (and book) "Angels and Demons". In the character of Harvard prof Langdon, he said "faith is a gift which I am yet to receive".

 

... "some level of mystery"

... na ang ibig sabihin ba ay, "hindi ko kayang ipaliwanag, hindi ko kayang sagutin ang tanong mo, basta maniwala ka na lang"?