God's moral code

[vheRR]

Hindi ko alam. Puede ka bang magbigay ng ehemplo?

 

... kailangan ko pa bang magbigay ng ehemplo?

... bakit di mo na lang tingnan ang mga nagdaang post ko?

[vheRR]

Agree. Get rid of Hampaslupang Bungisngis na Vherr! Why can't he remain in the Atheism thread?

 

... pag-aari mo ang thread na to brod?

[vheRR]

Tinatamad kasi ako magbackread

 

... ay ganun ba?

 

... tamang-tama pala,

... tinatamad akong magbigay ng ehemplo.

[vheRR]

Dealing with an Idiot as dumb as Vherr is a great psychiatric task.

 

... at base sa post mo, matalino ka?

... o feeling lang?

[friendly0603]

definitely be different?

For me, yes if the spaniards never came. Most countries in this region are muslim.

 

no i don't. if anyone definitely knew the answer here, there wouldn't be a debate. so, to rephrase the question, what do you think they would do?

 

it's not a given that altruism can exist in a tribe that doesn't have a strong, clear moral code. of course the 90% want to live, but there's no reason for the 10% infected to give up their lives to save the 90%. that's what i think. if you want to defend your position, then state what a plausible scenario is for you.

 

usually before i chime in on a thread where the debate is heated, i make it a point to backread. i suggest you do the same to find the answer to what some of us think would happen.

I don't know as well. But I won't judge till I know. For me, the greater good is what should prevail. Everyone dies. No reason? Survival of their tribe/race/people. The same reason why the other 90% would think of killing them (assumption). If my death saves the majority, then I'm fine with it. My death is certain anyway. Do you think extinction of the 90% is better so that the 10% are allowed to live? Do you want to live knowing your life is going to k*ll others.

 

Isn't it obvious that others here think that they would k*ll them because of the lack of God's moral code? Do I still need to backread? BTW, you didn't answer when I asked for your religion.

[vheRR]

Meron nga ba?

 

... wala nga ba?

[vheRR]

Meron nga ba?

... wala nga ba?

[vheRR]

meron nga ba?

 

... ?

[dungeonbaby]

you ought to get a reward just for swimming through the recent exchanges, i thought for sure my reply had been sufficiently buried

For me, yes if the spaniards never came. Most countries in this region are muslim.

 

 

and yet, neither of us will never definitely know. but let's say we did become muslim, then we'd still end up with a moral code. so that question, asking what would happen to us if the spaniards never came, wasn't all that useful after all.

 

I don't know as well. But I won't judge till I know. For me, the greater good is what should prevail. Everyone dies. No reason? Survival of their tribe/race/people. The same reason why the other 90% would think of killing them (assumption). If my death saves the majority, then I'm fine with it. My death is certain anyway. Do you think extinction of the 90% is better so that the 10% are allowed to live? Do you want to live knowing your life is going to k*ll others.

 

Isn't it obvious that others here think that they would k*ll them because of the lack of God's moral code? Do I still need to backread? BTW, you didn't answer when I asked for your religion.

 

 

the greater good should prevail, but without an unchanging, unflinching moral code, would it prevail? you are very perceptive to say that it's obvious that others here think the opposite would happen, because that's how they believe they would act if there was no code to tell them otherwise. what does that tell you? that you are one among a handful, if not the only one, who would act so magnanimously even without a moral code. how long do you think you'd last surrounded by more ruthless men who wanted to live?

 

p.s. you're right, i didn't answer when you asked. on purpose.

[friendly0603]

and yet, neither of us will never definitely know. but let's say we did become muslim, then we'd still end up with a moral code. so that question, asking what would happen to us if the spaniards never came, wasn't all that useful after all.

the point was that people in this country would believe a different god/prophet. may join the war against other religion. so the moral code would be different? yes, there would still be a moral code. but that code allows different things. It was actually useful a least for me.

 

the greater good should prevail, but without an unchanging, unflinching moral code, would it prevail? you are very perceptive to say that it's obvious that others here think the opposite would happen, because that's how they believe they would act if there was no code to tell them otherwise. what does that tell you? that you are one among a handful, if not the only one, who would act so magnanimously even without a moral code. how long do you think you'd last surrounded by more ruthless men who wanted to live?

p.s. you're right, i didn't answer when you asked. on purpose.

I guess you have this assumption is that men are ruthless. Yet I know godless people who are helpful/selfless. I don't believe that I am the only one. I'd have to adapt/evolve to have more muscles/strength to fight back against them I guess or group with others who share the same belief. We might have more technology to back us up.

[dungeonbaby]

I guess you have this assumption is that men are ruthless. Yet I know godless people who are helpful/selfless. I don't believe that I am the only one. I'd have to adapt/evolve to have more muscles/strength to fight back against them I guess or group with others who share the same belief. We might have more technology to back us up.

 

you "might have more technology to back [you] up?" you think it's godless people that have led the world in technology, is that what you mean to imply?

 

if you claim to know selfless atheists, why would you have to "believe" that you're not the only one? you would know you weren't the only one. which one is it? remember that just because you know these people exist doesn't mean that society as a whole would follow that lead, especially without a compelling moral code. again, the code has to be compelling for society to accept it without question.

 

anyway, you're entitled to continue to believe there are more magnanimous atheists then there are theists. but as you guys like to say, belief is one thing and empirical fact quite another.

[friendly0603]

you "might have more technology to back [you] up?" you think it's godless people that have led the world in technology, is that what you mean to imply?

"might". People who don't believe in a god "may be more focused" on developing technology than those who do believe. If you believe god is the reason for everything, why would you seek to find answers in science. Like "cancer", a believer would just rely on the power of prayer and believe in miracles if he is cured. Rather than the non-believer who will seek out the latest advancement in medicine to find a cure if not for himself but in the future for others.

 

if you claim to know selfless atheists, why would you have to "believe" that you're not the only one? you would know you weren't the only one. which one is it? remember that just because you know these people exist doesn't mean that society as a whole would follow that lead, especially without a compelling moral code. again, the code has to be compelling for society to accept it without question.

 

anyway, you're entitled to continue to believe there are more magnanimous atheists then there are theists. but as you guys like to say, belief is one thing and empirical fact quite another.

I believe in "what I think they are" and not just unenlightened people will seek god later and be converted. After all, other believers seek to save others. You claimed that I "may be" the "only one". Why? Because I'm the only one who posts like this? Do you really think I'm the only one? Though I don't commune/gather with others who may probably think like me, I believe I am not alone.

 

When I watch a sporting event and see people thanking God for the win. I "believe" I'm not the only one who thinks that God didn't have anything to do with it. Even if I can't provide proof that I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

 

I am not suggesting a code that society will accept without question. Testing one's beliefs is also another saying but that's where faith comes in for theists.

[dungeonbaby]

"might". People who don't believe in a god "may be more focused" on developing technology than those who do believe. If you believe god is the reason for everything, why would you seek to find answers in science. Like "cancer", a believer would just rely on the power of prayer and believe in miracles if he is cured. Rather than the non-believer who will seek out the latest advancement in medicine to find a cure if not for himself but in the future for others.

 

not sure newton and einstein would've agreed with you.

 

I believe in "what I think they are" and not just unenlightened people will seek god later and be converted. After all, other believers seek to save others. You claimed that I "may be" the "only one". Why? Because I'm the only one who posts like this? Do you really think I'm the only one? Though I don't commune/gather with others who may probably think like me, I believe I am not alone.

 

you clearly did not understand the question because i did not mean to say in any way that you are the only one who posts like you do.

 

 

When I watch a sporting event and see people thanking God for the win. I "believe" I'm not the only one who thinks that God didn't have anything to do with it. Even if I can't provide proof that I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

 

just because i believe in God doesn't mean i believe he favors one team over another. if Einstein were with me watching that sporting event, and i asked him what he thought, he would've echoed that belief. your understanding of "believers" strikes me as being grossly limited.

 

I am not suggesting a code that society will accept without question.

 

then why engage me or anyone on a thread asking for a God-less moral code, if you aren't here to suggest just that?

Edited May 15, 2012 by dungeonbaby

[vheRR]

not sure newton and einstein would've agreed with you.

 

<http://en.wikipedia....religious_views >

 

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from J. Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was despaired by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

 

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

^[8]

[dungeonbaby]

<http://en.wikipedia....religious_views >

 

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from J. Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was despaired by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

 

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

^[8]

 

personal being the key word. i knew it was just a matter of time before one of you jumped on this you are either not familiar with einstein, or you are being disingenuous. don't excite your flock unnecessarily.