God's moral code

[vheRR]

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?

 

And oh, do not bother throwing the problem back at the theists. KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING IS BAD BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO.

 

So atheists, why is killing another human being bad? Is it bad even? How about stealing? How about cheating?

 

 

(1)

 

ANO nga ba ang PUMIPIGIL sa isang HAYOP na PATAYIN ang KANYANG ANAK?

 

Ano nga ba ang pumipigil sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na patayin ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?

 

 

ANO nga ba ang NAG-UUDYOK sa isang HAYOP na IPAGTANGGOL ang KANYANG ANAK?

 

Ano nga ba ang nag-uudyok sa isang "MAKASARILING" hayop na ipagtanggol ang kanyang "SARILIng" anak?

 

 

 

(2)

 

MAKASARILING TAO 1: "AYAW KO na MANAKAWAN!"

 

MAKASARILING TAO 2: "AKO rin. AYAW KO rin na MANAKAWAN!"

 

MAKASARILING TAO 3: "Lalo na AKO. SINO bang MAY GUSTO na MANAKAWAN?!"

 

 

NAG-USAP ang 3 at NAGKASUNDO:

 

"BAWAL ang MAGNAKAW!"

 

"MASAMA ang MAGNAKAW!"

 

 

(Pero siyempre, MASAMA at BAWAL kapag IKAW ang NINANAKAWAN…

 

… ngunit kung IKAW na ang NAGNANAKAW, NAG-IIBA ang USAPAN. )

[ksredna]

The people who claim that moral can only come from god has a problem if they use the Bible or the Koran as the source from which we should get our moral.

 

Assuming that humans does not have ability on their own to see the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

 

Then humans would not be able to tell if the moral code to be followed should be the one revealed in scripture A or B. Even if these were mutually contradicting and incompatible.

 

Furthermore then humans would not be able to pass judgment on the details on specific details in the Moral code revealed in the true moral code scripture. All would be equally important and morally valid. We would not be able to say that the commandment not to eat shrimp is more or less important than not having other gods or not desire a wife of another man or not having gay sex. Or that love is the central moral code. How would we be able to say so? We would, if we used god's moral code as given in the Bible, have to accept that we should stone adulterers and people who worked on a sabbath, k*ll all enemies without mercy, beat our children, turn the other check and love our enemies etc. We would have to accept all biblical laws in full without exceptions.

 

The moment you claim that we can say any of the biblical commandmenta are to disregarded because we find it appalling, then you contradicts the assumption that humans can only get it's moral code from god.

 

The problem with claiming that we can only use the scripture as basis for our moral code is that it advocates such a horrible moral and the very fact that we can determine items in the code as horrible and inhuman contradicts that we can only get our moral from god e.g. scripture.

 

Of course you may say that we does get the moral code from god via scripture, but that it is in some way inspired or imbued in us. But then how can we know that what we feel based on this god imbued or inspired feeling of moral is from god and not from humans?

[Niru]

i agree with ksredna.

 

we have evolve entirely different from our ancestors. we have grown familiar to whats right and whats wrong because of exposure from it. any ordinary folk wether he/she is an active participant in church activities or not know whats right and the only difference

they have is a different perspective in a different scenario. if there would be a "Gods Moral Code" for sure it would agree on both parties meaning both will able to relate and accept it.

 

ofcourse any ordinary people can do that with the right mind. can be a group of people, can be an ordinary experienced individual person.

 

then if something right(moral) came from a ordinary individual or group of without authority to majority of people it will just end another bright idea that will be forgotten in given time.

 

so maybe thats why they call it "GODS MORAL CODE" cause it benefit both antagonist and protagonist coming from a powerful deity who has authority and we call him GOD.

 

it aint that bad. why question where it came from when both can and will benefit from it. atleast we learn and that counts. did we??? (hahaha...ehem)

Edited August 15, 2010 by Niru

[skitz]

Let me get this, ATHEISTS are not questioning the moral code which theists believe God gave man. In fact, they are owning it? Under the qualification that it is man-made (of course). I think this thread has turned a strange corner.

 

(still busy at the moment, will make more detailed posts at a later date)

[bustermanny]

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...

 

I think its a fair challenge , atheist created their own belief, then why not create their own rules!

 

Well me? I'm pretty sure that my God was; is the author of morality.

 

How would you know na masama ang magnakaw kung walang nagsabi sa iyo?

[Crashman]

Q: God's Moral Code, do we still need it?

A: The question is whether or not we still need it, but whether or not it is still relevant.

 

Seeing that the monkeys already hacked at the old testament laws (which, by the way, was a weak attack considering that skitz' initial stand was "love god and love one another" and not the ten commandments), let me point out why following that moral code can be next to ridiculous.

 

It is quite understandable that a smaller population can be quite easier to handle. Thus in the old times, these moral codes might have been more effective. Why? Because it was easier to check if people were following them not to mention that it was easier to distinguish the ones who were not following the code from those who actually were. It was easier to gather a consensus whether a person should be punished for not following the code. Case in point was barabbas, who, despite being a criminal was freed by the people. If you would take into consideration the point of view that morality was established to promote the welfare of the species, understanding the decisions made back then may be easier to do. If the people were to ask themselves, "Is barabbas aiding us or is he not?", they could simply answer it and make judgement. They did the same thing with Jesus and the people judged accordingly. Note that when they judged Jesus, they at least thought that they were doing it in the name of God.

 

Now, consider the same scenario in modern times. Considering a very large population, can we use the same method? No. We cannot simply gather everyone and judge then and there. We wouldn't get anything done that way. Therefore, any moral code must have to be agreed upon by the majority of the people but detailed enough so that it would cover most cases. In cases that are not covered by the said code, then either the people convene in order to discuss such a thing or representatives of the people can be appointed so that the majority's voice can be heard. (Notice that I am now building up my code from scratch and with explanations, although the code I am making seem to be very familiar)

 

What I am saying is that God's laws are irrelevant. While, in a certain instance, I may think that I am doing a right thing to my friend, my friend may think otherwise. In those cases, who's gonna be the judge? If it is a mere mortal who will judge, then the parameters must be detailed enough in order to avoid error as much as possible.

 

The law is this code. It is not perfect but at least it is ever evolving to integrate into the system the new things that come to our lives as citizens. Therefore, it is also our duty to help enforce and uphold the law and help improve the law. As citizens we have this power, only we do not always exercise it.

 

If you don't believe in God, the law is a general guideline. Needless to say, exploiting the weaknesses of the law for personal gain at the expense of others defeats this purpose which is why we have the judicial system that we have.

 

But as I have said, it is far from perfect. But definitely better than God's Laws as it is more detailed and reduces the room for error in judging.

 

As to who gets to decide what is wrong and what is right. The answer is easy. The majority. This comes from the assumption that the majority will decide for the benefit of the majority and thus at all times (at least in theory), a system like this will benefit the most number of people.

[Niru]

hope to add some info here...might help clear this one.

 

all the people in this world are created differently. if we want to simplify it there are two types of people.

 

One is the kind of people that you need to continuously tell them, inspire, educate to what should be done, whats morally good in this world.

They are the majority of people and can be easily mislead if only some lunatic would want to.

 

the other are kind of people that are created to be what they are. they have principles in life, it might come from reason, might come from instinct.

And to this type of people were politicians and philantropist came from, Angels and Demons or BOTH...etc etc.

 

off topic. just an additional info.

[skitz]

Finally, a Crashman post.

 

Clarification Crashman, I offered the simplistic "love God, love one another" as the foundation of God's moral code if only to avoid going into a detailed discussion of the literal text of the bible (or other scriptures). This is NOT about that. Catholics and Fundamentalists can debate on another thread.

 

What I want this thread to accomplish is to find out what atheists have done with their atheism (in relation to what theists believe to be God's moral code). "I do not believe in God, but hey, what the theists say is God's moral code seems ok. I will not even challenge that." At least, that's what I've been getting on this thread so far. Which is a little funny (if not ironic). What gives atheists?

 

So again, what's your moral code atheists? And on what principle do you base this moral code on?

 

Look, Crashman here has offered the foundation of his moral code. Which I read to be as "democracy". Correct me if I am wrong, Crashman. And do backread a little -- I did give the atheists that one clue, "democracy" being a purely man-made idea, and a good one, I think.

 

However, that said, let me air out my problems with the "majority rule" principle. "Popular" becomes obsolete in a matter of years. In NAZI Germany, majority decided that hating the minority (Jews) was ok. In that part of the world at least, that was the "majority rule". Who knows, in 5 years time, if we let the "popular" become the guiding principle in our lives, fatty foods might become illegal, killing dogs for food illegal (well it is now in most countries), abortion ok, etc. etc. Save the cute animals, but exterminate the ugly ones. These, I believe, are purely "random" man-made principles of the "moment". It is neither true nor false. It is just the popular notion at that moment in history. "Popular" is not universal that can stand the test of time.

 

And yes, I believe that GOD'S MORAL CODE is still relevant. But I do not, in anyway, mean to suggest that that code should take the place of man made laws. Yes, Crashman, you have clearly pointed out that that code is insufficient to address the needs of the times. I agree. But still relevant, in the sense that that code is still the principle by which the individuals who crafts these man-made laws are guided by. The US Constitution (and the Philippine Constitution) "implores the aid of God/Divine Providence/Almighty". It says so in the preamble. And that is good (I think). Our man-made laws are the updated interpretations of God's moral code (well, should be anyway -- legalizing abortion, I believe is not, which is the case in the US).

Edited August 24, 2010 by skitz

[complicated8]

US Preamble or state preambles?

[Crashman]

Yeah, I must admit that the lawmakers themselves are guided, or at the very least, influenced, by the same moral code in the scriptures.

 

I have one question though it might be a bit off topic. If, for example, the whole world suddenly agrees to a NO GOD policy, seeing that the current atheist set of morals does not need God anymore and yet seem to provide us with what we need. What do you think will happen? Will we suddenly break out into a worldwide rock concert with sex, drugs and rock and roll?

 

I guess my point is, God's moral code may indeed be relevant but can the same code survive without the god concept? If we do not believe in God, do you think we will k*ll? Dishonor our parents? Hate one another?

[skitz]

Yeah, I must admit that the lawmakers themselves are guided, or at the very least, influenced, by the same moral code in the scriptures.

 

I have one question though it might be a bit off topic. If, for example, the whole world suddenly agrees to a NO GOD policy, seeing that the current atheist set of morals does not need God anymore and yet seem to provide us with what we need. What do you think will happen? Will we suddenly break out into a worldwide rock concert with sex, drugs and rock and roll?

 

I guess my point is, God's moral code may indeed be relevant but can the same code survive without the god concept? If we do not believe in God, do you think we will k*ll? Dishonor our parents? Hate one another?

 

If I can use a math/geometry analogy, if one is able to debunk/destroy the definition of a point or a line (by Euclid), then there is no more point in using/following Euclidean geometry. One has to develop an entirely different brand of math. God is the "point" of the "God moral codes", Without God, none of it will be true. And as an atheist, you should revisit ALL these moral codes that theists claim came from God. Is killing another human being bad, TRUE? Then why? Based on what? Theists say it is bad because God commanded so. IF it so happens that atheists are able to develop a similar moral code then well and good. But it has to based on something. You've removed God from the equation. All "truth" in the "God moral code" is now up reexamination.

[skitz]

US Preamble or state preambles?

Alright, I stand corrected with the preamble of the US Consti, I got confused with the oath allegiance; "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God"

 

And the declaration of independence; "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

 

and the Preamble of the Philippine Constituion:

 

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

 

 

-----------------

 

And the simple POINT I wanted to make is that both the US laws and Philippine laws are man-made but influenced by the GOD MORAL CODE. TO this day, you swear to tell the truth in court by what book? Dawkins' "God delusions"?

Edited August 26, 2010 by skitz

[skitz]

Alright, let me attempt to clarify my point with a specific example.

 

To THEISTS, it's easy. Given a question whether abortion is right or wrong, we simply have to look at scripture and find out what God's commandment is on the matter is. For atheists, your decision making process should be based on something else other than God's commandment (since He does not exist). What is that? Economics? Politics? Pragmatism? Etc. Etc. So what atheists? On what do you base your moral code on?

[artvader]

Even in some religions, the view on abortion is just as diverse. Some even have a general pro-choice stance. Among them are the mainstream Protestant Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church. Some churches has a pro-life stance, with exception: like when the pregnancy was the result of rape. Even St. Augustine at one time thought that abortion was not murder as long as it was done early on (because they believed that 'soul' doesn't enter the body until the fetus has become conscious and has started kicking).

 

The point of it all? Just because one is a theist, doesn't mean that his view on certain moralities will be the same. Moral is not universal.

[skitz]

So what you are saying is that your moral code is based on theists being confused between and amongst themselves? Hmmmmm... beautiful. Like I said, this thread is not about that -- the reason I was hesitant in offering a specific example. I KNEW an atheist would pop out of the woodwork like that (see Crashman?).

 

What is about this brand of atheism here on MTC that all your belief system is premised on theists being a-holes, or confused, or God is cruel, or pi is not equal to 3? You can not build a belief system from the ground up? Again, this is the jilted girlfriend syndrome (still trying to prove to everyone she's over the old boyfriend). "God does not exist", accepted as a premise as far as this thread is concerned. So what now?

 

The task is simple. State your moral code and defend it.