God's moral code

[skitz]

Hey, my last post got deleted. Why?

 

Eniwey, nice read JHP.

 

Too lazy now to recreate entire (deleted) post. Maybe later...

Edited October 26, 2010 by skitz

[Niru]

@Mr. Skitz

 

the "IF" part that your saying is already happening. It doesnt need the participation of the world to agree on this cause majority of people will choose the

easy way. cant really blame us thats just one of our human flaws but there are few who learned. either from other peoples mistakes or thru experience.

 

anyway respect other people whatever how they view there own lives, there environment, kind of life they wanted to live cause all of us was born good in this world it just happened that where living in a f#&k up world.

[JHP]

If there is no God, then the most important reality is one's self, one's survival, one's well-being, one's success, one's fulfillment. Sure, we are interdependent as social beings. We need to exchange goods and services to sustain life. We need to fornicate for the propagation of the species. We need to make nice, so living together will be comfortable and pleasant. But in the end, without God, the foundation of a moral code is the self. Sheer logic and reason would dictate that. Society is important only insofar as it works for me, don't tell me it's more important than me Therefore, if push comes to shove, if we ever need to get into the lifeboats, #&k the rest of you, i come first.

Edited October 31, 2010 by JHP

[skitz]

If logic be the "moral" guide, there is no reason for the dumb, the physically weak, the unmotivated, the alcoholics, etc. to even exist. Atheists (here) think that destroying God would make the world a little more fun. Yeah right. Look at CHINA, they've effectively ignored the God moral code. Not too fun now is it?

[Crashman]

If logic be the "moral" guide, there is no reason for the dumb, the physically weak, the unmotivated, the alcoholics, etc. to even exist. Atheists (here) think that destroying God would make the world a little more fun. Yeah right. Look at CHINA, they've effectively ignored the God moral code. Not too fun now is it?

 

Okay, I just wanna have some fun with this. If logic is the moral guide, there would still be reason for the dumb, the weak, the unmotivated and the alcoholics to exist. We can use them for food.

[skitz]

Not really funny. It is... LOGICAl! If people can't get over the eew factor, at least use them as fertilizer!

Edited November 26, 2010 by skitz

[Crashman]

This is a long shot but...

 

I think there were societies that actually did that sort of thing. Classical Sparta and Nazi Germany comes to mind. What happened to them? If that kind of thing is good for the society, then why is it that it wasn't carried over. Could it be that the moral code we follow actually provides an evolutionary advantage?

 

I'm confused. What was my point again?

[skitz]

I get what you are trying to say. But I am the wrong person to ask (or to answer the question). As I am a believer in God, I will merely answer that it is because we are more than animals driven by natural (evolutionary) forces. We are created in the IMAGE OF GOD. But that would be self serving. Atheists should answer why we have evolved against the natural grain of SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

[vheRR]

DB,

 

Thank you for sharing your insight. A little backgrounder, if I may. What prompted me to start this thread is when I stumbled upon on youtube a little debate between atheists and theists (yes, even there, sometimes I just have to blast the sheer ignorance of these so called "enlightened" atheists). So there was this video of one teenage girl who was supposed to be an atheist. One of the reasons she says, was that the church does not allow gay marriages. Someone should have told her, why would an atheist insist/want to enter an INSTITUTION built by the church in the first place?

 

And that right there was a little eureka moment of sorts. Why do atheists want to be "good" (when goodness is a "God concept"). God is a cruel God therefore God does not exist -- goes one popular (and fallacious) atheist argument.

 

So ok, let us remove God from the equation. Without God, what moral code would man create for himself. What would be the foundation of its truth?

 

Strange twist to this thread so far, no godless moral code has been offered by the atheists, only the argument that the "God moral code" came from man and not God. So there ends the debate, and the need for this thread (if they are continue with this tact). The debate shall once again go back to whether God exists or not. And that is subject for almost all the other threads here.

 

My conclusion? Man still needs "God's moral code" -- even the atheists adhere to it. And that is really something to lol about.

 

 

Ang TAO...

 

... na LIKAS na MAKASARILI,

 

 

 

 

 

... ay isang "SOCIAL" ANIMAL,

 

 

 

 

 

... ang LAKAS ng "GRUPO", NAKA-DEPENDE sa LAKAS ng "BAWAT MIYEMBRO",

 

... ang LAKAS ng "BAWAT MIYEMBRO", NAKA-DEPENDE sa LAKAS ng "GRUPO",

 

 

 

 

 

... ANO ngayon ang SILBI ng "MABUTI / MASAMA" sa isang GRUPO ng SOCIAL ANIMAL?

 

... ANO nga ba ang SILBI ng "TAMA / MALI" sa isang GRUPO ng SOCIAL ANIMAL?

... ANO ang MANGYAYARI sa isang GRUPO na HINDI NAGTUTULUNGAN?

 

... ANO ang MANGYAYARI sa isang GRUPO na NAGPAPATAYAN?

 

 

 

 

From the Heavens or From Nature: The Origins of Morality by Andy Thomson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

 

 

[vheRR]

God is not some kind of superman, like us but with superlative moral virtue. No. Many atheists, as well as theists, make this mistake -- that of thinking of God as someone comparable to us humans, only without limitations. He is not like that at all. God does not have goodness. God is THE Good -- He is goodness itself. God's goodness is His power, which is His knowledge, which is His essence, which is His existence. "I AM WHAT I AM", He reveals to Moses. Pure Being.

 

So can man be good without God? Can man be good without goodness itself?

 

... ah,

... ok,

 

... hmmm,

 

... ang kaso,

... "PAANO" MO NALAMAN?

 

... "NATITIYAK" MO ba?

 

... MAY "PATUNAY" KA? :lol:

[vheRR]

Ok, let me give it a shot. Fellow theists, be reminded, this is just an exercise in mental masturbation (lol).

 

PRAGMATISM in the context of "what is best for humanity is what is true". By humanity, I mean to say not just the current population living now but also includes future generations. All laws under this concept shall then be guided accordingly. To illustrate, killing another human being is BAD because killing another human being (indiscriminately) foments chaos. And chaos is not good for humanity. On the other hand stem-cell research has the potential to serve humanity and therefore should be allowed (take note atheists, the religious right does not want stem cell research to be conducted! why didn't you offer some moral code to justify why this should be allowed?!).

 

If the above premise is an acceptable "truth" to everyone, then I shall continue on with further details on what I think it would be like in my "pragmatic world".

 

 

Ok, time's up. I shall proceed under the assumption that my premise is an accepted "truth" (by way of agreed upon convention).

 

Let me start with form of government. DEMOCRACY (popular vote) is not logical. And therefore should be replaced with MERITOCRACY. The average Joe, whose intelligence was responsible for GW Bush in the US and Erap Estrada in the Philippines, should not be the ones to decide who shall lead them. The average Joe is DUMB. And being DUMB, they can not appreciate what it takes to be a good leader. Meritocracy on the hand is PRAGMATIC. Get the best and brightest to lead. This is logical (and yes, will serve humanity best). How to implement? Set up a computer program that will test candidates with predetermined qualities on who will make the best leader. Intelligence, "morality", etc. Candidates can apply for the job to be tested. Best candidate gets to be the leader. As you can see, the "blind" nature of this process has eliminated the problem associated with popular democracy.

 

More later.

 

 

The problem is only in the transition, from where we are right now to where we want to be. It is unavoidable to make that transition with "learned men" chosen by popular vote. It is these "learned men" who shall be the ones to decide the standards. Take note also that I had "morality" in quotes. For lack of a better word, I had to use that. That is morality minus the hand of God.

 

More later (doing this on a net cafe while waiting for someone).

 

 

Hex, that's all well and good. But as far as this thread is concerned, "God does not exist". Just a little experiment. Trying to figure out how we would find our moral anchor without "good" in our lives.

 

TO continue with my SOCIAL SYSTEM (minus the God influence), on population control:

 

The learned men who runs the government (through meritocracy) shall decide the best population size of the country. Birth control shall be implemented via selective sterilization of the population. For example, it can be decided that the lowest 10 percent (criterion to be decided by the "learned men") shall be sterilized. This makes sense. If you understand anything about breeding as a science. The government can also "encourage" unions between two couples to improve the race. Yao Ming is a product of China's drive to create the super basketball athlete. His parents are both national team players (in baskteball) who were "encouraged" to marry each other. Yao Ming himself is now married to another national basketball team player. Third generation Yao would be MVP in the NBA.

 

 

(Hmmmmm... just wondering. What do the atheists think about all this?)

 

 

Hey, where all the atheists go?

 

Could the silence be because a purely "logical" society now doesn't sound too appealing? Given that 99% of the atheists who post here should not even exist at all in a purely "logical" world? lol.

 

 

If logic be the "moral" guide, there is no reason for the dumb, the physically weak, the unmotivated, the alcoholics, etc. to even exist. Atheists (here) think that destroying God would make the world a little more fun. Yeah right. Look at CHINA, they've effectively ignored the God moral code. Not too fun now is it?

 

 

Ang TAO…

 

… "LIKAS" na "MAKASARILI",

Ang TAO…

 

… isang "SOCIAL ANIMAL",

Ang TAO…

 

… "MAGKAKA-IBA",

 

… kaya nga,

 

… ang MABUTI / MASAMA sa "ISA", o sa "IILAN", o sa "NAKARARAMI",

 

… ay "HINDI NANGANGAHULUGAN" na MABUTI / MASAMA sa "LAHAT".

 

… kaya nga,

 

… ang "WALA", GUSTONG "MAGKAROON",

 

… "NANGANGARAP" MAGKAROON,

 

… "UMAASANG" MAGKAROON,

… "NAGNANASANG" MAGKAROON,

 

… "GAGAWIN ang LAHAT" PARA MAGKAROON,

 

… kaya nga,

 

… ang "MAYROON", AYAW "MAWALAN",

 

… "NANGANGARAP" na HINDI MAWALAN,

… "UMAASANG" HINDI MAWALAN,

 

… "NAGNANASANG" HINDI MAWALAN,

 

… "GAGAWIN ang LAHAT" PARA HINDI MAWALAN,

 

… kaya nga,

 

… kung IKAW ay isa sa mga BOBO, isa sa mga PANGIT, o isa sa mga MAHINA,

 

… ALIN ang GUGUSTUHIN MO, "MERITOCRACY" o "DEMOCRACY"?

 

… kaya nga,

 

… kung ang mga TAONG MAHAL MO o MALAPIT SA IYO ay isa sa mga BOBO, isa sa mga PANGIT, o isa sa mga MAHINA,

 

… ALIN ang GUGUSTUHIN MO, "MERITOCRACY" o "DEMOCRACY"?

[JHP]

Ang TAO...

 

... na LIKAS na MAKASARILI,

 

 

 

 

 

... ay isang "SOCIAL" ANIMAL,

 

 

 

 

 

... ang LAKAS ng "GRUPO", NAKA-DEPENDE sa LAKAS ng "BAWAT MIYEMBRO",

 

... ang LAKAS ng "BAWAT MIYEMBRO", NAKA-DEPENDE sa LAKAS ng "GRUPO",

 

 

 

 

 

... ANO ngayon ang SILBI ng "MABUTI / MASAMA" sa isang GRUPO ng SOCIAL ANIMAL?

 

... ANO nga ba ang SILBI ng "TAMA / MALI" sa isang GRUPO ng SOCIAL ANIMAL?

... ANO ang MANGYAYARI sa isang GRUPO na HINDI NAGTUTULUNGAN?

 

... ANO ang MANGYAYARI sa isang GRUPO na NAGPAPATAYAN?

 

 

 

 

From the Heavens or From Nature: The Origins of Morality by Andy Thomson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

 

 

 

A repost:

 

If there is no God, then the most important reality is one's self, one's survival, one's well-being, one's success, one's fulfillment. Sure,we are interdependent as social beings. We need to exchange goods and services to sustain life. We need to fornicate for the propagation of the species. We need to make nice, so living together will be comfortable and pleasant. But in the end, without God, the foundation of a moral code is the self. Sheer logic and reason would dictate that. Society is important only insofar as it works for me, don't tell me it's more important than me. Therefore, if push comes to shove, if we ever need to get into the lifeboats, #&k the rest of you, i come first.

 

This post has been edited by JHP: 31 October 2010 - 11:15 AM

God's moral code is founded on love of God expressed in love of neighbor. There is a rising beyond one's self and unselfishness. Without that moral code, the self is most important. Thinking otherwise would be illogical.

[skitz]

Ah, but JHP, you don't get it. The so called atheists here would abandon even logic if it does not support their contention. Such is their fanaticism to their (anti) religion.

[skitz]

QUESTION:

 

Minus the God moral code, what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

[dungeonbaby]

QUESTION:

 

Minus the God moral code, what would have been the most efficient/practical way to solve the HIV/AIDS problem before it became a global pandemic?

 

without a moral code -

 

killing anything and everything that shows even the remotest sign of having the disease or having the ability to spread the disease.

 

something straight out of a post-apocalyptic scifi novel. something horrible especially in light of present survival rates.