God's moral code

[skitz]

Ano ulet yung sagot dun sa simpleng tanong?

[JHP]

Sige vHeRR. walang lihisan. Just answer Skitz's question. And don't tell me morality comes from nature. Ang aso kumakantot ng kahit anong aso kung taglibog at may pagkakataon.

[JHP]

Hindi kaya IDINAAN MO lang sa "SARCASM" ang PAGKA-UNAWA MO?

Hindi kaya IPINAGTATANGGOL MO lang ang isang "KAKAMPI" sa PANANAMPALATAYA?

Lihis na naman. Res ipsa loquitur.

 

 

... kay DALI na 'SABIHIN" na IBUBUWIS MO ang BUHAY MO,

... kay DALI rin kayang "GAWIN"?

i have actually been in life and death situations when i have put myself in harm's way to protect others, when the outcome could have resulted in death or serious injury to me, instead of them. i did not need to, but i was prepared to take the consequences, knowing full well what they could be. This is not an armchair discussion, vHeRR. Some of us take our moral code seriously. Perhaps to you these things are all just words to jest about in verse.

... BAKIT nga ba ISINASAKRIPISYO ng MAGULANG ang SARILI PARA sa KALIGTASAN ng KANYANG ANAK?

... BAKIT nga ba ISINASAKRIPISYO ng INANG "ASO" ang SARILI PARA sa KALIGTASAN ng KANYANG ANAK?

 

... BAKIT nga ba IPINAGTATANGGOL ng MIYEMBRO ang KANYANG KA-GRUPO?

See my previous post, vhhERR.

... hindi nga ba't AYON sa DIOS MO,

... WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY ang GANTIMPALA NYA sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA?

... so kung ISINA-SAKRIPISYO MO ang BUHAY MO PARA sa IBA,

... ANO ang KAPALIT?

... WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY?

For me, selfishness is when i come first. But if in this life i have put others first when it really counted, there is no selfishness if i am rewarded after this earthly life. Hard for you to understand no, vHeRR?

WALA bang PAGKAKA-IBA ng MORAL CODE ang MGA THEIST?

... ang MABUTI ba AYON sa ISANG THEIST, ay MABUTI rin AYON sa LAHAT ng THEIST?

Yes, there are overwhelmingly more substantial agreements than variances.

 

 

KAILANGAN nga uli ISINILANG ang DIOS MO?

As always, you miss the point. No matter when Christ was born, there still is a Christmas. And if you were really an atheist, you would not join anything that had to do with Christmas, because it would be against your atheist beliefs, di ba?

 

 

Finally, just answer the question posted by skitz, vHeRR, because it is a valid question. At huwag mong sabihin sawsaw suka ha?

[cbr600rr]

He! He!

Hey guys, maybe we should'nt pick on vheRR.

 

Tutal, he's the one who offered a totally different view on the topic, and I feel he should be appreciated for that.

 

From my understanding, his difference in view is not a question of having a moral code or not, but rather the source of this moral code.

 

vheRR's existentialist view is that the moral code is built into MAN's instinct, being a social animal. Thus, man is the source of this code... Fundamentally, and effectively, man is the end all, be all of everything.

 

The opposing view by some is that moral code is from God. Or that the urge to follow a moral code (called a conscience by some), comes from a deity or a being higher than man. And God, not man is the end all, be all of everything.

 

On the surface, both schools of thought sets up a moral codes that may yield similar positive results. But, the fundamentals, or the source of this code, are different.

[dungeonbaby]

From my understanding, his difference in view is not a question of having a moral code or not, but rather the source of this moral code.

 

vheRR's existentialist view is that the moral code is built into MAN's instinct, being a social animal. Thus, man is the source of this code... Fundamentally, and effectively, man is the end all, be all of everything.

 

The opposing view by some is that moral code is from God. Or that the urge to follow a moral code (called a conscience by some), comes from a deity or a being higher than man. And God, not man is the end all, be all of everything.

 

Okay. But if "man is the end all, be all of everything" as you summarize it, he will preserve himself before others, at the expense of others. Vherr belabors the point that man would also preserve his family. Or, more precisely, that a dog would preserve his pup. But maternal instincts or familial love aside, if a man's primary motivation is to think of himself, then he would sooner k*ll than be killed. That's JHP's point. There's not been an argument for why a man wouldn't just k*ll his fellow man if the latter was infected with a deadly disease. Except a God-given moral code.

 

Socrates said we hold on to beliefs that we think are common sense. But when we are questioned we discover that these beliefs are not always sound. That's the point here. We're trying to find out if, without God and a moral code, humanity would survive itself.

 

On the surface, both schools of thought sets up a moral codes that may yield similar positive results. But, the fundamentals, or the source of this code, are different.

 

So far, no one's convinced that a code that's based on man or the self will yield the positive result that you are speaking of.

[complicated8]

Okay. But if "man is the end all, be all of everything" as you summarize it, he will preserve himself before others, at the expense of others. Vherr belabors the point that man would also preserve his family. Or, more precisely, that a dog would preserve his pup. But maternal instincts or familial love aside, if a man's primary motivation is to think of himself, then he would sooner k*ll than be killed. That's JHP's point. There's not been an argument for why a man wouldn't just k*ll his fellow man if the latter was infected with a deadly disease. Except a God-given moral code.

 

Socrates said we hold on to beliefs that we think are common sense. But when we are questioned we discover that these beliefs are not always sound. That's the point here. We're trying to find out if, without God and a moral code, humanity would survive itself.

Didn't some extinct civilizations have a God(s)?

 

So far, no one's convinced that a code that's based on man or the self will yield the positive result that you are speaking of.

Are you convinced of the opposite? Do you think because of God's moral code that this country will actually be better or just continue on it's downward spiral I think it's time to try something new.

[cbr600rr]

..... if a man's primary motivation is to think of himself, then he would sooner k*ll than be killed. That's JHP's point. There's not been an argument for why a man wouldn't just k*ll his fellow man if the latter was infected with a deadly disease. Except a God-given moral code.

 

Socrates said we hold on to beliefs that we think are common sense. But when we are questioned we discover that these beliefs are not always sound. That's the point here. We're trying to find out if, without God and a moral code, humanity would survive itself.

 

So far, no one's convinced that a code that's based on man or the self will yield the positive result that you are speaking of.

 

I acknowledge and agree with your argument that the natural instinct of man to preserve self and kin would negatively impact humanities ability to survive itself and will probably not have a positive result.

 

However, if you will, try to differentiate this natural instinct, from the instinct that vheRR could be referring to (correct me if I'm wrong), which he referrs to as man's "SOCIAL ANIMAL" instinct - oftentimes expressed in acts of kindness, compassion; things that make our society more livable. It seems that his proposal (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the "goodness" in man's heart is something built-in him because of man being a "social animal", and does not come from a God.

 

It seems his proposal is that man does indeed need a moral code, but this moral code does not come from God, but rather built into man, man being a "SOCIAL ANIMAL" as he calls it.

 

Complic8ed's observation that some monotheisthic societies in history collapsed (I presume she's referring to the Mayan society, among others) also seems to further the point that having a God does not ensure mankind's survival;

so therefore furthering vheRR's proposal that you don't need a God to have a moral code, as opposed to your view, and JHP's view that man's moral code comes from God.

Edited December 18, 2010 by cbr600rr

[sohryu]

this is a good thread and i havent been here in a while. btw, i dont know it its been pointed out already but i think the name of the thread is a bit off...

 

u know.. i remember reading something that says "as far as this thread is concerned, GOd doesnt exist". imhp, maybe its better if its "MORAL CODE.."

[dungeonbaby]

I acknowledge and agree with your argument that the natural instinct of man to preserve self and kin would negatively impact humanities ability to survive itself and will probably not have a positive result.

 

However, if you will, try to differentiate this natural instinct, from the instinct that vheRR could be referring to (correct me if I'm wrong), which he referrs to as man's "SOCIAL ANIMAL" instinct - oftentimes expressed in acts of kindness, compassion; things that make our society more livable. It seems that his proposal (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the "goodness" in man's heart is something built-in him because of man being a "social animal", and does not come from a God.

 

It seems his proposal is that man does indeed need a moral code, but this moral code does not come from God, but rather built into man, man being a "SOCIAL ANIMAL" as he calls it.

 

Complic8ed's observation that some monotheisthic societies in history collapsed (I presume she's referring to the Mayan society, among others) also seems to further the point that having a God does not ensure mankind's survival; so therefore furthering vheRR's proposal that you don't need a God to have a moral code, as opposed to your view, and JHP's view that man's moral code comes from God.

 

Where has it been stated here that having a God ensures mankind's survival? Nowhere. But maybe that was a typo and you meant that what's being argued from "our" perspective is that having a God-given moral code ensures mankind's survival? Well, that argument isn't the one theists here are making either. So complicated's example of extinct civilizations' belief in gods does not apply. It's flawed as well, since a code may not have been the cause for the extinction.

 

Ancient civilizations were most likely not destroyed by a mere belief in their moral code. Theirs was probably not a monotheistic belief system, in any case. But that's irrelevant, since there are so many other things that may have contributed to their demise - foreign disease, starvation, natural disaster, etc.

 

So let's instead look at the main argument, your/vherr's Man-as-social-animal proposal. The best way to simplify the argument is to reduce the sample population to two men, let's make them strangers, living on a tiny island - one is your "social animal," and the other is ridden with a highly contagious, debilitating, and deadly disease. What do you think has the power to stop your guy from performing an ultimately life-saving act, murdering the latter --- kindness or a moral code?

 

You are saying that if it were you or vherr, your built-in compassion will save the other man's life and shortly put a painful end to yours. Even when there is almost no social advantage to saving that life, and obviously no long-term physical gain.

 

What the other side is saying is only adherence to a God-based moral code will consistently give a man the strength to battle his basic instinct for self preservation.

[complicated8]

Where has it been stated here that having a God ensures mankind's survival?

Your statement: We're trying to find out if, without God and a moral code, humanity would survive itself.

 

Well, that argument isn't the one theists here are making either. So complicated's exhample of extinct civilizations' belief in gods does not apply. It's flawed as well, since a code may not have been the cause for the extinction.

It isn't that the code is the cause for extinction. Whatever the cause of extinction was, a God given moral code couldn't prevent it. With or without, it wouldn't matter. But if there is a limiter to God/moral code, that wasn't explicitly stated and I retract my example then.

[JHP]

@vHeRR, after you answer skitz's question first, i've been meaning to ask you another: Where does your "man is a social animal" concept end, and where does the quote in your signature from Richard Dawkins start? The quote: "We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."

 

Please tell us how the two concepts are reconcilable with each other.

[vheRR]

Ano ang dapat gawin sa mga HIV infected individuals? Ibigay ang moral (or logical) justification that would support your answer.

 

Kaya bang sagutin ng ATHEIST na si Vherr o hindi? Hahahahahaha...

 

 

 

… kung ANO ang GINAGAWA ng TAO sa HIV INFECTED "NGAYON",

 

 

… MINAMAHAL AT KINUKUTYA,

 

… INAALAGAAN AT PINANDIDIRIHAN,

… PINUPROTEKTAHAN AT NILALAYUAN.

 

[vheRR]

Sige vHeRR. walang lihisan. Just answer Skitz's question. And don't tell me morality comes from nature. Ang aso kumakantot ng kahit anong aso kung taglibog at may pagkakataon.

 

 

"ASO" lang ba…

… ang "HAYOP na ALAM MO"?

[vheRR]

Lihis na naman. Res ipsa loquitur.

AAMININ MO ba…

 

… kung SAKALING "TAMA AKO"?

 

i have actually been in life and death situations when i have put myself in harm's way to protect others, when the outcome could have resulted in death or serious injury to me, instead of them. i did not need to, but i was prepared to take the consequences, knowing full well what they could be. This is not an armchair discussion, vHeRR. Some of us take our moral code seriously. Perhaps to you these things are all just words to jest about in verse.

 

 

… ang TANONG,

"… kay DALI rin kayang GAWIN?"

"KAY DALI MO bang GAGAWIN na IBUWIS ang BUHAY MO"...

… sa "LAHAT" ng "PAGKAKATAON"?

 

"KAY DALI MO bang GAGAWIN na IBUWIS ang BUHAY MO"...

 

… sa "LAHAT" ng "TAO"?

 

 

See my previous post, vhhERR.

 

… so, BAKIT nga?

 

For me, selfishness is when i come first. But if in this life i have put others first when it really counted, there is no selfishness if i am rewarded after this earthly life. Hard for you to understand no, vHeRR?

Ah…

 

Eh…

 

 

… "HINDI MO ba ALAM",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… KAPAG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

 

… "HINDI KA ba NANINIWALA",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… HABANG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

 

… "HINDI KA ba NAKATITIYAK",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… HABANG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

… hard for you to understand?

 

Yes, there are overwhelmingly more substantial agreements than variances.

… and so,

 

… balikan natin,

 

 

… MAY mga THEIST ba na PUMATAY ng PARA sa KANYANG DIOS?

 

… MERON o WALA?

 

… at kung MERON ang ISASAGOT MO,

 

… "MABUTI ba o MASAMA" ang PUMATAY ng PARA sa KANYANG DIOS?

 

 

As always, you miss the point. No matter when Christ was born, there still is a Christmas. And if you were really an atheist, you would not join anything that had to do with Christmas, because it would be against your atheist beliefs, di ba?

 

As always, you miss the point…

 

… "NATITIYAK" MO na TOTOO ang DIOS MO,

 

… NGUNIT "HINDI MO MATIYAK" kung "KAILAN" nga ba IPINANGANAK ang DIOS MO? :lol:

[vheRR]

So let's instead look at the main argument, your/vherr's Man-as-social-animal proposal. The best way to simplify the argument is to reduce the sample population to two men, let's make them strangers, living on a tiny island - one is your "social animal," and the other is ridden with a highly contagious, debilitating, and deadly disease. What do you think has the power to stop your guy from performing an ultimately life-saving act, murdering the latter --- kindness or a moral code?

 

You are saying that if it were you or vherr, your built-in compassion will save the other man's life and shortly put a painful end to yours. Even when there is almost no social advantage to saving that life, and obviously no long-term physical gain.

 

What the other side is saying is only adherence to a God-based moral code will consistently give a man the strength to battle his basic instinct for self preservation.

 

LIKAS na MAKASARILI ang TAO…

…isang SOCIAL ANIMAL ang TAO,

 

… MAGKAKA-IBA ang BAWAT TAO,

 

 

… so,

 

…"DEPENDE" sa KUNG ANONG KLASENG TAO ang NASA "ISLA" MO,

 

 

… KAYA MAAARING "PATAYIN" NIYA ang TAONG MAY SAKIT,

 

… MAAARING "TULUNGAN" NIYA ang TAONG MAY SAKIT,

… MAAARI rin namang "LAYUAN" na lamang NIYA ang TAONG MAY SAKIT.

[vheRR]

@vHeRR, after you answer skitz's question first, i've been meaning to ask you another: Where does your "man is a social animal" concept end, and where does the quote in your signature from Richard Dawkins start? The quote: "We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."

 

Please tell us how the two concepts are reconcilable with each other.

 

PUNTA ka…

 

… sa Google,

 

… o kaya naman ay sa Wikipedia,

 

 

 

… i-TYPE mo,

 

 

… "The Selfish Gene".

[JHP]

"ASO" lang ba…

… ang "HAYOP na ALAM MO"?

...DI BA IKAW ANG GUMAMIT NG ASO BILANG HALIMBAWA?

 

...O BAKA SA totoo lang

 

...DI MO kaya SAGUTIN?

Edited January 11, 2011 by JHP

[JHP]

AAMININ MO ba…

 

… kung SAKALING "TAMA AKO"?

 

 

 

… ang TANONG,

"… kay DALI rin kayang GAWIN?"

"KAY DALI MO bang GAGAWIN na IBUWIS ang BUHAY MO"...

… sa "LAHAT" ng "PAGKAKATAON"?

 

"KAY DALI MO bang GAGAWIN na IBUWIS ang BUHAY MO"...

 

… sa "LAHAT" ng "TAO"?

 

 

 

… so, BAKIT nga?

 

Ah…

 

Eh…

 

 

… "HINDI MO ba ALAM",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… KAPAG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

 

… "HINDI KA ba NANINIWALA",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… HABANG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

 

… "HINDI KA ba NAKATITIYAK",

 

… na "WALANG HANGGANG BUHAY" na "GANTIMPALA" ang IBINIBIGAY ng DIOS MO sa mga SUSUNOD sa UTOS NIYA,

 

… HABANG "ISINASAKRIPISYO" MO ang IYONG BUHAY PARA sa IBA?

 

 

… hard for you to understand?

 

… and so,

 

… balikan natin,

 

 

… MAY mga THEIST ba na PUMATAY ng PARA sa KANYANG DIOS?

 

… MERON o WALA?

 

[/color][/color][/color]

… at kung MERON ang ISASAGOT MO,

 

… "MABUTI ba o MASAMA" ang PUMATAY ng PARA sa KANYANG DIOS?

 

 

 

As always, you miss the point…

 

… "NATITIYAK" MO na TOTOO ang DIOS MO,

 

… NGUNIT "HINDI MO MATIYAK" kung "KAILAN" nga ba IPINANGANAK ang DIOS MO? :lol:

 

 

 

...Alam mo ba

 

...kelan pinanganak

 

...ang tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay mo?

Edited January 11, 2011 by JHP

[JHP]

PUNTA ka…

 

… sa Google,

 

… o kaya naman ay sa Wikipedia,

 

 

 

… i-TYPE mo,

 

 

… "The Selfish Gene".

...KUNG WALANG INTERNET

 

...di mo na kayang ipaliwanag?

 

...O di ba kaya

 

...WALA KANG PALIWANANG O SAGOT

 

...NA MAY SAYSAY?

Edited January 11, 2011 by JHP

[vheRR]

...DI BA IKAW ANG GUMAMIT NG ASO BILANG HALIMBAWA?

 

...O BAKA SA totoo lang

 

...DI MO kaya SAGUTIN?

 

May SINABI ba AKO na...

... ASO LANG ang HAYOP?

 

 

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate behavior

 

 

Great Apes Know They Could Be Wrong, Research Suggests

 

 

Empathy Partly Based On Genes, Mouse Study Shows

[vheRR]

...Alam mo ba

 

...kelan pinanganak

 

...ang tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay mo?[/color][/font][/color]

 

IPINAGDIRIWANG KO ba TAUN-TAON ang ARAW ng KAPANGANAKAN ng...

... ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ko?

 

 

 

At SINASAMBA KO ba...

... ang tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ng tatay ko? :lol:

[vheRR]

...KUNG WALANG INTERNET

 

...di mo na kayang ipaliwanag?

 

...O di ba kaya

 

...WALA KANG PALIWANANG O SAGOT

 

...NA MAY SAYSAY?

 

Ang KASO...

 

... "MAYROONG" INTERNET.

SASABIHIN KO bang HANAPIN MO sa INTERNET...

... kung WALANG INTERNET? :lol:

 

... at IMBALIDO o PARALISADO KA ba?

[skitz]

Vherr,

 

What's with all the effort to prove that God does not exist? Again, I emphasize, as far as this thread is concerned it is ASSUMED that God does not exist (for argument's sake). The question is, what moral code are we going to have (since the God moral code would be no longer valid).

 

But I think, though unintentional, you've answered that question at least. How's that again? How do we treat people that are HIV positive? NO DEFINITE ANSWER. And that, more than anything else, clearly illustrates the point. Without a MORAL ANCHOR (the God moral code), we are LOST. Thank you.

Edited February 9, 2011 by skitz

[cbr600rr]

Good PM, Skitz.

 

If I may, just wanted to put in perspective your comment: "Without a MORAL ANCHOR (the God moral code), we are LOST." ; vis-a-vis what VheRR seems to be saying - I was doing some backreading.

 

I also read the links of VheRR:

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate behavior

Great Apes Know They Could Be Wrong, Research Suggests

Empathy Partly Based On Genes, Mouse Study Shows

 

I think what he's saying is that he agrees with you that man should have a MORAL ANCHOR, but he does not agree with you (and me for that matter) that this MORAL ANCHOR has to come from a divine being.

 

The articles and quotes in his signature : "We are survival machinesrobot vehicles blindly programmed" seem to suggest that it's in people's genes to have a MORAL ANCHOR, and therefore does not need God for this.

Edited February 16, 2011 by cbr600rr

[cbr600rr]

Comment ko naman kay vheRR:

 

Judging from your posts, shared articles, and even your signature which includes the quote "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.", it appears that you feel that people who believe in God are somewhat foolish, or borrowing the words of Mr. Russel, "the stupid are cocksure".

 

However, what you have to appreciate (although not necessarily accept) is that, we who believe in God, are fully cognizant of and accept the facts ...

... that we have no empirical and physical evidence to show you that God exists, but we go on believing anyway.

... that for some people like yourself and Mr. Russel, this belief may make us look foolish or even stupid, but we go on believing anyway.

... that believing in Him and "TRYING OUR DARNDEST BEST" to follow His ways may put us at a survival dis-advantage, but we go on believing (and TRYING) anyway. (TRYING being the operative word!)

 

You see, to me and many others, we feel that it's off the mark when others say that people who believe in God are "cocksure". Please understand that God fearing people are never really sure in the sense that we have black and white proof, we just simply believe even - without hard direct proof. Please understand that holding on to this belief is a life long adventure. You see, this belief is often shaken whenever disaster strikes or during serious crisis in health, family, or relationships occurr. During these trying times, keeping this faith and belief in His presence and goodness despite all the overwhelming arguments to the contrary is a extremely difficult and self-inflicted burden.

 

Self inflicted because it is a choice. We can choose to carry the faith and continue to put ourselves at a survival dis-advantage and be branded by people as "stupid, cocksure". Or, take the easy way out and take the route of "the intelligent", and eventually rule out God in our lives.

 

Maybe you'd agree with me that the former, although you may consider it as "stupid", is the more difficult choice. So, even if you don't share this belief, you must at least appreciate and have a healthy respect for the difficulty and burden that people take on in this life long challenge of believing. I do hope that you are not as arrogant as Mr. Russel, by not being able to appreciate the depth and difficulty level of what God fearing people are trying to achieve.

 

When their faith is shaken and their belief is put in question, and then someone puts forth the option to believe in MAN BEING A SOCIAL ANIMAL and erase God from the formula - this becomes such an enticing escape option (was this what happened to you?) You see, for a lot of us, we feel that we are lucky that when these faith crisis moments come, there are people who miraculously comes in to help us or at least encourage us, and pick us up and cheer us back to fighting form.

 

So you see, we not "cocksure", rather the word to describe us is "GRATEFUL", and perhaps even "HAPPY".

Edited February 16, 2011 by cbr600rr