Why do I believe?

[Snorri1234]

Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not.

Because that is exactly what they are saying!

Then what exactly are you saying?

Just because I don't believe in an absolute truth handed to us by a deity does not mean I think we can just make up our own definition of good. We use reason and judgement to determine what is good and what is not, it's not like throwing darts at a map with acts blindfolded and deem the ones you hit as "good".

[xelabale]

Is there currently proof of God's existence. No
Is there currently proof of God's non-existence. No
Will there ever be? No.

Why will there never be? It comes down to the definition of God vs the definition of human. If we have a definition such that
God > human we can never have definite proof either way of God's existence. If He exists we cannot know what he knows, as he knows more than us. Therefore we cannot definitively prove his existence.
If he does not exist we will continue to fail to find proof of his existence. This does not mean that we have proved that he does not exist. Therefore we cannot prove it either way.

So, you are free to choose your belief with no burden of proof necessary. All choices are exactly equal. There is no one belief that is more likely than another. The act of believing does not change the truth, whatever it is. I believe that whatever you believe in will happen for you. Just my choice.

Another argument I like is this:

God is all powerful. The universe is all powerful. God = Universe

Now the universe I can believe in...

[john9blue]

I don`t usually get into these topics any more, but since you asked for opinions, what the hell.

I hear you, I just figured I'd throw this out there since it's a viewpoint that doesn't usually see the light of day.

How does it make it more probable if you`re adding another factor to the equation? I can never understand this viewpoint.
it`s like having the question "a=?", and you respond by saying "a=3b", but you don't know what b is. So instead of having to find a, you now have to find b and prove that a=3b. If we were to continue the analogy, you would now say b is always 7, cause he's a badass like that. This is neither rational or logical.

I'd say it's more like a=3π. So, what's pi? Well, it's a universal constant that arises out of necessity for comparing the diameter and circumference of a circle. Pi is always 3.141.... It has to be like that, because the existence of a circle makes it necessary.

Just because the beginning of the universe makes no sense to us doesn't mean it is any different than any other scientific question. "it doesn't make sense" as in "I don't intuitively find this possible" is irrelevant in science, just read about quantum mechanics and physics if you don't believe me, but don't blame me for the headache

Imagine we still thought the Earth was flat and the stars were holes in the sky. Would not the same argument you are using now also apply to the existence of planet earth in such a scenario? I can see it now: "well, as we see, everything has a cause, plant a seed and a tree grows, how then would it be possible for this great disc of rock to exist without an initial cause? Only a fool would deny the existence of Haggis the great."(I'm a god in this alternate timeline, you see)

Well, then you'd have to account for the heavens as well.

I'm talking about the creation of everything. The big kahuna, the whole kit 'n' kaboodle, not just life and the universe, but everything (assuming there are multiple universes). If we can account for this using science, and there's no God involved, then maybe I'll become an atheist.

Well, if according to you adding a God to the mix makes it simpler why don't you go crazy and add three. The universe was created by God#2 who was in turn created by God#1 who was in turn created by God#0(who has always existed).
The point is that any God capable of creating the universe would have to be more complex than the universe, therefore it is unlikelier for that God to "just be" than it is for the universe.

I question your assumption that a creator God has to be more complex than the universe. Life has continually shown to go from simple to complex. Using the theory of evolution, our distant ancestors were sea-dwellers, and their distant ancestors were protozoans. Simple to complex, right? For all I know, the creator God could simply embody the life force within all creatures. It would explain why humans are able to conceive of the idea of God (throwing in the ontological argument for good measure), and why all organisms can create and reproduce.

It could easily be on a loop though.

You mean, expanding & contracting over and over again? You may believe that, but then you're claiming that the loop is there without cause, which may be true, but then that's just another belief.

I admire your honesty, i don't think many religious folk would ever admit to this.
Having said that, there are quite a few problems with this line of belief.
What if i found a religion with significantly better benefits and worse punishment, would you buy it? If not why? You say that it probably can't get much worse, but just for the purpose of this argument, assume that it could get much much worse.

Ugh, I hate atheist propaganda. Too embarrassed to sign his work, eh?

It depends. I can't really imagine what would be worse, so it's hard to give an answer. Even so, I've found Christianity to line up very well with my personal values, and to be a largely positive force in society as a whole. I'm aware that there are many arguments against Christianity, and that's something I'm still learning about (it's a journey, not a destination... but I feel like atheism would be quitting the journey).

Now on to what is a bigger problem, you're telling me that you just decided "well i'd hate to go to that hell thing so sign me up as a catholic". Well, i for one can't force myself to believe something simply because I want to. I mean maybe i want to be rich. Now i can take a loan, rent a big house and an expensive car and pretend to have the millions, but i know i don't, i know it's all a ruse, i don't actually start believing i'm a millionaire.
Or perhaps a tyrant arises that declares that anyone who doesn't believe that 2+2=5 will be killed. I'd sure as hell show my devotion to this new wonderful theory of his, perhaps even help him with some mumbo-jumbo proofs, but i wouldn't really believe it, i'd be just pretending.
Now, are you saying that you can just decide something would be beneficial to you and start believing it "with all your heart" to paraphrase the believers?

I asked this question myself in the OP. Unlike most Christians, I don't believe because I want to; I believe because I have to. Whether this is really belief is up for debate, but as long as I feel the need to believe in it, any sort of personal desire is out of the question.

Because if you can't you're basically trying to swindle a being that you believe is omnipotent and omniscient, not a good move.
Don't you think your God would figure out that your only "believing" in him to hedge your bets. And what kind of being would actually like that. "this guy over here that searched for the truth his whole life and ultimately came to the conclusion that i don't exist, he's burning in hell. this other guy on the other hand just thought he'd rather be in heaven so what's the point in all that searching for truth crap, welcome my son, you will now be rewarded." If there is a god i'm really hoping his reasoning wouldn't go like that.

Where do you get this stuff?

I'm not trying to swindle Him, and I'm not ending my search for truth. Maybe I need to make this more clear: unless I get a good reason why my belief is illogical, I am personally obligated to believe. I see no other logical option. And if I was trying to swindle, or ending my search for truth, then why do you think I'm posting all of this?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not.

Because that is exactly what they are saying!

Then what exactly are you saying?

Just because I don't believe in an absolute truth handed to us by a deity does not mean I think we can just make up our own definition of good. We use reason and judgement to determine what is good and what is not, it's not like throwing darts at a map with acts blindfolded and deem the ones you hit as "good".

The inevitable question, then, is how do you define good? What "standards" do you use? How do you decide? And why do you use those methods?

I forgot to respond to this, but it's actually rather relevant at this juncture:

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I disagree.

The theistic definition of "good" usually boils down to "what god says". Well, but what criteria does god apply? Does god base his decision regarding what's good and what's not on some other standard than himself? Then he's not necessary for the definition of "good".
Or does god not apply some external standard? That would mean he makes it up as he likes it. Neither alternative is particularly satisfying.

Monotheism boils down to this: God is. He doesn't "make it up" nor is he subject to "external standards." He just is.

Wow, that is such a bad argument I think my face just melted.


"Say Jack, is it right that we kill every foreigner we encounter?"
"Yes."
"But why?"
"BECAUSE!"

The crudeness and wrongness of your specific example aside, "BECAUSE!" is actually a rather good way to describe God. In all matters - morals, cosmology, epistemology - God is the "BECAUSE!" That makes perfect sense from a theistic perspective. And I would argue that without this "BECAUSE!" you are going to be hard-pressed to objectively justify any set of morals you may propose.

I admire your honesty, i don't think many religious folk would ever admit to this.

Maybe because that's not why most of us are religious?

[john9blue]

Just because I don't believe in an absolute truth handed to us by a deity does not mean I think we can just make up our own definition of good. We use reason and judgement to determine what is good and what is not, it's not like throwing darts at a map with acts blindfolded and deem the ones you hit as "good".

This is definitely the ideal, except some situations are too complex to analyze like that. Suppose Bob murdered Joe. Now, Joe would have gone on to kill 5 others and himself in a shooting a year later. So, Bob saved five lives. He's a hero. But are we gonna know that? No, we just know that Bob took someone's life, and we think that he deserves punishment, because the vast majority of killings don't save anyone's life. We're just going off of what we know. Ultimately, Bob's act was good, but we simply can't tell.

[lgoasklucyl]

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I don't think so... lots of atheists have their own set of personal values, as do I. Like I said, most of what Jesus calls "good" I do also, but who am I to say that anyone's code of ethics is "wrong"?

Thank you John. It's comments like OA's which just assume everyone/thing different from what he practices/believes to instantaneously be wrong. He knows nothing of my idea of 'good' or the personal values I have. In fact, many of my personal values coincide with the 'good' preached by many religions. Just because I don't receive these values from a book/attend a ceremony of worship makes me wrong?

Alas, you can see why I began to veer away from religion in the first place...

[OnlyAmbrose]

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I don't think so... lots of atheists have their own set of personal values, as do I. Like I said, most of what Jesus calls "good" I do also, but who am I to say that anyone's code of ethics is "wrong"?

Thank you John. It's comments like OA's which just assume everyone/thing different from what he practices/believes to instantaneously be wrong. He knows nothing of my idea of 'good' or the personal values I have. In fact, many of my personal values coincide with the 'good' preached by many religions. Just because I don't receive these values from a book/attend a ceremony of worship makes me wrong?

Alas, you can see why I began to veer away from religion in the first place...

Just keep misreading me, friend.

I NEVER said that your "personal values" are wrong. My point has been that you have no objective justification for them - with no objective way of defining "good" it becomes a largely empty word.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I don't think so... lots of atheists have their own set of personal values, as do I. Like I said, most of what Jesus calls "good" I do also, but who am I to say that anyone's code of ethics is "wrong"?

Thank you John. It's comments like OA's which just assume everyone/thing different from what he practices/believes to instantaneously be wrong. He knows nothing of my idea of 'good' or the personal values I have. In fact, many of my personal values coincide with the 'good' preached by many religions. Just because I don't receive these values from a book/attend a ceremony of worship makes me wrong?

Alas, you can see why I began to veer away from religion in the first place...

Is that your solution to every philosophical problem then?

Oh, I don't like the concept, so I'm going to deride the opponent as intolerant/wrong and hope that passes?

I mean, at least some atheists do try to offer some kind of rebuttal against this, you know, "I get my morals from society", or "Kantian universals qualify as morals", but no, you just blunder straight in with the "you're intolewant and wong!!!111".

This, or you're just guilty of staggering philosophical illiteracy.

[Snorri1234]

Just because I don't believe in an absolute truth handed to us by a deity does not mean I think we can just make up our own definition of good. We use reason and judgement to determine what is good and what is not, it's not like throwing darts at a map with acts blindfolded and deem the ones you hit as "good".

This is definitely the ideal, except some situations are too complex to analyze like that. Suppose Bob murdered Joe. Now, Joe would have gone on to kill 5 others and himself in a shooting a year later. So, Bob saved five lives. He's a hero. But are we gonna know that? No, we just know that Bob took someone's life, and we think that he deserves punishment, because the vast majority of killings don't save anyone's life. We're just going off of what we know. Ultimately, Bob's act was good, but we simply can't tell.

Well obviously. There are many differing philosophical schools on this. You can judge by intent (i.e. did Bob actually know Joe would kill others), the action itself (murder is always bad no matter what is prevented) or consequences and so on.

I mean, noone is certain on it but neither is religion always clear on complex stuff like this.

[AAFitz]

There are many reasons for a person to believe in a god, God, allah etc. Typically they are passed down from parent to child, but there are other ways to learn of such religions and possibilities of supernatural forces.

The human imagination has allowed the creation of countless religions, gods, beliefs in supernatural forces too numerous to list.

Science has disproved some beliefs held by some religions, but will never, ever be able to prove there is no god, or supernatural force. It is impossible to disprove an omnimpotent being by definition, because he, she or it could create a universe, or universes and make it impossible to be dis-proven or proven.

The problem with believing in religions and books and stories written by men, is when they are taken at face value, and used to do harm, as they so often are.

Religions have helped humanity in countless ways, but unfortunately been the cause of much suffering and death and will probably do so for all time.

My own experience has taught me to keep an open mind, and respect others beliefs. Those who feel the need to push their beliefs onto others are typically doing so for their own benefit, and not the benefit of others. In many cases, it is pure greed for power that drives this.

If there is a God, allah, budah, etc. it is unfortunate that it wasnt made clearer, and that all were not given the opportunity of this knowledge. It is this discrepancy that makes it difficult to believe in any religion, because nearly all religions preach that their god punishes those who do not believe, but at the same time preach that god is good.

Well, anyone or anything, that sets up a system, where some will be punished because they were born in a particular place, at a particular time, for all eternity, clearly is not fair, and is at the very least unjust.

To really believe in any God that is all powerful, knowing, and good, would be to believe that any afterlife would be completely fair in every way. Its simply illogical to assume any different. In other words... if God is fair and good, then any actual afterlife would have to punish/reward every soul ever born perfectly evenly, with no bias of any kind.

Therefore, any religion that preaches, that only those that do what they say or that they will be punished, betray the very idea of a just God, and therefore make it very dangerous to believe them to the letter of the law.

The purpose of religion should be to inspire people to live in harmony, help thy neighbor, and make the world a better place for every soul possible. Anyone who call themselves a believer in a just and loving God that does not do this, is simply a hypocrite in the truest sense of the word. Lower only are those that actually use the religion for personal gain, fame, power, money, war, etc.

I was raised a catholic, an altar boy, went to private catholic school even... but ill be damned, perhaps litterally, if I will believe a church without question that has presided over and caused some of the greatest attrocities the world has known, and been as responsible for as much evil, as any group ever has.

Personally, I think its as dangerous not to believe in the possiblity of God, as it is to believe without question in one....
whats important, is how a person acts, how he contributes to the world, and how he treats his fellow man

There is no true God that is worthy of the name, that will not reward such things evenhandedly...

If it turns out there is no God, then while religions have helped mankind individually, and collectively though many hard times...I think in the end, it will be clear the belief in God has hindered the human being perhaps more than any other factor in history. It is however ironically true, that the complete opposite is true, and that without religion, the world would be a far more evil place... there is no way to know... and in the end... we will either know for sure... or never know at all

[Snorri1234]

I'd say it's more like a=3π. So, what's pi? Well, it's a universal constant that arises out of necessity for comparing the diameter and circumference of a circle. Pi is always 3.141.... It has to be like that, because the existence of a circle makes it necessary.

But then you shouldn't have said anything about "being probable". You are saying that God is a neccesity.

Ugh, I hate atheist propaganda. Too embarrassed to sign his work, eh?

Actually, if I remember correctly the dude doesn't hide himself or anything. He just doesn't sign his work.

It depends. I can't really imagine what would be worse, so it's hard to give an answer. Even so, I've found Christianity to line up very well with my personal values, and to be a largely positive force in society as a whole. I'm aware that there are many arguments against Christianity, and that's something I'm still learning about (it's a journey, not a destination... but I feel like atheism would be quitting the journey).

I can imagine plenty worse, and certainly a lot that would be about the same.

Also, atheism could also be another journey.

I'm not trying to swindle Him, and I'm not ending my search for truth. Maybe I need to make this more clear: unless I get a good reason why my belief is illogical, I am personally obligated to believe. I see no other logical option. And if I was trying to swindle, or ending my search for truth, then why do you think I'm posting all of this?

The point is that if you feel obligated to belief you aren't believing with your heart and according to christianity that means you don't get into heaven anyway.

[Haggis_McMutton]

How does it make it more probable if you`re adding another factor to the equation? I can never understand this viewpoint.
it`s like having the question "a=?", and you respond by saying "a=3b", but you don't know what b is. So instead of having to find a, you now have to find b and prove that a=3b. If we were to continue the analogy, you would now say b is always 7, cause he's a badass like that. This is neither rational or logical.

I'd say it's more like a=3π. So, what's pi? Well, it's a universal constant that arises out of necessity for comparing the diameter and circumference of a circle. Pi is always 3.141.... It has to be like that, because the existence of a circle makes it necessary.

I think i've lost sight of the metaphor here, what are you saying? God is dependent upon his creation just as pi is dependent upon the circle. Most religious people i know wouldn't agree with that limitation.

Just because the beginning of the universe makes no sense to us doesn't mean it is any different than any other scientific question. "it doesn't make sense" as in "I don't intuitively find this possible" is irrelevant in science, just read about quantum mechanics and physics if you don't believe me, but don't blame me for the headache

Imagine we still thought the Earth was flat and the stars were holes in the sky. Would not the same argument you are using now also apply to the existence of planet earth in such a scenario? I can see it now: "well, as we see, everything has a cause, plant a seed and a tree grows, how then would it be possible for this great disc of rock to exist without an initial cause? Only a fool would deny the existence of Haggis the great."(I'm a god in this alternate timeline, you see)

Well, then you'd have to account for the heavens as well.

I'm talking about the creation of everything. The big kahuna, the whole kit 'n' kaboodle, not just life and the universe, but everything (assuming there are multiple universes). If we can account for this using science, and there's no God involved, then maybe I'll become an atheist.

Well sure, that's sensible. But what i'm saying is that looking at the history of scientific discovery and especially at some of the recent, apparently illogical discoveries, it isn't at all ridiculous to assume that we will figure it out. And even if we never do(whose to say that out intelligence is now or ever will be sufficient for such a task), that off course lends no credence to the existence of god.

Well, if according to you adding a God to the mix makes it simpler why don't you go crazy and add three. The universe was created by God#2 who was in turn created by God#1 who was in turn created by God#0(who has always existed).
The point is that any God capable of creating the universe would have to be more complex than the universe, therefore it is unlikelier for that God to "just be" than it is for the universe.

I question your assumption that a creator God has to be more complex than the universe. Life has continually shown to go from simple to complex. Using the theory of evolution, our distant ancestors were sea-dwellers, and their distant ancestors were protozoans. Simple to complex, right? For all I know, the creator God could simply embody the life force within all creatures. It would explain why humans are able to conceive of the idea of God (throwing in the ontological argument for good measure), and why all organisms can create and reproduce.

Again, while this position makes more sense, it contradicts basically all western religions. I don't see how a god simpler than the universe couldn't listen to all the prayers, throw a few hurricanes or floods once in a while, speak to guys in the desert, make lists of things he doesn't like and send his kid to forgive us for disrespecting his list of things he doesn't like.
Are you sure your a catholic and not some kind of pantheist? cause i might need to change my pitch

It could easily be on a loop though.

You mean, expanding & contracting over and over again? You may believe that, but then you're claiming that the loop is there without cause, which may be true, but then that's just another belief.

Yes, off course it's a belief, but i'm just saying that i think this belief and other similar ones are more likely than the beliefs that include a eternal being that is more complex than it's creation(all western religions basically). Would you not agree?

I admire your honesty, i don't think many religious folk would ever admit to this.
Having said that, there are quite a few problems with this line of belief.
What if i found a religion with significantly better benefits and worse punishment, would you buy it? If not why? You say that it probably can't get much worse, but just for the purpose of this argument, assume that it could get much much worse.

Ugh, I hate atheist propaganda. Too embarrassed to sign his work, eh?

It depends. I can't really imagine what would be worse, so it's hard to give an answer. Even so, I've found Christianity to line up very well with my personal values, and to be a largely positive force in society as a whole. I'm aware that there are many arguments against Christianity, and that's something I'm still learning about (it's a journey, not a destination... but I feel like atheism would be quitting the journey).

Yeah sorry for the comic, i just couldn't resist.
Anyway, this subject might be good for a different topic. I've noticed this belief in a lot of people actually and i don't really get it. Why do you consider you'd be missing something without belief? Is it the perceived lack of fundamental values? or what?

Now on to what is a bigger problem, you're telling me that you just decided "well i'd hate to go to that hell thing so sign me up as a catholic". Well, i for one can't force myself to believe something simply because I want to. I mean maybe i want to be rich. Now i can take a loan, rent a big house and an expensive car and pretend to have the millions, but i know i don't, i know it's all a ruse, i don't actually start believing i'm a millionaire.
Or perhaps a tyrant arises that declares that anyone who doesn't believe that 2+2=5 will be killed. I'd sure as hell show my devotion to this new wonderful theory of his, perhaps even help him with some mumbo-jumbo proofs, but i wouldn't really believe it, i'd be just pretending.
Now, are you saying that you can just decide something would be beneficial to you and start believing it "with all your heart" to paraphrase the believers?

I asked this question myself in the OP. Unlike most Christians, I don't believe because I want to; I believe because I have to. Whether this is really belief is up for debate, but as long as I feel the need to believe in it, any sort of personal desire is out of the question.

I don't follow, you have to? How so? Is it because, as i asked above, you'd feel like you're missing something if you were to become an atheist?

Because if you can't you're basically trying to swindle a being that you believe is omnipotent and omniscient, not a good move.
Don't you think your God would figure out that your only "believing" in him to hedge your bets. And what kind of being would actually like that. "this guy over here that searched for the truth his whole life and ultimately came to the conclusion that i don't exist, he's burning in hell. this other guy on the other hand just thought he'd rather be in heaven so what's the point in all that searching for truth crap, welcome my son, you will now be rewarded." If there is a god i'm really hoping his reasoning wouldn't go like that.

Where do you get this stuff?

I'm not trying to swindle Him, and I'm not ending my search for truth. Maybe I need to make this more clear: unless I get a good reason why my belief is illogical, I am personally obligated to believe. I see no other logical option. And if I was trying to swindle, or ending my search for truth, then why do you think I'm posting all of this?

Sorry, i was vague and you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking personally about you with the "end of the searching" thing, it was meant as a general evaluation made by god of two people, not as a personal attack, i don't do personal attacks when actually discussing something.

Anyway, what i said in that quote applies only if we agree that wanting to believe in something, or being forced to believe in something doesn't actually mean you believe in it. As i see it belief doesn't work that way. In that case, if a person is pretending to believe because he is scared of the possibility of hell, isn't he in a sense trying to swindle god?

Edit: two rather large post seem to have appeared while i was writing this, and i'm kind of pressed for time, so sorry if i'm repeating something that has already been said.

[lgoasklucyl]

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I don't think so... lots of atheists have their own set of personal values, as do I. Like I said, most of what Jesus calls "good" I do also, but who am I to say that anyone's code of ethics is "wrong"?

Thank you John. It's comments like OA's which just assume everyone/thing different from what he practices/believes to instantaneously be wrong. He knows nothing of my idea of 'good' or the personal values I have. In fact, many of my personal values coincide with the 'good' preached by many religions. Just because I don't receive these values from a book/attend a ceremony of worship makes me wrong?

Alas, you can see why I began to veer away from religion in the first place...

Just keep misreading me, friend.

I NEVER said that your "personal values" are wrong. My point has been that you have no objective justification for them - with no objective way of defining "good" it becomes a largely empty word.

What I said was that in order for you to have any useful definition of "good" you must be a theist. Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not. If that is the case, then the word "good" is pointless for all intents and purposes because it is purely subjective. Unless of course you have a perfect standard, which theists claim to.

Okay- I must have misread. Explain to me the difference between my definition being 'useless' and 'pointless' and it not being wrong in your eyes.

[OnlyAmbrose]

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I don't think so... lots of atheists have their own set of personal values, as do I. Like I said, most of what Jesus calls "good" I do also, but who am I to say that anyone's code of ethics is "wrong"?

Thank you John. It's comments like OA's which just assume everyone/thing different from what he practices/believes to instantaneously be wrong. He knows nothing of my idea of 'good' or the personal values I have. In fact, many of my personal values coincide with the 'good' preached by many religions. Just because I don't receive these values from a book/attend a ceremony of worship makes me wrong?

Alas, you can see why I began to veer away from religion in the first place...

Just keep misreading me, friend.

I NEVER said that your "personal values" are wrong. My point has been that you have no objective justification for them - with no objective way of defining "good" it becomes a largely empty word.

What I said was that in order for you to have any useful definition of "good" you must be a theist. Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not. If that is the case, then the word "good" is pointless for all intents and purposes because it is purely subjective. Unless of course you have a perfect standard, which theists claim to.

Okay- I must have misread. Explain to me the difference between my definition being 'useless' and 'pointless' and it not being wrong in your eyes.

I would say that any definition you could come up with would be baseless without the existence of God.

What I have said several times in this thread is this: if you subscribe to subjective moral truth, then the word "good" becomes a pointless word because it can mean anything depending on any given individual's moral interpretation. A word that can mean anything is not a useful word, because it doesn't express anything in particular.

[AAFitz]

to say one needs a god, or a religion to define "good" is perposterous

a theist believes that there are supernatural forces of some kind while an atheist simply does not believe there is a supernatural force

the definition of good is always subjective, but there is no need for the belief in any supernatural force to define it, and therefore, and an atheist, who does not believe in a supernatural force, can certainly define his belief of what is good, without any need to be a theist. It means they have beliefs....but that doesnt make them a theist, which is someone who believes in a supernatural force that affects, or controls everything.

you simply dont understand the definition of atheist.

[jonesthecurl]

A word that can mean anything is not a useful word, because it doesn't express anything in particular.

...like the word "god".

[OnlyAmbrose]

A word that can mean anything is not a useful word, because it doesn't express anything in particular.

...like the word "god".

I'd say that the word "god" defines something rather particular - the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe.

to say one needs a god, or a religion to define "good" is perposterous

It's nice that you think so, would you like to provide me a reasonable definition of "good" without some sort of god involved?

a theist believes that there are supernatural forces of some kind while an atheist simply does not believe there is a supernatural force

I am quite aware of that, but thank you for the refresher.

the definition of good is always subjective,

See, that's where atheists and theists generally disagree. My point, which I have made more times in this thread than I care to count, is that for the word "good" to mean anything, it must be objective.

[Snorri1234]

A word that can mean anything is not a useful word, because it doesn't express anything in particular.

...like the word "god".

I'd say that the word "god" defines something rather particular - the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe.

Well yeah you would say that, but normal people wouldn't. There are thousands of gods who are not all-powerfull, and even in this thread john brought up that you can also define god as the life-force in every person or as the universe itself.

[Snorri1234]

to say one needs a god, or a religion to define "good" is perposterous

It's nice that you think so, would you like to provide me a reasonable definition of "good" without some sort of god involved?

Two can play that game! Please give a reasonable definition of "good" with God involved.

[AAFitz]

to say one needs a god, or a religion to define "good" is perposterous

It's nice that you think so, would you like to provide me a reasonable definition of "good" without some sort of god involved?

Its not so much that I think it. Its simply how it is. The human being is born with an inherent sense of right and wrong for some behaviors which includes many social behaviors. While each society will determine what is right and wrong collectively, no need for a supernatural being is necessary for it.

as far as your definition of good without god...

good= any action or act that benefits another person, and does not cause harm
ie. simply giving an apple to a person who is hungry is good. There is absolutely no need for any God to be involved.

I am quite aware of that, but thank you for the refresher.

that was for the person who mistakenly that said that anyone who believes in "good", had to be a theist, which mis-defines theist to mean someone who believes in something...as opposed to a supernatural something...which is its actual definition...
you need some more refreshing aparently

the definition of good is always subjective,

See, that's where atheists and theists generally disagree. My point, which I have made more times in this thread than I care to count, is that for the word "good" to mean anything, it must be objective.

[/quote]

actually, atheists and theists simply disagree on whether or not there is a supernatural force or being that controls the universe.

no educated person can say that good is not subjective, because what has been defined as good by religions and god has changed throughout the years. In just the catholic religion, it was once a sin to eat meat on every friday. A person who did, sinned. Now since it is no longer required, a catholic can eat meat, without sinning. Same religion, same God...subjective definition of what is good.

[OnlyAmbrose]

that was for the person who mistakenly that said that anyone who believes in "good", had to be a theist, which mis-defines theist to mean someone who believes in something...as opposed to a supernatural something...which is its actual definition...
you need some more refreshing aparently

The definition of theist and the implications of such a definition are two different things. I know what "theist" means, thanks, and I am also capable of drawing conclusions based on that definition.

actually, atheists and theists simply disagree on whether or not there is a supernatural force or being that controls the universe.

See above.

It goes without saying that if there is a supernatural force in the universe (or not) there are implications that go along with that conclusion.

no educated person can say that good is not subjective

I know plenty of educated people who do just that.

In just the catholic religion, it was once a sin to eat meat on every friday.

Eating meat on Friday isn't a "moral" concept, nor does it boil down to "good and evil," it's a matter of tradition. The sin of eating meat on Friday was a sin of disobedience which, yes, is still very much a sin.

[AAFitz]

to say one needs a god, or a religion to define "good" is perposterous

It's nice that you think so, would you like to provide me a reasonable definition of "good" without some sort of god involved?

if a person is hungry, giving him an apple is a good act. there is absolutely no need for a god to be involved. The person had a need, and it was fulfilled.

good=any act that benefits another person without doing any harm.

again, no need for a god to rubber stamp this act, or require it. The mere fact that it helped another human makes it good, assuming no harm was caused.

a theist believes that there are supernatural forces of some kind while an atheist simply does not believe there is a supernatural force

I am quite aware of that, but thank you for the refresher.

that was for the person who mistakenly that said that anyone who believes in "good", had to be a theist, which mis-defines theist to mean someone who believes in something...as opposed to a supernatural something...which is its actual definition...
you need some more refreshing aparently

the definition of good is always subjective,

See, that's where atheists and theists generally disagree. My point, which I have made more times in this thread than I care to count, is that for the word "good" to mean anything, it must be objective.

actually, atheists and theists simply disagree on whether or not there is a supernatural force or being that controls the universe.

no educated person can say that good is not subjective, because what has been defined as good by religions and god has changed throughout the years. In just the catholic religion, it was once a sin to eat meat on every friday. A person who did, sinned. Now since it is no longer required, a catholic can eat meat, without sinning. Same religion, same God...subjective definition of what is good.

[AAFitz]

It goes without saying that if there is a supernatural force in the universe (or not) there are implications that go along with that conclusion.

it goes without saying that whether or not there are aliens(or not) there are implications too... is there a point??

no educated person can say that good is not subjective

I know plenty of educated people who do just that.

i know plenty of educated people who do lots of stupid things too.

In just the catholic religion, it was once a sin to eat meat on every friday.

Eating meat on Friday isn't a "moral" concept, nor does it boil down to "good and evil," it's a matter of tradition. The sin of eating meat on Friday was a sin of disobedience which, yes, is still very much a sin.

but it is an example of good being subjective, as it almost always is depending upon the situation.

[MeDeFe]

So eating meat on Fridays was a sin and now isn't.

It also used to be ok to discriminate rather severely against people because they were the descendants of Noah's third son Ham. That has also changed.

[Snorri1234]

It goes without saying that if there is a supernatural force in the universe (or not) there are implications that go along with that conclusion.

Like?