I would have to say that the inability to act because of cowardice is not only motivated by fear but by selfishness in the desire to preserve one's own self. There are people who have a lot to give to society and who can contribute a lot through their opinions, skills, voice, but who do not do it for fear of loosing something (status, friendships, power, money..). Society is at loss.

The tyrant's bravery is motivated by confidence in that his ideas are the best and only pathway to improving society. Although he might be wrong, it seems to me that tyrants vision their own twisted version of an ideal society. The problem is that it is twisted! However, at least they act and they risk their own well being for the achievement of an ideal. Eventually their vision will crumble, as the idea in itself, not being really the best, will encounter opposition in society.

Thus, the coward deserves more blame. There are so many people complaining, so many people who know for example that "war is bad", yet no one has the courage to step forward and oppose it actively; because we are too afraid.

Hey I just tried to access the link you posted http://seriousbusiness.createdebate.com and it just went back to the traditional main page, I can't find the "serious" debates there, unless I come back here to check on the list.

What do I need to do to check out the community page?

Thanks for doing this! it has been getting harder and harder to find interesting debates on the main page. :) kudos for that.

so whats your point? that everybody should hear two sides to every single story they hear?

The point is to illustrate that more information about a subject leads to better judgment on it. Ideally we should refrain from emitting moral judgments when we don't have enough information. The point was on how information, not the subjectivity of religion, leads to better judgments.

thats because you are talking to religious people using religious answers

Evidently, this is your case, as you are trying to pose a defense for god.

On questioning.

Questioning should not be "overcome" as if it was an obstacle. Questions just need answers. When religious people seek answers in prayer, the answer has a high chance of just being a subjective personal intuition. If religious people would really look for answers they would have to start by first questioning the very existence of god, and requiring proof.

you cannot say one has a better law just because it doesn't agree with your ideology

Of course it is possible to judge whether an ideology is right or wrong, just as it is possible to judge the morality of anything else. Laws that do not give equal treatment to it's inhabitants , are laws that lack a good morality. When slavery was accepted, for example, the definition of citizen was not applicable to the slaves, as they were not awarded the same rights. I do not agree with it, not because of some "personal ideology" but because I believe all human beings to be equal. In your example of a country that bans homosexuality, I would also find that rather disgusting - how can it be right to judge a person by what he/she does in bed? are they harmful to society? how?

Anyway, thank you for showing your low level of maturity. With this, I abstain from the ridiculous debate that you have created. But again, I don't have enough information to judge you as a good or bad person as I lack the information about your age, your educational level, and the degree of your faith. ... ;-) cheers. And I didn't need god to tell me that pre-judging a person is bad... Or maybe if I had god then I could make a quick prejudgment and say you are a bigot.

A choice always entails sacrifices. People weight the cost and benefits of their choices on many things, one of them, their convenience.

I do feel that convenience is a value that has been inculcated by capitalism, but that is also naturally embraced by us. A great majority of the population view "easy" as being "best". This is not true. The value of convenience is an "anti-value" for it not always brings the best for society in general.

It is easier to throw trash out than to sort it out. You can't argue with that. BUT it is not the best. The Japanese, with a culture which harbors values that benefit society in general more than the personal satisfaction of the individual, make better choices in terms of the public good. They value society more than their own personal convenience.

I think that the most dangerous way of thinking is to continue placing our personal convenience above anything else. We need to have our hierarchy of values reorganized. First I think of others (society, the environment) then, Ill think of myself. The first thought may or may not entail going through things the "hard" way (depending on the technology that is available - e.g. , carrying a pet bottle or finding machine that refills) , but we shouldn't see that "hard way" as something undesirable. I think it is a matter of values and change in mentality of what importance to give to our personal convenience v.s. our well-being as members of a society.

Products are meant to make our lives more pleasant, agreed. But does pleasant equal better? My life is certainly more pleasant with a car. But in the end it wont be better because of it.

This clash wouldn't have been a problem if we had had our hierarchy in order in the first place. Then we would now have a whole range of products that not only make our life pleasant, but also better (electric cars for example!). Because we would have started the design with society in mind, instead of just the individual.

We may not like the word "sacrifice", but at some point in time we will have to understand that every-time we choose one thing over another, the other thing is sacrificed. for a long time we have been sacrificing society for our own good, and to continue with this train of thought is more of the same thing. It is not just about convenience.

Kinda,

A warped sense of "reality" comes from religious dogmas that teach us to follow fairy tales and trust imaginary beings such as god, or else we go to hell.

I support a clear, objective understanding of reality, you clearly don't. You are still hoping that the god you believe in is real in order to base your morality on it. Morality does not require a god. Atheists are not immoral people. Muslims are not immoral people. Buddhist are not immoral. Everyone is capable of understanding and exercising good will towards others (in favor of a greater good), with or without a religious background. What I'm saying is, there is no need to believe in god in order to attain a greater good.

I still maintain that arguing which religion is right is absurd because it is like arguing about the preferences of santa claus. It is unnecessary. A waste of effort. And unfortunately it further divides us. I know people clash on different subjects, we all have differences.. however religious people tend to view others outside their religion as being inferior, or condemned, or in need. They view themselves as being "right" and this hinders communication and dialogue. While two people with differing opinions on politics or philosophy an argue and change their minds and grow; two very firm religious believers will not argue for the sake of developing their ideas. Their aim is to "convince" the other person that they need a "god".

Im very clear in saying that moral choices do not come from fairy tales. They come from judgement based on enough evidence about a situation.

When two friends of yours get into a fight and one comes to tell you about the situation, you have the choice to make a judgement without listening to the other side of the story. If you do, your judgement is more likely to be flawed than if you allowed yourself to listen to the other side. The more evidence you have, the better the choice you will make.

Religion makes us listen to only one authorative voice, the voice of god (whoever that one is).

When I talk about "evidence" please do not mistake this only with scientific evidence. When I speak of science I mean using the scientific method of inquiry. Of course moral judgments come outside of science! im not arguing or that or saying contrary. But INFORMED judgments come from more evidence and knowledge. Thats the difference.

When I hear "homosexuality is wrong!" from a religious person, no one is able to give me one reason between stuttering that doesn't boil down to "the word of god". This is an exampled of a moral judgement that is uninformed and inaccurate.

I find a lot of contradictions in what you are saying about belief in god. When I mentioned that faith is the certainty of things without the need for evidence, Im not making this up. Go look at the definition of faith in the bible and you will see what many followers already know. Questioning within a religion is not "wrong" but it is seeing often as an attack of the devil, a phase, or something that must be overcome. Because eventually, you just gotta believe, brother. or as you mentioned near the end of your post: you just have to trust the imaginary being above.

When you say that science does nothing, you sound like a very religious uneducated person. Science does nothing?! geez, now who sounds close minded? A scientific method of reasoning actually tells us to start all inquiries with the premise that we do not know, and thus, we keep on searching.

Religious people quit that search and take things by faith, that is, by lack of evidence. Including a lack of proof for the existence of god. If you show an atheist proofs of the existence of god, then it makes sense to believe. But when scientific proof comes out rebutting the possibility of the afterlife, or miracles, or of resurrection , the religious person closes his ears and stops listening. This also occurs when two religious people argue, from different beliefs... why? because they already trust "in their heart" so no point in dialoguing in order to find out if what they trust is true or not.

Judgement about whether one thing is good or not should come from information. Lets stop calling it science cause you seem to get confuse. In your example about immigration, if your judgement is based on the unfounded belief that people from other countries are inferior, then your judgement will be wrong. However if you judgement is based upon evidence about the effects of immigration on your country (whether good or bad), then you will have a better judgement, and therefore make better laws. Does that make sense? What is the need for a god ideology when in reality better judgement comes from more information? So isn't evidence useful?!? I find it appalling to be arguing with someone who says that science has done nothing, and who sees no point in gathering evidence before making a judgement about a person or a behavior.

Religion gives a warped sense of reality. Evidence clears out our warped senses and presents reality in a sharper focus.

Science tells us accurately about the effects of certain actions. E.g. smoking, drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, unprotected sex.... etc. But people are still free to make decisions. So sometimes, you have the contradictory cases of doctors who know how harmful it is to smoke, but still do it to themselves.

In religion, you run into the same contradictions all the time, especially in cases that in my opinion are more delicate in terms of morality because they are more fragile. The difference is, that religious people have no way to argue for why they should do right, other than to "praise god", and then they try to impose it.

Christianity is not the only religion. Contrary to your view, there are many gods out there and many types of followers. And the main thing they seem to care about is to argue that their god is the right one, in order to justify why they are following such absurd laws without really thinking them through. In this scenario , how is it that belief in god is for the greater good? which god?

Because of religion we are always focused on some sort of afterlife and soul saving exercises that take our attention from establishing a better society for all of us. I think it is an unnecessary distraction, all this god talk.

Now going back to science. People are still free to do whatever they want to their bodies, because they own them. However they are not free to do whatever they want to their neighbors body. Thus, it would be absurd to say that a doctor who is smoking in his bedroom is breaking a law. It would be absurd to impose that on him. Same with drinking. Only religion imposes some sort of virtual punishment to these people (here or in the afterlife) taking away their personal freedoms. However, when we are talking about society, we have to make laws based on factual evidence, not subjective feelings about things. Yes people make a "moral" choice about things, but this choice doesnt necessarily have to be based on fairy tales. It can be based on scientific evidence.

However, what if the doctor was smoking in a public place? In Japan they are already passing laws against smoking in public places (train stations for example). Why? Because we know that second-hand smoke is harmful, and so it makes sense to sanction those who want to harm others with their behavior.

Murderers also do things that are harmful to others and should go to jail. Drug dealers, the only reason they are doing something wrong is because it entails an economic transaction outside of government regulation. In Amsterdam, marijuana is legalized, based on the scientific study of the effects, and no one is prosecuting the owners of coffee houses for selling it to costumers.

A lot of moral laws of religion overlap with common sense (at least in the christian religion) but a lot do not, and they lead to hatred and discrimination based on nothing more than subjective claims that "god doesn't like it". Why is homosexuality wrong?

Belief in god entails faith, and faith is the ability to believe in something without evidence. Once you believe in god you start to believe whatever else anyone tells you (including the voices in your head - which are not always good) , and then we are steps away from becoming sheep. Science on the other hand teaches us to question. It gives us facts and then we can know what effects it will have for society. Of course science can say how drug abuse affects a country! Im talking about the scientific method of reasoning. Social sciences based on statistics and other forms of study deal with these problems everyday in every university. I think you are underestimating the value of inquiry and critical thinking. Maybe you are just trying to hold on to your subjective believe that you need god to know what is good or bad for you.

In my opinion belief in god does nothing for society. NOTHING. Religion puts a focus on things out of this world in order to give people a drive. Is this good? It is, on a very personal level. The problem is that people assume that it was meant for society. Thats where the Jewish had it right in wanting a messiah who would come and liberate them from the political oppression. And they got rightfully pissed off when they realized that this great Jesus did not give a damn about the world here. He cared about souls. Jesus did not accept the temptation of satan when he offered all the kingdoms of the world. remember that story? What does that tell you? that the world belongs to someone other than god. that god's laws do not apply to this world. that this world is better run without religious beliefs.

I also grew up in a christian environment and i feel i know the religion pretty well. But I really find religion and faith lacking in ways to help society improve. They help people be happy, find reasons to live, thank god in the midst of trouble... but leave it there. Denying homosexuals of the right to marry because god sees it as wrong, is bullshit. It is called discrimination. Denying women the right to abort because the fetus has a soul, is another bullshit that we cannot prove.

Saying you cant smoke a joint because god wouldn't like it, is retarded. Saying that you shouldn't smoke it cause it kills brain cells is a different kind of choice.

Use the bible for yourself. or the Koran. Or buddhist texts. Stop eating meat if god tells you. Cover your women. Tithe 10% of your salary to the church. go ahead, but dont say these things make society better. because eventually what religious followers have to be concerned with is to know and prove others that their god is the right one. that the bible is the word of god. not the koran. argh.

The example of a pastor is an extreme one, amongst many of the same nature (but not of the same level) of how people interpret their god given missions differently. sure the bible may not say that. but the bible doesnt say a lot of things either and people read into it. also it happens to say a lot of other stuff that makes no sense but people believe it blindly. i mean, have you ever seen a soul? honestly?? why do you blame that pastor? if religion teaches us to connect to some being outside of us and obey? i think all believers in god are deluded in different degrees. the killer pastor, just another one.

anyway. im tired of arguing because it clearly seems to me that you already have your faith based point of view, wanting to see that god's laws indeed apply to this world just because sometimes they overlap. the fact that they do is not enough to continue with such fairy tales. we know have evidence about many things, so we can use our reasoning to value whether or not we should take the blue or the red pill.

A. Products are made by companies

B. Environmentally friendly products are more costly, in terms of research and materials

C. The goal of a company is to make profit

D. Costs are lowered in order to make products affordable to both the consumer and the producer

E. The products made (and which are available) are not environmentally friendly- and if they are, they are more expensive.

therefore, we, as consumers need to make sacrifices on behalf of the environment.

One of the reasons that no one does anything for the environment is because it requires more effort. As consumers, it is easier to throw all our trash into one heap instead of sorting it out for recycling. It is more convenient to buy one pet bottle drink after another, instead of carrying our own thermos. It is easier to drive our car to the supermarket than to walk it out. And for poor countries, it is even worse as the majority of the population cannot afford products that are "organic" or "chemical free". They are expensive due to the technology involved.

Producers have also made the most "convenient" choice when making the products that we love and that make our lives oh so convenient. It is easier to dump their toxic wastes in nearby rivers than to implement high tech (high cost) technology to clean their waste. It is easier to use such a fantastic material as plastic to bottle their drinks than to go back to better more durable alternatives such as glass (fortunately third world countries still use glass to bottle soft drinks, though the vendors and buyers have to go through the inconvenience of returning them to the manufacturer after their use). It is easy to cut down trees in the name of "development" and marvel at the new malls built on previous forest land which cater to our needs, than to admit that industrialization does not necessarily mean development.

Our constant need for "convenience" has led us to where we are. We want things "our" way. The human race prides itself on conquering nature, but this is done through its mindless destruction. We need to shift our paradigm and reassess that we are not just "masters" of this world, but that we coexist with its other living beings (plants, animals). We need them and they need us. We all need each other. Our convenience should not be the main driving force of our efforts. Coexistence should be.

Unfortunately we didn't start investing in research for environmentally safe products until lately. We thought we would have the resources forever (or maybe we just didn't bother out of pure stupidity), so we built up a system that is harmful. Now to start investing in research is expensive, as it feels like we are just discovering how to make things work. The only alternative we have? is to change our ways as consumers, to choose to walk, to choose not to buy pet bottles over and over, to choose to recycle, and most importantly, to choose not to consume things that we do not need. Only then can we hope that producers will listen and invest everything they have into environmental research for the products. And in a while, maybe the costs will go down.

But in the meantime, we must accept that in order to save the environment we need to sacrifice something.

Everything big requires a sacrifice. But it is worth it. no?

And how do you account for the vast amount of religious people who also commit "evil"?

I argue that determining what is "right" or "wrong" based on belief is inaccurate and subjective. People do things "because god told me so" (no matter what god that is) without questioning why or really thinking for themselves. Scientific reasoning (I do not mean just science but perhaps the use of the scientific method) can lead us to find a "greater good" in a more objective way. Why is homosexuality wrong? Why is sodomy wrong?

A better measure would be to check whether or not your actions are harmful to you or to others, and then measure your behavior accordingly. This is better than just "god told me to do it" which leaves the issue open to having any god tell you any kind of crazy thing "god told me to go kill the abortionists". There was actually a case a couple of years ago in one state about a pastor who killed a doctor that was performing abortions. And the congregation supported him.

Im sure you will say "well, that is extreme, bla bla bla" and make some excuse about how those people were not true followers... but the thing is, religion is subjective and it is left to ones "relationship with god". How do you explain to that man that killed the abortionist that his relationship with god is not legitimate? How would YOU argue for that? Do you have a direct line to god?

things get easier if we have the means to determine whether our behavior is harmful to ourself or others. Now science can tell us a lot about how to behave in ways that are less harmful to ourself, to the environment, and to society in general. The bible does not say anything about protecting the environment, which is an issue of importance to all of us. But in my personal identification of "right" and "wrong" I say the overuse of pet bottles is wrong, because Ive learned the effects they can have on the environment. - Just an example.

What greater goods have come from the belief in God? I want you to explain to me how religion is NOT subjective. When followers have to listen to a pastor/priest interpret things for them. Or when followers constantly justify their own behavior with an explanation that all that matters is a "personal relationship" with God. I really wonder how God is speaking to all these people directly in ways that contradict each other.

thing about right and wrong- there is no proof to it

thats where we differ. religious people base their morality on a "gut feeling they cant explain". while non-religious people base their morality on actual evidence on whether something is harmful to myself or to my neighbor. It is quite a simple way to find out what is right or wrong without the need for a direct phone line to god. the knowledge of right or wrong does not require god. you say that you agree with god when you acknowledge that alcoholism is bad for you. i say that actually "god" agrees with you and science. there is no need for god to tell you alcohol is wrong. you know it is a harmful substance to your body. but thats it... end of story.

this "downward spiral" is just a spiral in the minds of religious people who see their morals (that have no actual basis) become eroded. i see nothing wrong with this. as long as the morality we are acquiring is one infused with tolerance and love for ourselves and our neighbor.

I see tradition as doing something over and over without considering new ways to do it. You just do it because of the sake of tradition... because your grandparents and their parents were doing it... so we continue to pass it on. Traditions become　mental paradigms that hinder our ability to do things differently.

Relligions are full of traditions. In the catholic church in latin america often times you see the priest walk around with an insense thing that gives off smoke. No one really knows why but there must be something "sacred" about it. The truth is that it was done in the past in order to fend off mosquitos. But now it is continued because it became a tradition.

so yeah, if progress is to move forward , traditions of any kind are an obstacle.

The reasons we should give for guiding our morality should have a real foundation. You didnt answer WHY you are against zoophilia, why it is harmful to engage in such behavior... is it because god's word should be followed blindly? just "because"?

I'm against following for the sake of following, and against giving people rules without proof of why those rules are good for them.

I am not an advocate of zoophilia. But I accept that I have no reason, other than my personal OPINION that it is disgusting, to make a moral judgement and condemn it as "wrong". So, again, if you say it is wrong... what is the reason behind it?? please convince me with something other than "god says so".

I have the same respect for abrahamic religions as I do for cults. Why? I put them on the same level as I think that people's opinions should be respected. And to me, religion, whether cult-ish or not, is nothing more than an opinion of how the world works or how it should work.

I agree with what you say about common sense. and in that video you clearly saw how common sense is being lost.

About your fear of loosing morals to "freedom" which comes from a scientific understanding, I ask you... what is so bad about that? Why do you see it as some dooming scenario? So what if your neighbor likes to fuck a dog? As long as we can prove that nor him or the dog are getting diseases, how is this making the world BAD? what are the negatives of that ? .... seriously.... I think all the negatives you see come from a "desirable" image of the world that is imposed by religion.... For me, a desirable world comes from people respecting other people's view, not looking down upon them because they have different preferences, and where people are free to do what they want as long as they dont harm each other. Isn't that the tenet of most religions anyway? love thy neighbor ?

When I agree that alcohol is bad, Im not agreeing with god's word, Im agreeing with medical evidence about what it does to the body... And I agree that a world without alcohol is better, but as long as you are inflicting the harm only upon yourself, I have nothing to complain about.

So tell me, why do you see zoophilia as negative? what is so bad about that? ... (use it as an example of the downward spiral in the world) I think you will not be able to prove it, without using your own subjective "morality". All I m saying is that we need to think criticaly about where our morals come from and religion is not a good source for moral standards.

Below is a video of the source for "good doing" for religious people: the fear of going to hell. How can such a story be a source for "morality"? Good christians and atheist alike, do not need such religious stories to do good.

Regarding the cults, the reason why I find them relevant is because followers of the abrahamic religions dismiss them as being completely "crazy" when in my opinion, the abrahamic religions in themselves are as deranged as cults. So I find them relevant because it shows what happens when people try to say that they have access to "god" or can possibly know his/her mind. There are people out there who still believe in talking snakes...

I admit your point in saying we can never know "everything", but you must admit that when you make a desicion, even as simple as buying a new computer, you do research and try to find out as much as you can so that you will be better equipped for making a decision. It's as simple as that... we become more educated so we can make better decisions.

Which leads to the final point... religious people do not do things just to please god, but because they also think it's the right way of living. I think we are all entitled to the same freedom religious people want of choosing the best way of living if this behavior is not going to harm anyone else. I've never come across any scientific evidence as to why sodomy is bad for you. Therefore, I have no basis for saying it is "bad". Why is it bad? If you point out something in science, then you will agree that we need education, scientific facts, to help us make desicions that are not bad for us. But if you just "think" it is bad for no reason at all... then it makes no sense.

I dont understand your argument about being part lion part tiger.

A girl of 12 consenting to sex with a 90 year old... i think if we continue with this god bullshit, children CAN be brainwashed into doing things without questioning them. Have you watched the videos about Jesus Camp? It is very close to the same brainwashing that cult leaders do... and you know what makes it so wrong? that it is targetted at children, who are suceptible . Just as a girl of 12 , we both would agree, has not reached the age of consent to have sex; the children from jesus camp also have not reached the age of consent to accept or reject ideas independently. why? because they have not been exposed to more information about the world. how can god be for the greater good when it inhibits our ability to decide for ourselves?

About drugs. I believe they are bad because Ive read enough about their effects on the body. Thus I can say they are bad, there is evidence. But saying things are bad just because of some intuition about god, is just plain ignorance.

You are really off topic and nothing in your argument is aimed at supporting your belief that society is better off believing in a "god" than without.

It is already evident to me that you believe that the god that would favor society is only the abrahamic god, is this correct? I gather this from your refutal from my use of mass suicides and cult-like belief as examples.

I really dont see why they shouldn't be used as examples in an argument about god - supposing you are just talking about any conceptions of god - . I first argued that it is not for the greater good, because there is the possibility to come up with a lot of conceptions about what god is, how to follow him, how to please him. An example of this are cults. The conceptions range from crazy to crazier. And first we would have to find a way to prove that one conception is the correct one. However you seem to believe that the abrahamic god is the correct one. how can you prove that? Heaven's gate followers had a different conception and they died for it, their beliefs were passionate and convinced. They would have argued for their own view as passionately as someone who wants to believe that the abrahamic god is real and necessary for society.

so the first problem is how to find a god that is for the greater good? religion is just as subjective as any opinion in this world.

facts on the other hand, are not subjective. if people are given access to facts about situations, it is easier to make better decisions about right and wrong. if we knew the facts about the existence of a soul or not, we would know when consciousness actually begins, and this would help us in deciding whether or not abortion is right, or from when could it be right. does that makes sense? we kill cells every day and we dont feel like murderers. but because right now we do not know yet how to define "life", we continue with this myth of "god created life by breathing his spirit into us" and then we find this answer more satisfactory than the incomplete scientific search for life... up to now i think it is safer to say, "i dont know" than to argue that some god has answers.

All societies have their negatives, but I would prefer to dance for rain or bury people in tombs or pray for life than accept sodomy, sell my soul for money, have no respect for myself...

why is sodomy wrong? because god told you it is wrong? well... someone elses's god may not have told them it is wrong. how do you prove your god is right?

scientifically... why is sodomy wrong if both parties consent to it?

People are unable to make the right decisions because they want to base everything on their own idea of how to please their own god. We disagree more and more because religion claims to be absolute about morality, and it doesn't allow for discussion. Instead of saying "i dont know" god following people claim to have the answer and thus, there is no opportunity to really agree on anything... at least not with god followers.

How can you argue against someone's god that exists only in their head?

im glad we don't have to dance for rain and that we can just dance for fun, not to please some gods. :p

Completely agree with your statement, however not with your position.

Marriage is still a choice for couples. If there is a decline in marriage the factor is not just gay marriages. If the question of the debate is whether gay marriage is leading to less straight marriages, the answer is no. this is a ridiculous assumption.

maybe the wording of the debate is not too clear..

I think again, to dispute the assumption that im saying people now are smarter than before is wrong. Im saying people now have more information than before, and more information leads to better choices. Of course egyptian, mayan, and chinese civilizations developed at an amazing rate and with surprising quality for our standards. But the eqyptians were also burying their dead in huge tombs (the pyiramids) and along with exhorbitant amounts of gold, why? because their belief in gods entailed a belief in an afterlife. I think they could have spent their resources and time building other structures that would have helped their community , rather than tombs. (though now we admire them just for cultural value). So it is these kind of behavior that I argue stems from a lack of knowledge about the world and how it works. However it doesn't mean we are "smarter" now. Since there are religious believers who continue behaving in the same supersticious ways... When they get sick they pray instead of going to the doctor, etc. But these behavior now should be inexcusable because now we have more knowledge about the world, so it is more like a choice. Back in the time of the Mayans, it may be more acceptable for them to come up with rituals to call for the rain, since they dont have the scientific knowledge about what makes rain fall.

But now, when people engage in the same kind of things, it just makes no sense at all because there is more knowledge out there about how things really work.

As far as morality goes, I actually think that something like the hamurabi code where the crime was punished in direct retribution, was quite innovative and logical and we could benefit from it. If you steal, we will cut off your hand. End of story. No need for god to induce people to act morally. ;) Just a good execution of the law. Of course this is not the ideal... and again, things are never just "black and white", so in the end it may not work in our day. The ideal would be for us to think critically about our actions. To have an awareness about the common good. We dont need an image of "god" in this, just as we dont need a hamurabi code. We need something more complex.... a reform in the educational system for example...

Belief in non-abrahamic gods for the greater good. hmmm. that makes this more interesting, but still based on my argument above, you can deduce that the image of god is unnecessary.

We all have an understanding of god that is different from each other. And there is no way of proving which god is right. Groups of people, cults, have come up with new "gods" and then followers are so blind that they end up committing crazy things in the name of these gods. Think mass suicides. This is the problem with the concept of "god"...any god, impedes rational thinking.

The basis of my argument is that God's word (whatever religion it is you are talking about) impedes our ability to reason about the consequences and impacts of our choices/actions. Any formalized set of rules does this when people are told to follow without questioning because something is supposed to be "good". Cases come up over and over again in everyday life, not just in difficult cases like abortion, euthanasia, cloning, where we confront the fact that reality is NOT black and white. But god's word and formalized rules want to simplify reality for us and this is where they fail. You should watch this ted talk about the ability to solve problems v.s. the ability to follow rules.

Claiming to "know the answer" is the characteristic of zealous religious people, who believe that a rule given by god is THE only answer. The scientific reasoning is precisely to question those things that may seem as "absolutes".

Regarding knowledge or education it would be absurd to say that we now know less things about the world than we did in the past. So, in the past - in the midst of more ignorance, it made sense to believe that if you don't worship a certain way god will get angry and stop the rain and your crops will die; but now, such a simple minded reason behind the need to behave well would not be accepted as we know more about how the world works. In this sense, we have more information needed to make decisions.

I don't think it is necessary to think about difficult or modern day examples (cloning, abortion, euthanasia) and figure out how to apply religion to it. In every day decisions we are always forced to "bend" the words in the book because they can't provide answers. Then people argue that it is their own "personal" relationship to god what matters -- it would seem as if everyone has a different conception of God anyway, these words are then subjective and left to interpretation. No one is adhering to the words strictly because the words are too narrow. The world is not black and white.

Teaching ethics and moral behavior requires a lot more than making people behave like sheep.

Objection to Objection 3:

Atheistic regimes have slaughtered upwards of 100 million people

And religion hasn't done its share of slaughtering? How about the unrecorded atrocities committed in the name of god during colonial times? and the continuing killings going on now the name of that same entity in the middle east and all over the world? what about sacrifices done to god by the mayans and astecs? Killings in the name of one god or another are in everyone's history books. Why continue perpetuating myths?

When you mention atheistic regimes I assume you are referring mostly done by communism, in which case the reason behind it was ideology... not "atheism". Whereas in the religious killings, the name of god was actually used as a reason.

People allowed to think for themselves are able to think more clearly about tolerance towards others, compassion, and the common good more than religious people who are only taught to follow without questioning. The only reason why we haven't been able to "figure it out" is because we keep on hammering the issue of god through religion over and over and over and over.... Religion is present in every sphere and it makes it difficult for those who want to talk about god-less morality, as they are shunned as if it was something impossible. What do you think of a god-less morality?

It is good to get back on track. ;)

If they're NOT, then why have they 'used' God?

I honestly think that the answer is a simple lack of education. Whereas before people had to be threatened with floods and the wrath of a god to compel them to change their ways, now that we have more understanding about the world, we are able to find logical conclusions as to how we should act in certain situations. we are now able to think more critically about issues because we have more knowledge.

Regarding the questions you post on the thou shalt not kill example, using the concept of god inhibits our critical thinking about how to solve such situations. The "word of god" is usually not enough to address such issues about euthanasia, abortion in case of rape, killing in war, or self defense. I seriously doubt that god will tell us the right answer no matter what. Whereas we can be allowed to arrive at logical conclusions about the issues of killing on a case to case basis, I dont think that we can know god's answers about these issues based on things that were written hundreds of years ago. Unless, again, you can prove that you have a direct line to god and that he is telling you what to do. This would be very subjective and you would have a hard time applying it to all of society.

There was a case in Nicaragua a couple of years ago, where an 11 year old girl was raped, and because she had reached puberty, she got pregnant. In Nicaragua, people believe that the bible is the word of god. Churches of different denominations interpret this word for the people. However, the god had not mentioned anything about what to do in this situation... no mention of abortion. So churches, who claimed to know what god was saying, launched a fierce campaign against the abortion of the child... based on the fact that if the bible (the word of god) said thou shalt not kill then this applies in any situation and we shouldn't think critically about each issue and respond to it accordingly.

The girl was 11 years old and incapable of taking care of the baby. The family of the girl lost the support of the community because they wanted the daughter to abort. The girl did not even understand what was going on. .... Anyway, just an example of how claiming that god says something can not be for the greater good. If the girl asks why she shouldn't be allowed to abort the answer will be because god says so. This kind of answer in itself is detrimental to the advancement of our own development of ethics and morality.

I don't claim that educated people make good choices all the time, only that when we have more knowledge about situations, our choice will be more informed and this expands the possibility that it will be a better choice than an uninformed one. If we become more informed then we will solve the problem of just being like children who do not understand and need to follow blindly . This may have been the case in times when people thought that the world stood on pilars, but now we don't need more myths, we need more education so we can think critically about the impact of our desicions.

Not their understanding, but word for word, God's Words

1. I just wonder how it is that some people have a direct line to "know" what god wants and what god says. there is no reason to see Buddha , Jesus or Muhammad as anything more than just very intelligent guys who had a burden in their hearts to guide people into a right moral pathway. Anyone with common sense and enough passion, and charisma can do this. Ghandi did not claim to be speaking god's words. he did claim to be inspired by the words of said prophets but by viewing their words as what he called "pure thoughts". why do you have to bring a "god" into the picture? morality has no need for god.

2. the words of the prophets you cite have value, but i feel that because they claim to be god-sent, their words become meaningless. people then have to choose who to believe... was jesus the son of god? or was he just a prophet? ... then religion becomes more than just about morality but about being "right" with some "god". does the mother of your example have to tell the kid that she is letting him fall because god told her to? why cant she just explain the logic behind it? it is enough.... we know that we shouldnt kill because it is common sense! not because we have to believe in someone who tells us that god talked to them last night.

Since you do not want to use religion, then explain how the idea of god, outside of religious norms, is tied to morality. it seems that more than defending the need for having a creator/god, you are defending the need for organized religion. God could be viewed as something more sublime than an organized set of rules written down by some privileged men who had some sort of direct phone line to the all-mighty....

in my opinion morality need not to be tied to god.

your argument is very confusing. are you defending religion, or god, or morality as means for the greater good? ... it seems to me that you believe that religions are legitimate creations of a god. if this is the case, this will be my last comment to you as there are too many contradictions in religions, in their norms, to even begin to accept that a higher being would have given them to us for our "guidance". if there was a higher being he probably has nothing to do with religions...

and i repeat... morality does not need to be tied to a god. there are lot of ways to be educated into the "right" way of behaving that do not require having someone telling you that you will go to hell if you don't obey.

Well first, since you are the one talking about a greater good, it would be nice to start with a definition or examples of a greater good. In my conception of a greater good I am assuming this means to uphold certain values, such as truthfulness, and thus I put this as an example. Sorry if that was not clear, perhaps you can clarify, what the greater good is and how we can identify what it is.

Also, when you say that we shouldn't bring religion into the debate you must first explain why on your introduction to the debate you have us imagine that we are creating a religion.

We should first agree on whether or not religion is an obligatory vehicle for a belief in God. It seems to me that in your argument followers of a god want to find ways to please this god, and thus will be compelled to follow rules. People can either then follow established religions or create personal "guidelines" and "rules" of their own, and this becomes their religion. What benefit can there be to society where people are creating their own guidelines to follow based on a subjective understanding of a God? Some people may say my god requires me to dance naked in the middle of the street and then... what is the benefit to society?

Either way, as you say, without bringing religion into the question (or pretending to create a religion), there are many people out there, agnostics for example, who do believe in a creator but not necessarily some creator who wants anything from them... a god that is more of a passive uninvolved observer, than a ruler. These people thus, have no need to "please" him or follow "his" rules. And it doesnt mean that they people are lawless savages. The ability to understand what is good and bad for society, as I have mentioned before, has nothing to do with the belief in having a god to please or fear. A lot of people claim to believe in the possibility of a god, and yet not be religious, since the god they contemplate is one who doesn't provide systematized rules. The systematized rules that you mention, come from religion, NOT a belief in god.

May I ask you why you believe that people are not able to figure things out on their own?

You say that religion should not take the blame for a lot of the ills in society, but look how far religion has come and yet it doesn't seem we are learning how to get along. Maybe it is time to let people figure things out, and see what happens instead of getting stuck in the idea that people need some mythical being to tell them what to do.

If the end justifies the means, then the "greater good" is violated through the way , then I don't think we are talking about a greater good anymore.

If the greater good is to tell the truth, and in order to do things you need to tell people a lie, then there is no more greater good present.

Maybe historically it has been erratically believed that we need some sort of mythical creature in order to be "good". But I do not think that this "greater good" has brought much greatness to humanity in the long run, as it has given way to horrible things through fanatism and it has perpetuated lack of education in many areas related to science. It has also allowed governments to control populations through the use of those beliefs. It has also fostered artificial divisions between different cultures, eventualy leading to wars. Are these means justifiable ? and are the followers really giving our world a greater good?

I don't think we need God anymore to know what is good or bad. I think people are capable to figure things out on their own.