Define good

[Winter wind]

You say there is no absolute good, but then you suggest a way of moving towards an absolute good. How can you move towards something which doesn't exist?

easy. There is no such thing as a perfect circle, it doesn't exist, but we still can try hard to recreate it. We may not have an absolute right or wrong, but we can tell the difference, like telling a circle from a square (sometimes the lines are blurred)

If all he's got is an opinion, then it's not worth debating, and this happens to be a DEBATE forum. Otherwise, all you'd have are people making empty claims with no support whatsoever. We have enough of that already.

This is an opinion poll. While on a debate forum, I was under the impression that we were here to state our opinion and defend them, but his defense is logical under the assumption God exists. If you want to make statements under the impression that God doesn't exist, don't you have to prove he doesn't? (I could be wrong)

No, you BELIEVE there is an absolute truth. If you're going to claim knowledge, I'm going to have to ask you to back up how you came by that knowledge, which requires you to defend your sources.

Fine, I'll rephrase.
There is only one truth.
No matter the situation or the view point, the single truth remains the same. An incident can only happen one way. God can either exist or not exist, we can't both be right (which is why we debate).
Q.E.D. one truth.

Therefore I know can be absolutely sure that there is no absolute right or wrong, because that is the truth. One fact, many morals.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: wind easy. There is no such thing as a perfect circle, it doesn't exist, but we still can try hard to recreate it. We may not have an absolute right or wrong, but we can tell the difference, like telling a circle from a square (sometimes the lines are blurred)

A circle doesn’t exist in nature, but that doesn’t mean it’s subjective. There’s an objective and concrete definition for a circle, and it’s this definition which we move towards.

There’s no objective or concrete definition of good, so how can we move towards it?

[Winter wind]

Ha you win that one.
except, is it possible that we create our own truth?
That maybe the circle doesn't exist anywhere else other then in our head?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Wind That maybe the circle doesn't exist anywhere else other then in our head?

The circle, like anything involving infinity, is purely conceptual. However, the concept itself is well-defined and objective. So it's certainly man-made, but is still objective.

The difference with morality is that, while it is similarly man-made, it is utterly subjective, Hence, there can be no objective standard, man-made or otherwise, to move towards.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Suburbanite He is going to have the same hard to proving God exists as you have proving Good and Evil exist. Good is imperceivable.

No, he'd have a very easy time doing it, he'd just have to present evidence. Since there *IS* no evidence, that tells you something. It means that there is no reason whatsoever to accept the proposition as true, pending evidence coming at a later time. So if you're going to claim that God is the cause of something, then the existence of God is the first thing you'd have to demonstrate, otherwise it's a failed proposition.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: ruksak I would think that in order to define good, one must be able to define evil..

To me this is a common misperception. "Good" is an ideal: a noble objective. One can define either and not necessarily affect the other... thought we may alter the definition of mediocrity instead or in addition. This is especially true if, as I claim, it depends upon each and every application of any action or inaction. If we don't strive towards some "good" ideal, is that "evil?" Not necessarily. Depends upon specifics.

I imagine right now, if they are reading this, some Volcanvo members are chewing up their carpet. There are those I have done battle with here that loath relativism with a fantaticism that would make both Usama and George Bush proud.

"Good" isn't the end of the trail but a direction in which to head. The same might be said of evil. I would agree, when it comes to humanity, there is no such thing as pure evil or good: maybe not even close to pure. When it comes to any diety of your choice... (Let's see, is this the Jesus aisle we're pushing our cart down, or would we find Ahura Mazda, here? Do they have "fire sales," or is that only in some versions of Hell?) ...all is off the table because it is difficult to know the workings of the "mind" of any deity that may... or may not... exist: or it's fiction and it would be any damn thing we wish it to be as long as the powers that be tolerate such.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Winter wind except, is it possible that we create our own truth?

Yes. We do. Truth is made rather than found.

Quote by: Cephus No, he'd have a very easy time doing it, he'd just have to present evidence. Since there *IS* no evidence, that tells you something. It means that there is no reason whatsoever to accept the proposition as true, pending evidence coming at a later time. So if you're going to claim that God is the cause of something, then the existence of God is the first thing you'd have to demonstrate, otherwise it's a failed proposition.

What? Okay, you really need to reread your posts, because only half of this makes sense. Let me see if I get it though...
God is not the cause of morality, sorry if I said that. Religion is the cause of morality. Religious people believe in a good and an evil. Liberal Ironists like myself don't believe in any of that bullshit religion teaches us. There is no god, there is no good, there is no evil, and no ultimate truth. I don't believe in any of these things. My point is that these ways of thinking all require each other, and morality comes from a theistic vocabulary.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Suburbanite God is not the cause of morality, sorry if I said that.

I don't remember if you said that, specifically, all I remember is someone claiming that the Bible was the source of morality, which immediately points to God.

Religion is the cause of morality.

Nope. Religion is one of the advocates of a particular brand of morality, but certainly non-religious people can be just as moral, and religious people can be just as immoral, as anyone else. Religion is a philosophy, it exists to put forward a particular view that it's adherents think is correct, whether it is or not.

Religious people believe in a good and an evil.

Not all of them do, at least not in so many words. *CHRISTIANS* might believe that, but if you mean Christians, say Christians. "Religious people" includes thousands of different sects.

Liberal Ironists like myself don't believe in any of that bullshit religion teaches us.

I don't believe it either, in fact, most of what religion teaches is complete BS.

There is no god, there is no good, there is no evil, and no ultimate truth.

At the very least, there is no rational reason to believe any of those things exist, although certainly I'm willing to re-evaluate if someone comes up with objective evidence.

I don't believe in any of these things. My point is that these ways of thinking all require each other, and morality comes from a theistic vocabulary.

No it doesn't or atheists wouldn't be moral people and I find atheists largely to be some of the most moral people around. It all depends upon what you base your moral views. You can certainly get them from the world around you just as easily, and much more reasonably, as you can from some farcical fantasy figure in the sky.