So Timber, can an act be immoral, yet do no one wrong?

While you think over that one, here's another. A good person is offered the choice of creating one of two worlds: A or B. They must create one. A is a just world. B is not. They create B. Why? And to make it harder, note that both contain the same number of lives and the same quantity of free decisions. Why did they choose B over A?

Is 3 a tulip or the gulf of Mexico? — Bartricks

3 is the current number of gods. There's always one god who thinks the other two are against her, so they can't agree on anything. That's why the world is so fucked up. The prophecy has it that a fourth god will come at the end of days to straighten things up.

May the Fourth be with you.

Quiz: How many gods and goddesses are you able to identify on this Raffaello fresco?

How many gods — Olivier5

All this to say that there is no evidence that the number of gods is equal to 1. Could be 2, 3, 4, a dozen, a million, or 0. There could be 3.75 gods for all we know. So the title of the thread should be "Belief in god(s) is necessary for being good."

This was certainly the opinion of many classical authors. One of the reasons for the hatred of Jews and later Christians in the Greek and Roman world was that they were seen as atheists. Why, they rejected so many gods and would not even show a representation of their own god. The gall! So these oriental atheists had to be bad people. They could not be trusted since they did not believe in the classical gods.

Similarly, for a modern Christian, a modern atheist who does not believe in the classical Christian concept of God may be seen as untrustworthy. But in actual fact, the atheist does believe in some version of the greater good, or progress, or simply remorse avoidance, something different from the Christian god but that nevertheless pulls him other towards being a better person even when he or she could get away from it.

Genocide. Evil or good? — tim wood

I've already discussed that with Olivier5 (see my quotes from Marx and Engels, etc.) but you must have been on some other planet or state of mind and missed it. Not my fault.

Anyway, you've lost the argument and are now trying to change the subject. You aren't going to get very far with it.

God is omnipotent. Omnipotent means having infinite power and freedom of will, knowledge and action.

God is also omnibenevolent which means having perfect or unlimited benevolence.

However, God’s omnibenevolence is governed by his omnipotence, i.e., his infinite power and freedom of will.

Therefore, although God’s omnibenevolence is theoretically “unlimited”, it can be limited in its practical application as and when God sees fit, without this affecting his omnibenevolence in any significant way.

By analogy, a billionaire who has a billion bucks in his bank account but only uses some of that, does not cease to be a billionaire.

God’s benevolence manifests itself in his creation of an ordered universe in which human life is possible. Human life in general is good. Suffering is mostly the result of actions performed by humans and other creatures, not by God. There is some suffering, but on the whole, life is a happy experience. Suffering is an exception and its impact too insignificant to affect God’s universal benevolence.

Moreover, suffering may serve a greater good and, therefore, represent a manifestation of benevolence. For example, it may be punishment for previous transgressions and serve to uphold the principle of justice; it may serve to make souls better beings and thus enhance the goodness of the universe, etc., etc.

Everything is a matter of perspective. If you stubbornly stick to your own perspective and refuse to consider other people's views, then you're not discussing anything, you're just talking to yourself. Which you are free to do on your own.

It’s true, the number, quality and dynamic of deities has always been changing and likely will continue to do so in the future.
Personally I believe that everyone has a “god/ gods” in a loose sense and everyone “worships”. It is simply those things - the number, quality and dynamic that changes.
It is what the term “god” - that most glorious and desired and loved thing really is/ means for each person that is important to clarify: for some it’s money, for some it’s another person (their spouse perhaps) for others it’s authority or recognition or success or their dream home etc. It can be material or it can be a metaphysical feeling or sense or state of being or experience.

But no one - absolutely no one - is without their own personal god, something they cherish more than all else. For some, that which is revered is simply the knowledge of their own free will to die. Some people worship the state of non- existence, they “idealise” it if they don’t find anything of worth or satisfaction in life.

Personally I believe that everyone has a “god/ gods” in a loose sense and everyone “worships”. It is simply those things - the number, quality and dynamic that changes. — Benj96

Correct. Some people worship pop stars, political leaders or ideologies. Some worship themselves or expect to be worshiped. Yet they get upset when others worship God or gods. We live in a strange world, or what?

During Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian.
Not quite equal numbers of Protestants and Catholics, but close enough.
That's about 19 on a street with 20 people.
Think about that for a moment.

• Religion in Nazi Germany (Wikipedia)
• Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)

45% think it is necessary to have faith in a God in order to be moral — Banno

They're wrong.
Moral awareness, and becoming an autonomous moral agent, isn't particularly related to theism.

Yet they get upset when others worship God or gods. We live in a strange world, or what? — Apollodorus

Haha exactly. It is a strange world full of heavy opinion and popular belief which isn’t inherently correct just because it’s “popular”. It was popular belief that disease was caused by bad smells (miasma theory) in the past but it simply wasn’t true.

I don’t understand the arrogance of group thinking. The whole “there’s more of us that believe X therefore Y must be incorrect” because supposedly many minds are better than one mind.
The irony being that all scientific and tech advancements started off with merely a handful of proponents that persisted that it was correct/fact despite being rejected by the majority. Even today with scientific method applied correctly, skepticism is very hard to overcome.

But I think people ought to critically evaluate for themselves and not rely on bias and prejudice nor the “status quo” alone.

I think at most one can be agnostic - they do not yet know what they wish to pursue, worship or place as the object or goal of their purpose or the means by which they understand the nature of reality. But to say one is atheist? Atheist towards what precisely? Everyone has different beliefs, opinions and nuances towards the same “god/gods” both in a religious context and in a more metaphorically life pursuit sense.

One cannot deny outright a non exhaustive ongoing debate which has the potential to be improved refined and redefined.

none of this seems to upset you or your God — praxis

And children suffer and die from cancer, without having had a chance to live. :(
Doesn't seem like reality is where people see their gods.
What about yours, @Apollodorus?

I think at most one can be agnostic - they do not yet know what they wish to pursue, worship or place as the object or goal of their purpose or the means by which they understand the nature of reality. But to say one is atheist? Atheist towards what precisely? — Benj96

That's exactly my position. We can't know for certain that there is no God/s. An honest and objective person should at least accept the possibility of the existence of God in the same way theists should consider the possibility of God's non-existence.

As I said, the funny thing is we’ve got “pop idols”, “sex goddesses”, “screen or movie goddesses”, we “worship money”, etc., etc. But if you worship God, especially the Christian one, then you are a criminal and outcast or mentally deranged. Even speaking of God as an universal principle of goodness, justice, etc. attracts scorn and hostility which is rather strange. My take is that the reason may be psychological as much as political.

You see it here, folks. Bartricks will not or cannot decide if genocide is (a) good or (an) evil.

Back into your playpen with your toys, infant.

God is omnipotent. Omnipotent means having infinite power and freedom of will, knowledge and action.
God is also omnibenevolent which means having perfect or unlimited benevolence.
However, God’s omnibenevolence is governed by his omnipotence, i.e., his infinite power and freedom of will. — Apollodorus

And you know all of this how?
And of course, what do you suppose "is" means?
If by "is" you mean an unquestioned presupposition of your thinking, then it's all yours. ON the other hand if you mean something else, then what do you mean?

@Bartricks@Apollodorus
Both of you have been asked direct questions which you have refused to consider or answer. That just makes you both trolls and victims of your own impoverished thought processes and "understandings." It also disqualifies you from reasonable discussion.

We can't know for certain that there is no God/s. — Apollodorus

And I cannot know for certain that the Battleship USS New Jersey has not just materialized in my back yard. Isn't ignorance, especially compounded with stupidity, g-r-e-a-t!

Atheist towards what precisely? Everyone has different beliefs, opinions and nuances towards the same “god/gods” both in a religious context and in a more metaphorically life pursuit sense. — Benj96

The same word does not mean the same god/gods. From Salman Rushdie:

If you were an atheist, Birbal," the Emperor challenged his first minister, "what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?" Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, "I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them." "How so?" the Emperor asked. "All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own," said Birbal. "And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.

The Enchantress of Florence

'm left a physicalist when I hear Brahms's First, an acosmist when I hear his Fourth. I think there's something about that E minor first movement that awakens my numinosity gland and suppresses my physicalist gland. — Tom Storm

They're my favorites among the symphonies, but I've never thought of them quite that way. I prefer his chamber music, generally--chamber music in general, I suppose--but that doesn't make me a minimalist, I believe. Quietist, perhaps.

However, the way I see it, it's a question of balance. A person may enjoy listening to Classical music whilst another may be dying of starvation. Materialist concerns are alright as long as they don't deflect attention from other concerns, e.g., from the moral or ethical sphere such as social or economic justice. — Apollodorus

I'll remind myself that people are starving the next time I listen to Brahms. That should quash that naughty materialist enjoyment. If that doesn't work, I think I still have an old rosary lying around somewhere, and listening to a symphony will have more than enough time to recite all Five Sorrowful Mysteries.

And I cannot know for certain that the Battleship USS New Jersey has not just materialized in my back yard. Isn't ignorance, especially compounded with stupidity, g-r-e-a-t! — tim wood

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't even know basic things like that, then how can you possibly know that God isn't omnibenevolent or that you are more omnibenevolent than God? It seems rather doubtful to me.

And you know all of this how?
And of course, what do you suppose "is" means? — tim wood

It was a hypothesis that theists could use to rebut the atheists' hypothesis that God isn't omnibenevolent. That's all.

You're having a "discussion" without a definition of anything and now you're openly declaring that you don't know the meaning of "is". As, I said, there is no point discussing this.

I think I still have an old rosary lying around somewhere, and listening to a symphony will have more than enough time to recite all Five Sorrowful Mysteries. — Ciceronianus the White

Now that's a great idea. Banno will be beyond himself with delight to hear of your solemn resolution.

Since you brought up resolution, I'll throw in the Act of Contrition as well, and resolve to sin nor more.

And I cannot know for certain that the Battleship USS New Jersey has not just materialized in my back yard. Isn't ignorance, especially compounded with stupidity, g-r-e-a-t! — tim wood

The discussion has reached a critical juncture. Only a few questions and details remain:

Is the Battleship USS New Jersey omnibenevolent? Is it God? Of course we cannot know that it is not, so let's just say it is. God materialized once before and legend has it he was God's son, and, in defiance of logic, God himself. But logic is logos and logos was there at the beginning, and so, we can now be certain that the Battleship is God and God's son, Christened from the beginning.

A Holy Trinity, God, the Son, and the Battleship USS New Jersey. But there is another Trinity. So, a double Trinity, a Sextuple.

It is to be hoped that Banno and the others will be sufficiently impressed to follow your exemplary example. As for myself, I shall endeavor to start at once and without unnecessary delays.

And of course, what do you suppose "is" means?
If by "is" you mean an unquestioned presupposition of your thinking, then it's all yours. On the other hand if you mean something else, then what do you mean? — tim wood

and now you're openly declaring that you don't know the meaning of "is". — Apollodorus

As you can see, I asked you what your understanding was. If you understand English, why did you not answer my question?

morality is a human construct, good and evil are determined by purely relativistic human standards. There is nothing inherently or absolutely evil about genocide, only that we agree that it is evil, probably because we dislike something about it, or perhaps because we do not want to be criticized for holding a controversial position.

purely relativistic human standards. — Merkwurdichliebe

Purely? Relativistic? Human? FIrst: make your argument. Second: if true, then why even think in terms of omni-benevolence/omnipotence of God?

As you can see, I asked you what your understanding was. If you understadn English, why did you not answer my question? — tim wood

As you can see, I told you what my understanding was. But you professed ignorance and retorted with the rhetorical question as to what the English word "is" was.

Besides, you have failed to explain how you know that God is not omnibenevolent or why you think you are more omnibenevolent than God. If you don't answer people's questions, then how do you intend to have a discussion?

This is why I suggested to just let it be seeing that you have lost the argument anyway.

Timber, you have no expertise in ethics. You do not know, for instance, that rightness and goodness are not the same property; do not know about the supererogatory and subererogatory; and do not know about moral desert. You just have this childish word 'evil'.

Now once more, let's see how good your moral imagination is. Why did the good person choose B and not A?

Enjoy blurting that tediously commonplace nonsense did you? Morality is not a human construction as anyone with the intelligence needed to think carefully about the matter for more than 5 minutes realizes. You offered no argument for your view. Provide one.

@tim wood

When someone creates a god ex excremento the best we can do is try to avoid stepping in it.

When someone creates a god ex excremento the best we can do is try to avoid stepping in it. — Fooloso4

Excellent advice. We'll see if I can manage it.