Debate: Is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?
Side: No, for the greater good.

Well, I've been debating theists quite aggressively for a few days now on this site, and frankly I'm a little worn out from it. You need to try to understand, that you are looking at the world from a completely different perspective than I am. I know, because I was very religious until my early twenties, it's 2 completely separate mindsets, and it's almost like two different languages one trying to communicate with the other, but I will go through your objections from my point of view the best I can.1. I believe one can account for their perspective on good and evil in humans. We are a pack animal, always have been. Even dog's, with 0 knowledge of any religion, know to protect and "be kind" to others in their pack, including their owner whom they see as the pack leader. In the same way, we as humans I believe naturally act in a manner which serves the "pack" even often at expense to ourselves. Those who remain within this norm of pack behaviour we call "good" those without we call "evil".Being brighter and more complex than dogs or any other pack animal, of course this instinct within ourselves becomes complex. But natural and observable none the less with or without any type of creator.2. True, if there was a creator, it would make sense to find our purpose of creation, even if our purpose for being created was strictly for his amusement. But I don't believe in intelligent design either, so not sure how that pertains to my arguement.3. Again, justice is established using our general and natural idea of empathy. And as we see this is not a constant, but shifts with time as we evolve. Empathy is a very natural instinct most humans are born with, which has developed because it does serve for the greater good of humans, even in the circumstance that it should not be in one instance or another the greater good for oneself.This is from us (again) being a pack animal. I think you'll find that if you take away our big brains, we really are a pathetic and week creature compared to most mamals.Minus our big brain, without the abilty to work together as a whole, and this means establishing rules and a sense of justice, we would be quite extinct right now, having all been eaten by lions and tiger and bears oh my.4. I would argue no one "grounds it", even the religious. What difference does it make what one's morals are grounded in if they have them none the less? The only relevent point is that a god is unnecessary for one to have a reason to live or a moral compass to live by. I never said the religious don't feel their morals are grounded, I simply offer myself as proof that the idea many of the religious have, that life without a god is somehow empty, is quite incorrect.5. mass murder read it, tons of examples. Just as many examples of the religious killing as of the non-religious killing. There is no proof to back up the idea that a person who doesn't believe in a god is more or less likely to kill, than one who believes in a god, and somehow twists it so that their god encourages the act of killing. Your arguement holds no water.6. I don't see what you're refering to, if you are numbering this according to my highlighted points, there is no evidence either way, and that's my point. There's a lack of evidence here.7. But this is the point. Your original arguement puts forth that, the religious are more moral because they have specifically religion to guide them. My point is again, while religion guides the vast majority of the human population (82% apx) those not guided by a religion are just as likely to be "good" or "evil" which would appear to make the belief in a god unnecessary in order to be "moral"8. lol, this was hard to read. I'm not impressed by pretty words when discussing theology. I'm not swayed by mindless examples. My belief is one caught in a rip-tide is just as likely to drown whether they believe in god or not. You seem to be under the impression that there is something in life to be saved from. I do not see it this way. This is what I'm talking about when I say that it's like two people trying to communicate in two different languages. You do not seem to understand that I do not believe there is anything to be saved from in the general sense, and in the literal sense, I've never seen or heard of god saving anyone whose life was in mortal danger. Some live, some die, belief in god does not change these odds at all. The religious listen to example after example of people saying "I was saved" it's indoctrinated into the fiber of your being. From the outside, it looks like silly people looking for an easy way out. No one is saved, because there is nothing to be saved from. We live, we die, we make what we make out of it in the time in between. God plays no role. Some choose to believe in a god, but those who do not are just as happy, and quite often more so, than those who do. And in the end, whether someone believes in a god or not, they die and it's lights out. I don't think a religious person will "live forever" any more than I believe I will "live forever". What one believes is irrelevant ultimately outside of what they do with it here on earth while alive.Now, the religious can hardly (if at all) wrap their heads around the concept of simply being dead. It's like they have to believe there is an after-life, and by default, have to believe that everyone else must on some level at least want to believe there is an afterlife.I assure you, I do not on any level believe in an afterlife. I do not want to on any level trick myself into believing in an afterlife. I believe it is self-destructive to fool oneself in such a way.9. You have some typos that make this hard to understand. I think what your saying is that my account of how religion started is off,in which case the point flew clear over you, which it always does when I get into these discussions.Again, it's nearly impossible to explain to one such as yourself.But I'm not trying to explain exactly how religion began.I was simply giving an alternative example in order to point out my opinion thatreligion is quite unnecessary. That is what th point was.There is no point in me trying to guess how it all started (though I imagine it was from an inherent need within born of self-realization to not cease to exist at some point, which is not even the theory I put forth, but there you go)As I was saying, there is no point for me trying to guess though how it all started, and I don't care how or why it all started.My only point is that it is unnecessary.