What do you think?

[_Christian_]

So please, define good, because there are plenty of "good" people doing evil things that are not people of some sort of faith. My point is that I do not consider myself good nor do I consider myself religious. Religious to me defines a person who believes that their goodness or lack of determines their sanctity. If I could honestly look at my life and consider myself to be "good" then there is a problem with my own view of myself. I have lied, I have stolen, I have hurt other people...so how can I qualify myself as good? All it takes is one time. The question of morality is right and wrong...it is yes or no...you either are good or you are not. If you have any wrong in you then you cannot be good. I could have lived a great life and my only wrong doing was murder...am I still good? I only did one wrong thing...why would I be bad? What is your definition of good vs bad? Do you think its a scale...the amount of good vs the amount of bad...

You aren't necessarily evil because you have done those things. Whether you are good or not has less to do with the quantity of evil deeds and more to do with the impact of those deeds on other people. If you murdered someone than you have caused the ultimate harm to that person. That makes you more evil than liars or thieves because you have inflicted the worst possible damage upon your fellow man.

The bible says it's a sin to lie, but what if I lived in Nazi Germany and was hiding Jews in my home. Then one day the Gestapo comes by and asks if I'm harboring Jews. In that case would lying be immoral? Would I be a better person for telling the truth?

now how do you know if your "good" deeds in and of themselves did not cause bad results? Are they still good if they do?

You don't always know. Sometimes what seems like the right thing to do can be wrong, in that case the deed is no longer good. However that doesn't make the person bad if they really meant to do good, it just means they made a mistake. I still think people should be held accountable for all their actions regardless of intent.

My point is that this statement assumes a universal definition and understanding of good. We do not carry one, yet we have a morally understood code, which Weinberg denies...well this is a philosophical problem. We do not have a definition of good yet we can call the acts of a man good or evil...This statement doesn't really make sense in his world view because good and evil are relative constructs of human intellect, and there is no ground for you to judge my good or bad because it is just as valuable as yours. When we prosecuted the generals of Nazi Germany this was not a suitable defense "in our country, doing what we did was legal therefor you cannot punish us for what we did in service of our country under our countries law" they made this argument and we said, yes we can because the laws that you violated were laws against all of mankind and the laws of man condemn you.

While I don't think there is an absolute objective good or evil, modern society has a fairly universal understanding of morality. We may disagree on some things but we have a general concept of what's right and what's wrong. Like I said above, it's based on how your actions effect those around you.

that is false. We do not have records of any society that was religion/faith free. Not a one. Now if you are talking about organized widespread religion then that is a different story...the mega churches and cultural priorities that infiltrate faith systems is damaging and that is something that happened in the last 3000 years.

Please show me evidence of religion in Homo habilis or even Homo erectus...

But I actually find it interesting that you said the wrong God vs the right God. For instance when you address the Judeo-Christian God vs Zeus and Thor, you are now talking about something much different. You are talking about something that has been argued with evidence vs something that has none to support the existence. This is a very significant that should be addressed.

They are all unfalsifiable and there is no evidence to support the existence of any god.

You are right though about some people taking more evidence to believe. I am one of those people, and it took tons of evidence for me to believe what I believe, but I will say that the evidence is there and I believe it is an act of God to open hearts to understanding of such things, because in the hardness of our hearts we can deny anything regardless of evidence...

If that's the case you should publish a peer reviewed scientific journal with all of your "evidence."

But back on topic,
The question about what happens after you die is not just a Christian question, but so many approach it that way when just about every religion contributes its understanding of morality to some sort of after this life reward. Now my beliefs are that the Christian faith has the best evidence laid out that if you were to bring the case to a court there could be no wrong, just as there was no wrong in Christ.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

How do you give account to the enumerable religions that all have beliefs in the afterlife, and how do you account for the studies that have been done and the paranormal to support such beliefs? I don't believe that the thousands upon thousands of accounts of paranormal activity are all wrong. In fact all it takes is one account to be true, just like with UFO's, Jesus.

Consensus does not equate truth.