I got this, so what I asked was if you think that religion is the only thing that predetermines what is good and what isn't. Do you believe that without religion, our objective views on what is good and what is evil wouldn't eventually overlap and create a series of accepted norms and standards that would be fit to live a good and comfortable life? Religion is essentially man-made after all.

i don't think that quote made any attempt at defining what a good life was. that is really up to the individual. it is my belief that the only good and evil in the world are what we make. maybe something i consider good could be evil to someone else, but as long as i believe i am doing good that is what matters. now if i knew something i was doing was evil (to me) but i did it anyway, then i could be considered an "evil" person.

i do not know if that it true.

no. i don't think religion is the only thing that determines what is good and what isn't. i believe that there IS an accepted view of what's good and what's evil, but that does not mean they are objective, even if we believe they are by definition. matters of perception, like good and evil, can't truly ever be objectively evaluated. there are many things that are not "right" or "wrong", but we consider them so.

you're correct in that it wasn't an attempt to objectively define a good life, but the words he used, like virtuous and noble intentions, are considered 'good' characteristics of humanity. that was his take; i just thought it was ironic.

It seems the question of subjectivity is your key point. And it is true that everything is subjective. Nothing is truly objective depending on the person. However, we are not only what exist on earth. You are not the being, neither am I, that would decide which views fit acceptably into life. The world comprises of billions of people. It is the culmination of all our view points that should determine right and wrong. Surely the subjective views of the masses would eventually dominate into creating standards that would allow for a maximum degree of happiness to be achieved by its inhabitants. With or without religious dogma.

i agree.

should? but it never does, and i don't believe it ever will. do you? people still murder, steal, and commit other crimes, because at the time it seems the right thing to do, or because there are ghosts in their mind damaging the infrastructure we need to live in human society. we're not robots.

humanity has been around and known of its own existence for quite some time, yet this maximum degree of happiness yet to be achieved. we're far from it. people commit suicide, even famous (!) ones, that everyone believe to be most happy.

honestly, i think it's all introspective. you can only help yourself. you can try to help others, sometimes you'll be successful and sometimes you won't. work towards your own happiness and it will affect the people you are with. enliven your environment... that's what i do with my music, and that's why it is my lifelong dedication.

But would you agree that religion is not absolute? And that we would have been able to live without it. Which is the root of these exchange of viewpoints.

i made my beliefs clear: humanity's conceptions AND religion isn't absolute, and, i already said i wasn't religious... but we are all dedicated to something. we all have a religion, however i don't mean this in the conventional sense. some people believe music is a religion you know? that we couldn't live without it. isn't it funny that people worship things that aren't really necessary for life? sometimes i consider music more important than food and water!

Haha, I know what you mean. We all conform in our own ways...

i find music necessary to MY life. if you believe in something deeply enough to call it a relgion, then i think it becomes necessary to your life. we all have some degree to which we feel we need to understand the world and religion provides that for a lot of people. it does not for me. music is necessary to me because without it i feel i would go insane. sanity is definitely something we want to maintain. not to say it is necessary to all. something that is not necessary to you may be totally necessary to someone else...again we enter the subjectivity argument.