7:10AM when I first read this and am thinking about how to reply. Not drunk my morning cup of tea yet. Here I am reading posts about religion and existentialism. ...Damn I'm a boring person. At least I waited until I had my cup of tea How do you decide what is necessary to your survival? How do you decide what you like and do not like, what things you would prefer to see and what things you would prefer not to see? My problem with that claim is that it suggests that religion is in itself a source of authority on the concept of morality. It is barely any different to saying that "morality didn't exist before religions" by extension. Before a person finds religion, are they inherently incapable of being moral? Are they unable to lack judgement on what is "fair" or "right" behaviour in society? Are they incapable of knowing right from wrong because they don't ascribe to a particular faith? Are secular laws which govern our countries that dictate that crimes such as rape, murder, assault and theft are wrong immoral? Where in this framework do atheist religions fit (like LaVeyan Satanism)? What about atheists or those who have no interest in religion who choose to (for example) donate to charity, give blood, volunteer at homeless shelters? What about folks who create their own religions? Where did they get their source of morality from, their framework? Furthermore, this presumes that morals are in themselves things that can be objectively observed or are "universal" in a sense (or at least largely commonly shared) as opposed to say behaviours that we as a society wish to reinforce. Question - does morality, in your opinion, only apply to humans? Can animals display behaviours we consider "moral" or "immoral"? Absolutely. What one person deems to be an action that is right, necessary or "moral" may not be moral to other people. A perfect example of this would be the contempt a number of religions hold on homosexuals/lesbians/trans folk (etc). That people can express attitudes and behaviours which others can consider immoral is not a sign of a lack of morality in my opinion, but it is a reflection of the moral code the person judging a particular event, viewpoint or action holds. Which is another example of why, in my opinion, morality isn't a terribly concrete thing. Absolutely. Belief of or lack of belief in a higher entity or spiritual code of conduct is not a precursor or indicator of the quality of the morality an individual might hold or how it might be judged by another. Oh my days, those are hilarious! "And then we shall eat their entrails off our tummies!" I still can't look at otters without imagining them riding on ostriches You almost make that sound like a bad thing! What stops any such leap of logic being seen with the same credibility as an individual who claims to have seen a genuine unicorn? A touch dismissive admittedly, but hopefully you can see the point I'm making Very true. Which is why I tend to say the only thing we can honestly say is that we don't know. Anything else either way, for me, is approaching the matter with a dishonest view. There's no maybe about that!
God just spoke to me , he said he'll be back in a few hundred thousand years, he building a model of Atlantis on Minecraft, so looks like we're on our own
If that is the case you should realize you are actually talking about Zeus, Hades and Poseidon, of course Christians had to balls it up by getting Zeus so confused with Poseidon that they became synonymous, while relegating Hades to some wayward subordinate of the pair, which probably ****es him off to no end.
Surely it's relatively easy to prove the existance of God. You simply need to define what you mean by "God" and then define an observable test that has different outcomes depending on whether God is there or not. Same way you prove anything.
You do realize the whole point of Christianity is about being subservient to a talking dead guy, right?
