Here you go espousing your belief in fine points regarding morality. This is the point I wanted to derive home. As I had said before, I am not concerned about the presence of a higher being - I am more concerned about the set of principles a religion teaches, and the people who interpret it. I don’t need a tag to identify myself. I don’t need a beacon of light, which I don’t see, to serve me as a guiding post.

Do you think a newly born kid who has no idea of religion whatsoever lacks morality? Do you think all the people who don’t subscribe any religion or religion of your choice lack morality – and the implication that you are somehow better than them because they lack godliness? Either you don’t know what Morality is, or you don’t know what even a religion is, or both. Morality has no bearing to religion – none, but the religion tries to be a guiding principle of morality by establishing bunch of DOs and DON’Ts in its simplest form.

You may be opposed to religions other than yours just for the precise reason they are different than yours. Others may feel the same about your religion. By that token, you are inadvertently at loggerheads with them about the correct set of principles (religion) – which is justified by ongoing religious conflicts. Much of the conflict is not due to moral differences, it is due to difference in your holy book, although I acknowledge the differences in code of conduct- but that’s immaterial again (to me). Now, both of these holy books have codified morality as an objective code, but still have provided room to wiggle (interpretation). Needless to say these interpretations are subjective. Hence you have objectives that are subjective to interpretation of you and your clique; thus you remain at the direct line of fire only for sticking with countless ridiculous rules.

The whole is greater than sum total of its parts (gestaltism) , but if your foundation relies on antiquated beliefs that challenge reality, you have no other option than parlay (rather double-down) to your perceived morality by conveniently forgetting existence of pristine morality.

As Aristotle had divided the means of persuasion to ethos, pathos and logos, religions still focus on ethos by invoking the invisibility of omniscient omnipotent higher being. The rest two means are laden (Yes, laden) as a result of subterfuge that’s been delineated since time immemorial to manipulate people’s conduct of life (with added flavors of bestowing oneself with controlling powers).

You accept or reject a philosophy based upon its truthfulness. There is no philosophy that is outside the radar of criticism. But you cleverly push a ‘philosophy’ to a position (not necessarily higher or a better position) and give it a name of religion to coat it with invincibility and then invented your rituals. Now you have that crutch and you are used to walking with it although your legs are just fine.

You talk about walking with that crutch; I talk about walking. For once, throw that crutch and start walking.