Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

[Nickman]

I think that the key to making people "Christians" realize that they are moral without a god, and that morals are not from their god, is the bible test.

I have shown many Christians the OT verses that they disagree with morally. When we humans look at the bad things in the OT (yes god does very questionable horrible things) we choose what we find to be good and what is bad. Most people when questioned about the law, will throw out the law and only choose ten of those commands. The ten commandments are not bad. There is some good in them. This picking and choosing shows that we can look inthis book that people claim as gods word and dismiss the bad and pick good. We are moral outside of the bible. It is not our moral compass. This can also be done in any scenario and with any book.

Examples would be god not rebuking slavery. We look at slavery as bad. We dismiss this and try to make a special plea for the god to make him moral in this. When we can't possibly make a good argument, we resort to "well god is god who are we?" This to me is evidence that we are the moral standard. We judge the bible on morals everyday. When we see something we don't agree with within its pages, we either dismiss it, change it to mean something else, or claim "god is god". When we see something we do agree with, we say "see I told you he was moral". We are the authors of morality by this simple example.

As quoted from another thread.



Given per say, the people of the spiritual sees the spiritual aspect or the mental aspect of another. The physical matters that you hold as an atheist is only seeing the surface of slavery.

Enslavement comes in all shapes and sizes. Your testimony here to fight for your opinion is a way and form a enslaving anothers mind to adhere or take acknowledge of your ways. In this respect hypocricy can be examined throgh your post as well.

See, there you are trying to justify slavery which is one of my poi ts I made. We either say it is wrong, dismiss it, or justify it. You happen to fall into the last category which makes me question your morality.

Are you even listening to yourself?

You are justifying your superior morality, so called anyway, by throwing slavery in the face of people who obviously neither own or support slavery.

One wonders where atheists such as yourself stand on the modern form of slavery, which is human sexual bondage. Are you one of those atheists who sees nothing wrong with a little visit to a prostitute?

Well, instead of talking in hypotheticals, because that is what morality is - a bunch of increasingly unlikely scenarios in which atheists 'test' people, but never themselves? How about the real world moral questions we face today?

Because is all your morality does is cause you to point disparaging fingers at others, you don;t have morality, you have narcissism.

Oh wow, a little touchy huh? You may not own slavery but if you think it is somehow ok in the bible you definitely support it if not directly but indirectly.

What you and Truth have done in your posts has shown that I was right. You get defensive which is one of three things we humans do with held beliefs.

It is true when you find something you like in the bible you say see thats nice. When you see something inconsistent with your own morality, you either dismiss or go on the defensive.

[Nickman]

I think that the key to making people "Christians" realize that they are moral without a god, and that morals are not from their god, is the bible test.

I have shown many Christians the OT verses that they disagree with morally. When we humans look at the bad things in the OT (yes god does very questionable horrible things) we choose what we find to be good and what is bad. Most people when questioned about the law, will throw out the law and only choose ten of those commands. The ten commandments are not bad. There is some good in them. This picking and choosing shows that we can look inthis book that people claim as gods word and dismiss the bad and pick good. We are moral outside of the bible. It is not our moral compass. This can also be done in any scenario and with any book.

Examples would be god not rebuking slavery. We look at slavery as bad. We dismiss this and try to make a special plea for the god to make him moral in this. When we can't possibly make a good argument, we resort to "well god is god who are we?" This to me is evidence that we are the moral standard. We judge the bible on morals everyday. When we see something we don't agree with within its pages, we either dismiss it, change it to mean something else, or claim "god is god". When we see something we do agree with, we say "see I told you he was moral". We are the authors of morality by this simple example.

As quoted from another thread.



Given per say, the people of the spiritual sees the spiritual aspect or the mental aspect of another. The physical matters that you hold as an atheist is only seeing the surface of slavery.

Enslavement comes in all shapes and sizes. Your testimony here to fight for your opinion is a way and form a enslaving anothers mind to adhere or take acknowledge of your ways. In this respect hypocricy can be examined throgh your post as well.

See, there you are trying to justify slavery which is one of my poi ts I made. We either say it is wrong, dismiss it, or justify it. You happen to fall into the last category which makes me question your morality.

Now I know you have been reading most of my posts since we have had earlier exchanges of posts. If you dont recall, I have mentioned on another thread that God of the Most High will enslave the Atheists for all eternity, Therefore, I do accept slavery. I dont promote it, but its the laws and commandments given to the saints for our convienience. I will adhere to it, and satisfied with an atheist bringing me a cup of coffee from a spiritual condemnation. In all, I still stand firm to my morals status given from the Bible.

Which makes my point. You either will reject it, dismiss or justify it. You have basically claimed as I said in my post, "well god is god so thats how it is". I think that this is the worst side to be on. It shows no backbone for what is truly right.

[TheTruth101]

I think that the key to making people "Christians" realize that they are moral without a god, and that morals are not from their god, is the bible test.

I have shown many Christians the OT verses that they disagree with morally. When we humans look at the bad things in the OT (yes god does very questionable horrible things) we choose what we find to be good and what is bad. Most people when questioned about the law, will throw out the law and only choose ten of those commands. The ten commandments are not bad. There is some good in them. This picking and choosing shows that we can look inthis book that people claim as gods word and dismiss the bad and pick good. We are moral outside of the bible. It is not our moral compass. This can also be done in any scenario and with any book.

Examples would be god not rebuking slavery. We look at slavery as bad. We dismiss this and try to make a special plea for the god to make him moral in this. When we can't possibly make a good argument, we resort to "well god is god who are we?" This to me is evidence that we are the moral standard. We judge the bible on morals everyday. When we see something we don't agree with within its pages, we either dismiss it, change it to mean something else, or claim "god is god". When we see something we do agree with, we say "see I told you he was moral". We are the authors of morality by this simple example.

As quoted from another thread.



Given per say, the people of the spiritual sees the spiritual aspect or the mental aspect of another. The physical matters that you hold as an atheist is only seeing the surface of slavery.

Enslavement comes in all shapes and sizes. Your testimony here to fight for your opinion is a way and form a enslaving anothers mind to adhere or take acknowledge of your ways. In this respect hypocricy can be examined throgh your post as well.

See, there you are trying to justify slavery which is one of my poi ts I made. We either say it is wrong, dismiss it, or justify it. You happen to fall into the last category which makes me question your morality.

Now I know you have been reading most of my posts since we have had earlier exchanges of posts. If you dont recall, I have mentioned on another thread that God of the Most High will enslave the Atheists for all eternity, Therefore, I do accept slavery. I dont promote it, but its the laws and commandments given to the saints for our convienience. I will adhere to it, and satisfied with an atheist bringing me a cup of coffee from a spiritual condemnation. In all, I still stand firm to my morals status given from the Bible.

Which makes my point. You either will reject it, dismiss or justify it. You have basically claimed as I said in my post, "well god is god so thats how it is". I think that this is the worst side to be on. It shows no backbone for what is truly right.

Point is, slavery is all around. In all shapes and sizes. The way you view of a Christian is a form of enslavement from your knowing of Athieism. Idea of slavery like I have said is not promoted within myself, but as stated within the Bible, it is what is nature. As evident by this post, enslavement shuold be recognized from the mind.

The ones attempt to rebuke the idea of physical slavery, but is not aware that oneself is in motion of doing it, is indeed a way of the ignorant.

To make it clear, you typying your thoughts onto this forum, is an expression of slavery of the mind. Reason being, your attempting for one to adhere and acknowledge your reasons. Its nature, and the way of life. All the way from the animal kingdom, crossed over to the human beings.

The enslavement of the constitution of its laws to the people, is also a form of enslavement. Since because, we get outcasted or locked away if we dont abide by it. And even when one gets locked in prison, and one does not adhere to the prison polotics, then one becomes enslaved by the laws of the prison.

[Nickman]

I think that the key to making people "Christians" realize that they are moral without a god, and that morals are not from their god, is the bible test.

I have shown many Christians the OT verses that they disagree with morally. When we humans look at the bad things in the OT (yes god does very questionable horrible things) we choose what we find to be good and what is bad. Most people when questioned about the law, will throw out the law and only choose ten of those commands. The ten commandments are not bad. There is some good in them. This picking and choosing shows that we can look inthis book that people claim as gods word and dismiss the bad and pick good. We are moral outside of the bible. It is not our moral compass. This can also be done in any scenario and with any book.

Examples would be god not rebuking slavery. We look at slavery as bad. We dismiss this and try to make a special plea for the god to make him moral in this. When we can't possibly make a good argument, we resort to "well god is god who are we?" This to me is evidence that we are the moral standard. We judge the bible on morals everyday. When we see something we don't agree with within its pages, we either dismiss it, change it to mean something else, or claim "god is god". When we see something we do agree with, we say "see I told you he was moral". We are the authors of morality by this simple example.

As quoted from another thread.



Given per say, the people of the spiritual sees the spiritual aspect or the mental aspect of another. The physical matters that you hold as an atheist is only seeing the surface of slavery.

Enslavement comes in all shapes and sizes. Your testimony here to fight for your opinion is a way and form a enslaving anothers mind to adhere or take acknowledge of your ways. In this respect hypocricy can be examined throgh your post as well.

See, there you are trying to justify slavery which is one of my poi ts I made. We either say it is wrong, dismiss it, or justify it. You happen to fall into the last category which makes me question your morality.

Now I know you have been reading most of my posts since we have had earlier exchanges of posts. If you dont recall, I have mentioned on another thread that God of the Most High will enslave the Atheists for all eternity, Therefore, I do accept slavery. I dont promote it, but its the laws and commandments given to the saints for our convienience. I will adhere to it, and satisfied with an atheist bringing me a cup of coffee from a spiritual condemnation. In all, I still stand firm to my morals status given from the Bible.

Which makes my point. You either will reject it, dismiss or justify it. You have basically claimed as I said in my post, "well god is god so thats how it is". I think that this is the worst side to be on. It shows no backbone for what is truly right.

Point is, slavery is all around. In all shapes and sizes. The way you view of a Christian is a form of enslavement from your knowing of Athieism. Idea of slavery like I have said is not promoted within myself, but as stated within the Bible, it is what is nature. As evident by this post, enslavement shuold be recognized from the mind.

The ones attempt to rebuke the idea of physical slavery, but is not aware that oneself is in motion of doing it, is indeed a way of the ignorant.

To make it clear, you typying your thoughts onto this forum, is an expression of slavery of the mind. Reason being, your attempting for one to adhere and acknowledge your reasons. Its nature, and the way of life. All the way from the animal kingdom, crossed over to the humanity.

The enslavement of the constitution of its laws to the people, is also a form of enslavement. Since because, we get outcasted or locked away if we dont abide by it.

You're making a false dichotomy between slavery in vanity and selfishness and that of the biblical. I would call this "avoiding the issue". We are talking about real physical slavery which is wrong. If you justify it, then you are also wrong.

[Danmark]

I think that the key to making people "Christians" realize that they are moral without a god, and that morals are not from their god, is the bible test.

I have shown many Christians the OT verses that they disagree with morally. When we humans look at the bad things in the OT (yes god does very questionable horrible things) we choose what we find to be good and what is bad. Most people when questioned about the law, will throw out the law and only choose ten of those commands. The ten commandments are not bad. There is some good in them. This picking and choosing shows that we can look inthis book that people claim as gods word and dismiss the bad and pick good. We are moral outside of the bible. It is not our moral compass. This can also be done in any scenario and with any book.

Examples would be god not rebuking slavery. We look at slavery as bad. We dismiss this and try to make a special plea for the god to make him moral in this. When we can't possibly make a good argument, we resort to "well god is god who are we?" This to me is evidence that we are the moral standard. We judge the bible on morals everyday. When we see something we don't agree with within its pages, we either dismiss it, change it to mean something else, or claim "god is god". When we see something we do agree with, we say "see I told you he was moral". We are the authors of morality by this simple example.

As quoted from another thread.



Given per say, the people of the spiritual sees the spiritual aspect or the mental aspect of another. The physical matters that you hold as an atheist is only seeing the surface of slavery.

Enslavement comes in all shapes and sizes. Your testimony here to fight for your opinion is a way and form a enslaving anothers mind to adhere or take acknowledge of your ways. In this respect hypocricy can be examined throgh your post as well.

See, there you are trying to justify slavery which is one of my poi ts I made. We either say it is wrong, dismiss it, or justify it. You happen to fall into the last category which makes me question your morality.

Are you even listening to yourself?

You are justifying your superior morality, so called anyway, by throwing slavery in the face of people who obviously neither own or support slavery.

One wonders where atheists such as yourself stand on the modern form of slavery, which is human sexual bondage. Are you one of those atheists who sees nothing wrong with a little visit to a prostitute?

Well, instead of talking in hypotheticals, because that is what morality is - a bunch of increasingly unlikely scenarios in which atheists 'test' people, but never themselves? How about the real world moral questions we face today?

Because is all your morality does is cause you to point disparaging fingers at others, you don;t have morality, you have narcissism.

In his last two posts Nickman has made a cogent argument for the fact that we humans can and have rightfully judged the 'morality' of the God of the Bible, and specifically mentioned slavery.

Divine Insight has made the case that Jesus, as a human, also judged the laws of the Bible.

Your response is to ignore these points and project onto Nickman this idea of atheists agreeing with (sexual) slavery when they have said the opposite.

You've constructed this claim that atheists believe in sexual slavery out of nothing, it's as if you pulled it out of your own . . . uh . . . imagination. You certainly couldn't have extracted it from something they said.

Instead you go on a tirade about atheists supporting prostitution. Did an atheist here suggest prostitution was moral? Did anyone on this forum suggest that?

Several of us have shown that we humans can and should judge the morality of a god of genocide and slavery and that Jesus himself promotes a higher morality (tho' I don't recall he says much about slavery). And your response is to bring up, out of the blue, your fantasy about 'sexual slavery.' Interesting.

[TheTruth101]

I think that the key to making people "Christians" realize that they are moral without a god, and that morals are not from their god, is the bible test.

I have shown many Christians the OT verses that they disagree with morally. When we humans look at the bad things in the OT (yes god does very questionable horrible things) we choose what we find to be good and what is bad. Most people when questioned about the law, will throw out the law and only choose ten of those commands. The ten commandments are not bad. There is some good in them. This picking and choosing shows that we can look inthis book that people claim as gods word and dismiss the bad and pick good. We are moral outside of the bible. It is not our moral compass. This can also be done in any scenario and with any book.

Examples would be god not rebuking slavery. We look at slavery as bad. We dismiss this and try to make a special plea for the god to make him moral in this. When we can't possibly make a good argument, we resort to "well god is god who are we?" This to me is evidence that we are the moral standard. We judge the bible on morals everyday. When we see something we don't agree with within its pages, we either dismiss it, change it to mean something else, or claim "god is god". When we see something we do agree with, we say "see I told you he was moral". We are the authors of morality by this simple example.

As quoted from another thread.



Given per say, the people of the spiritual sees the spiritual aspect or the mental aspect of another. The physical matters that you hold as an atheist is only seeing the surface of slavery.

Enslavement comes in all shapes and sizes. Your testimony here to fight for your opinion is a way and form a enslaving anothers mind to adhere or take acknowledge of your ways. In this respect hypocricy can be examined throgh your post as well.

See, there you are trying to justify slavery which is one of my poi ts I made. We either say it is wrong, dismiss it, or justify it. You happen to fall into the last category which makes me question your morality.

Now I know you have been reading most of my posts since we have had earlier exchanges of posts. If you dont recall, I have mentioned on another thread that God of the Most High will enslave the Atheists for all eternity, Therefore, I do accept slavery. I dont promote it, but its the laws and commandments given to the saints for our convienience. I will adhere to it, and satisfied with an atheist bringing me a cup of coffee from a spiritual condemnation. In all, I still stand firm to my morals status given from the Bible.

Which makes my point. You either will reject it, dismiss or justify it. You have basically claimed as I said in my post, "well god is god so thats how it is". I think that this is the worst side to be on. It shows no backbone for what is truly right.

Point is, slavery is all around. In all shapes and sizes. The way you view of a Christian is a form of enslavement from your knowing of Athieism. Idea of slavery like I have said is not promoted within myself, but as stated within the Bible, it is what is nature. As evident by this post, enslavement shuold be recognized from the mind.

The ones attempt to rebuke the idea of physical slavery, but is not aware that oneself is in motion of doing it, is indeed a way of the ignorant.

To make it clear, you typying your thoughts onto this forum, is an expression of slavery of the mind. Reason being, your attempting for one to adhere and acknowledge your reasons. Its nature, and the way of life. All the way from the animal kingdom, crossed over to the humanity.

The enslavement of the constitution of its laws to the people, is also a form of enslavement. Since because, we get outcasted or locked away if we dont abide by it.

You're making a false dichotomy between slavery in vanity and selfishness and that of the biblical. I would call this "avoiding the issue". We are talking about real physical slavery which is wrong. If you justify it, then you are also wrong.

Definition of real physical slavery changes over periods of time. Two thousand years ago, within the kingdom of China, if one spilled a cup of tea to the emoprer of China, they were killed and the system justified it. A thousand years later, if one spilt a cup of tea to the emporer, they got a whip and the system justified it. Given now, if one spills the cup of tea to the emporer, they will have to pay for the dry cleaning.

All people justify slavery within the system that is made at the given time. By all means, If you spilled a cup of tea to a highest authority in North Korea, you'd prabably be imprisoned. But if you spilled a cup of tea to the highest power in South Korea, youll prbabably have to pay for the dry cleaning.

The North Koreans will see that as a strange behavior of ruling, whereas, the South Koreans will see the other side in enslavement as strange behavior of ruling.

Therefore, one has to go to the origin of slavery, which means, attempting to overcome anothers idea or ways of life in any way. Thus forcing or suggesting another one to abide and listen to ones ways can be defined as actual slavery.

If your reffering to the times of the Jews being physically enslaved at the given time, God freed them, so whats your point?

[Nickman]

Definition of real physical slavery changes over periods of time. Two thousand years ago, within the kingdom of China, if one spilled a cup of tea to the emoprer of China, they were killed and the system justified it. A thousand years later, if one spilt a cup of tea to the emporer, they got a whip and the system justified it. Given now, if one spills the cup of tea to the emporer, they will have to pay for the dry cleaning.

All people justify slavery within the system that is made at the given time. By all means, If you spilled a cup of tea to a highest authority in North Korea, you'd prabably be imprisoned. But if you spilled a cup of tea to the highest power in South Korea, youll prbabably have to pay for the dry cleaning.

The North Koreans will see that as a strange behavior of ruling, whereas, the South Koreans will see the other side in enslavement as strange behavior of ruling.

Therefore, one has to go to the origin of slavery, which means, attempting to overcome anothers idea or ways of life in any way. Thus forcing or suggesting another one to abide and listen to ones ways can be defined as actual slavery.

If your reffering to the times of the Jews being physically enslaved at the given time, God freed them, so whats your point?

All of what you are saying is wrong, regardless of the "authority" of the emporer. We humans have slowly crawled out of this mentality of slavery. It was wrong back then and is wrong today no matter if it dictated by an emporer or a god. If god were benevolent then he would have cringed at the site of slavery and rebuked it without saying "if a man beats a slave and the slave dies within three days, then the man shall be punished, but if the slave is revived then the man has done no wrong."

[Artie]

The attempted idea here is of the Atheists promoting moral codes learned from God, and moral codes learned from the society can be cooperated and enforced as one.

Atheists don't promote moral codes learned from God, they don't even believe in gods so how could they? Atheists have different opinions about where moral codes come from but they all agree that they don't come from gods but are just attributed to them.

With that being said, the morals that athiests carry are rather from a structured society and it is a shameful one indeed.

Living ones life based on logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, morality, ethics, ones conscience, the Golden rule etc is shameful? As a Christian you might think so but we don't.

To start, It holds no balance. Moral codes one holds in Africa is genuinely different from the morals codes that is held in North Korea,

Of course. They are different societies having evolved different moral codes.

or, a moral code that is held within the Taliban

Why do you mention Taliban? They are Islamic fundamentalists, god-believers just like you, not atheists.

is clearly different from the moral codes held within the Seal team 6.

So the Seal team 6 should hold the moral code "Thou shalt not kill"?

Though you claim murder is wrong according to the laws of the society, my conduct of morals stem from the commandment of Thou shall not kill.

Exactly our point. You don't kill because of logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, morality, ethics, conscience, the Golden rule etc you don't kill just because you think a god has told you not to. Since you have no morality of your own the only thing stopping you running around murdering people is because you think a god has told you not to. Which is why your religion evolved in the first place.

[TheTruth101]

Definition of real physical slavery changes over periods of time. Two thousand years ago, within the kingdom of China, if one spilled a cup of tea to the emoprer of China, they were killed and the system justified it. A thousand years later, if one spilt a cup of tea to the emporer, they got a whip and the system justified it. Given now, if one spills the cup of tea to the emporer, they will have to pay for the dry cleaning.

All people justify slavery within the system that is made at the given time. By all means, If you spilled a cup of tea to a highest authority in North Korea, you'd prabably be imprisoned. But if you spilled a cup of tea to the highest power in South Korea, youll prbabably have to pay for the dry cleaning.

The North Koreans will see that as a strange behavior of ruling, whereas, the South Koreans will see the other side in enslavement as strange behavior of ruling.

Therefore, one has to go to the origin of slavery, which means, attempting to overcome anothers idea or ways of life in any way. Thus forcing or suggesting another one to abide and listen to ones ways can be defined as actual slavery.

If your reffering to the times of the Jews being physically enslaved at the given time, God freed them, so whats your point?

All of what you are saying is wrong, regardless of the "authority" of the emporer. We humans have slowly crawled out of this mentality of slavery. It was wrong back then and is wrong today no matter if it dictated by an emporer or a god. If god were benevolent then he would have cringed at the site of slavery and rebuked it without saying "if a man beats a slave and the slave dies within three days, then the man shall be punished, but if the slave is revived then the man has done no wrong."

I think you are rather speaking in terms of the european nations. Within Amazons, slavery is still evident. Within North Korea as well. It is their way of life, and not many are aware there is freedom bigger than where they stand.

Slavery comes with all shapes and sizes. You have enslaved a car to serve you for your convienience. You have enslaved a dog for your convinience of joy.
You have enslaved your hair, for the convience of your apearance.
In all, slavery only exists to "serve". Therefore, slavery is accepted everywhere but hidden. Slavery of the bible is left allowed only because it is the nature of life.

We are coming out of the slavery within age? No, you are only seeing the surface of things. If you are filled with the physical aspects of life, materialistic and shallow, then you perhaps might have an argument, just maybe.
Or wait, even a concept of well being is a form of slavery from the nutririonist claiming his opinions overcomes yours as to dieting.

Slavery mentioned by God with what you quoted was in nature with the given time. The higher power always rules over the lower. In due meaning, your professor rules over your acdemic career. Back then, as evident by the barbarians, it was their way of life. Physical power came before the knowledge. If the scripture were to be compared by now, it should be compared as to if a boss gives you stressful work, and fires you after youve done your hard work, then your boss shall be punished. But, if the boss have kept you after your hard work, he has done no wrong.

Benevelont God is spoken of the Son. Not the Father. Father is of omnipotentency.

[TheTruth101]

The attempted idea here is of the Atheists promoting moral codes learned from God, and moral codes learned from the society can be cooperated and enforced as one.

Atheists don't promote moral codes learned from God, they don't even believe in gods so how could they? Atheists have different opinions about where moral codes come from but they all agree that they don't come from gods but are just attributed to them.

With that being said, the morals that athiests carry are rather from a structured society and it is a shameful one indeed.

Living ones life based on logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, morality, ethics, ones conscience, the Golden rule etc is shameful? As a Christian you might think so but we don't.

To start, It holds no balance. Moral codes one holds in Africa is genuinely different from the morals codes that is held in North Korea,

Of course. They are different societies having evolved different moral codes.

or, a moral code that is held within the Taliban

Why do you mention Taliban? They are Islamic fundamentalists, god-believers just like you, not atheists.

is clearly different from the moral codes held within the Seal team 6.

So the Seal team 6 should hold the moral code "Thou shalt not kill"?

Though you claim murder is wrong according to the laws of the society, my conduct of morals stem from the commandment of Thou shall not kill.

Exactly our point. You don't kill because of logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, morality, ethics, conscience, the Golden rule etc you don't kill just because you think a god has told you not to. Since you have no morality of your own the only thing stopping you running around murdering people is because you think a god has told you not to. Which is why your religion evolved in the first place.

Everything you say can be summed into saying philosphy relates importantly to God.