>>22535583>asks if animals can consent>the answer is rationally noHow is that worse than a world based on religion?
>asks if animals can consent>"God" (person who wrote book) says they can'tYou might say the religious perspective is absolute, no room for questioning, so more people will follow it. This of course ignores that different religions fight and religions argue internally over details all the time. And if the religious perspective isn't based on rational thought, why would people trust it more? Or what's stopping religions from promoting bad rules or allowing harmful things in the name of the religion?
>but anon, what is harm if you don't have some absolute figure saying it's harmfulWe can reason about what's beneficial and harmful to people, and use reason to argue for natural rights and things like that. That's a lot more convincing than "it's true because God says it's so, and he said that because I say he did."
>how can you reason if there's no objective truth, how can there be truth without GodThere is absolute truth. Maybe you want to argue a divine being is essential for absolute truth or that truth existing implies the existence of God. Or that God is truth itself, or Truth is God. But however you have to justify truth existing to yourself, that definition of God doesn't imply that Muhammad is his prophet or that all the specific details and rules outlined in the Bible are the word of God. If you think truth itself requires faith in some sort of God, fine. But I don't see how that generic God implies that you'd also have to make that extra leap towards believing all the details that are clearly manmade. Especially when religions disagree all the time.
