Before I start, I should point out that this essay is an articulation of a train of different thoughts--thus the speaker sitting in a trolley train.

1. I also agree with you that whether one's life is worth living is subjective. I do not understand where you get an impression that my response encourages suicide. "People give meaning to their own lives." -> Do you find this sentence troubling?

2. I still don't think you understand why I wrote about morality. What are morals? Aren't they a set of principles that we try to live by to create a good, peaceful society in which all of us can live happily? However, morals are not absolute; No, they can't be because each one of us is unique, and each and every one of us wants different things to be satisfied. However, one might want a thing (that is not necessarily a bad thing) in the world, that you don't want. In this case, you might think the other person is not living by morals, whereas the other person might just plainly think it's completely moral. Again, we have a set of standards and principles by which we judge right and wrong that we call "morals". But each of us has different sets of standards because we are different.

Then one might be confused as to which set of principals to follow. Of course, our morals do have in common, such as law. But there are many subtle points as to how everyone's ideals and morals are different; it's something I can't list all.

The thoughts outlined in this essay might seem too radical, or plain  stupid. But this is us, this is human. We question things, sometimes the things that we think we know the answer to, things that we are too used to. 

Thanks for bringing it up blues, and thanks again for reading. Please feel free to point out anything that sounds off to you.

1. Whether it's a life worth living or not is subjective. Are you implying that people who don't project meaning onto their lives don't have as full a life? One could interpret your response as encouragement to commit suicide. 

I never said that you mentioned that we need a deity for life. I said that your writing implies that god is required for people to find meaning.

2.Actually, your entire paragraph about the french man implies that without god, morals hold no meaning. "...if there was no god...no one to say whats right or wrong...if we think there is no god...no one to judge whats right and wrong..." (exerpt from YOUR essay)

And yes, you are trying to suck up to a sky-daddy. whether you call it "obeying god" or whatever, the motive is the same.

My mind is boggled at the fact that you admit morality is at times non-absolute, and yet you attempt to defend an institution that so strongly tries to fit it into a set of criteria, such as not eating shellfish.

Contemplator: DO you even know what a theory is? It means that the hypothesis ALREADY HAS gone through the scientific method. THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

3. Alright, i understand the literary use of the word dragon towards evolution, i just wanted to point out that in logical terms, it doesnt fit with the premise of evolution. In terms of writing though, it's effective.

Im am confused with your comment. Are you directing this to me or blues_are.still-blue?

Your statement in your article about evolution is loaded. 'Is evolution even real? If so, why' or something like that would be better, I think.

Author here.

1) I have no mention of deity as a necessary part of human life. Nor do I claim it should be. Yes, I agree with you, people give meaning to their own lives.

2) What you got away from this writing is partly incorrect; I have not made a statement saying morality and religion must exist together. And morality is not an absolute standard. You claim you are moral, but who are you to judge yourself more moral than anyone else? Morality, in its own strict terms, is an irony because we have no one in power to define it unless you believe in deity. Religions, in that case, outline morality.

3) You misunderstand. Let me make this clear. Look at things in metaphysical terms. Why is your DNA polymerase made up of nucleotides? Why couldn't it have been made with heavy metals only? It couldn't have. But why? You probably know matter consists of atoms. But why? Could there have been some other base structure other than atom that could have become the basis of matter? My mention to 'dragons,' as you point out, was my way of 'stooping down' to be able to generalize a specific thought.

1) God is not required to have a life with meaning, but is it a life worth living?

2) Morality is not dependent of religion. It is dependent on the person who makes choices in life. We are not trying to get approval from a 'sky-daddy', we are trying to obey God, which happens to be approved by God

3) I agree with you here. Dragons? Really? Though evolution is ONLY a theory, it is a theory that deserves to be put through the scientific method properply.

1) People give meaning to their own lives. "god" is not required.

2) Morality is not dependent on religion. I'm an atheist, and i can easily say that i'm far more "moral" than many of my religious counterparts. Also, i'm not moral to get the approval of a sky-daddy. I'm moral because i realize that there are 7 billion other people on this planet and we have to figure out a way not to kill each other.

3) You obviously know next to nothing about evolution if you think that we just as easily could have evolved into "dragons".

i think that was cool how you worded everything. and i also think it has a good message