Well i agree that physics and religion are different, my point was just to draw an analogy, not simply , as your strawman portrays it,
Point me to the strawman. I see none.
an equivocation between religion and science. The analogy was that saying religion can be true for a variety of people is like saying the laws of physics can be different for each person.
Well, that just is not true.
The reason why was shown in the example i described,
I see no such reason in #102. Was it in another post?
which was about the truth of God. God doesnt exist for one person, and then not exist for another.
Except that God does indeed exist or fails to according to the person, both in the sense of belief itself and, I have come to conclude, in all other meaningful senses.
Sure, there are many who insist that their beliefs about deities are in some sense universally true. But to the extent that it can be verified, it has been proven wrong.
One could perhaps insist on believing that God
wants people to have conflicting ideas about whether he exists or what he wants, but that is really grasping at straws for no good result.
Either God exists for everyone or he doesnt .
Wrong.
That can only work if we accept that God is utterly irrelevant, inconsequential.
After all, there is and there will probably never be anything even approaching any consensus on whether God exists - despite intentional loosening of the concept to the point of meaningless.
And most telling of all, that does not even matter, not even for emphatically theistic religions. Some make the utmost effort to insist that it does, but in practice it just does not.
Either the empire state building exists for everyone or it doesnt.
The Empire State is not comparable to many concepts of deity, let alone all.
Besides, nor does it even exist for everyone, at least not in quite the same way (which it would need to if the comparison with deities were to hold water).
Ultimately, at least half of the actual "existence" of deities is unavoidably customized to the believer's needs and nature.
And that is assuming that there is such a thing as deity outside the inspirational role that is entirely personal.
Either jesus was born of a virgin or he wasnt, and so since everyone shares the same previous history, logically either that happened in the one history we share or it didn't. History or the universe doesnt change per person depending on mood and religious choice.
One of several reasons why religion is not history. Although I am not sure even History itself is quite so deterministic.
And religion is the worst source for morality and health.
Religion proper would not be, but I suspect that you are calling superstition by that name.
Religion allows you to pick an absolute morality or health plan depending on society and the time you were born and use God to justify any action as divinely warranted rather than rationally determined.
That is a degeneration, not religion proper.
so because of moral relativism religion becomes a source of crazed morality
Did you not just complain of absolute morality?
that leads to things like slavery, stoning adultering women and homosexuals, genocide against certain ethnic groups, etc. And people do these things thinking they are doing the work of god
Yes, it is clear to me that neither morality proper not religion much benefits from paying a lot of attention to conceptions of deities.
