Naphthol

I was reading that same blog and wanted to respond with somthing very much like what you've just posted here, was saddly locked. My own thinking is very much in line with how you describe your thinking, derived from naturalism.

A code of ethics is entirely it's own animal from a spiritual inclination. Having one does not mean the other is, or must be present. Think peanut butter/jam sandwich, a comon combination of two things that really have no connection to each other at all. 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' I believe is the fallacy. This might be the most important point to take away. I think it's mainly from this misunderstanding that Hollowshields post was coming from.

consider the opposite situation to understand.

a man thinks to himself "I exist, isn't that interesting? I'm going to enjoy existing for a while, to see and experience many things for as long

as this existence lasts"

another man tells him "you were designed by an impercievable entity, to live in a certain way - here, i'll fill you in on the rules. Also, apparently you live forever if you follow them - pretty enticing isn't it?"

first man, "how do you know that?"

second man "I don't need to know, I feel that it is true"

first man, "sort of like there being a spider on your shoulder?"

second man glances at shoulder to see nothing there.

second man, "you had me there for a moment"

first man, "I swear it's right there, you missed it"

second man "your nuts dude, there's no spider on my shoulder"

first man, "I understand the feeling"