This statement is partially true there is no purpose to the existence of everything but not total randomness either. Life is self selecting an, I admit, amazing set of coincidences had to come together to begin with but once they did the evolutionary principle starts to take effect some random mutations work better than others and so these survive and future mutations are more likely to be the basis of future mutations while others disappear. This is easier to understand in the context of life because we have have free will and if, for example, I find a particular girl more attractive - not only for her looks but because her views on life chime with mine in terms of how we should treat everyone else then I am more likely to choose her as my life partner - If she feels the same we are more likely to have children together. To a lesser extent the same happens at a chemical level certain combinations can't exist others are unstable and some just work.
Right and wrong are a human invention, I think, We define these for ourselves. Immanuel Kant used the term "categorical imperative" (though he said it in German) which basically is also said in the bible as "treat others as you would have them treat you" and is the idea that if we each accept that we have no special right over everyone else then if, for example, I do not want you to steal from me then I should not steal from you. This does not require a creator being to define the rules we do so as a community (Jono loves that word) because it makes sense. There is a lot in the Bible I find objectionable because of various intolerances but I am basically tolerant provided we stick to the basic Idea.
Be excellent to each other, (and party on dude)
Morals are an invention, that does not mean they are invalid. For example I am an heterosexual male and humanity would not survive if most people were homosexual because we would not produce children. But, if my sexuality was different and I liked men then provided the man I liked also liked me I don't see a problem here. We must not act in a way that limit the needs of others and within that I am in favour of maximum freedom. This again does not come from a religious perspective but a recognition that the freedoms I want should also be available to everybody else.
Because only one person can have the biggest stick. This argument makes sense if you are that person, maybe, but not to everyone else. People band together when they feel similarly oppressed.
I disagree 100% with this statement, I am more than comfortable describing myself as atheist, There is an assumption that just because the the world as we see it fits us well then the world was designed for us.
Expletive deleted why does it in not make sense to think we evolved to fit the world as it is? Any appeal to God is a desire to claim we are in some way special and in no way justified.
Your claims of a true god are just as weak as the claims by Lewis for Aslan. The only difference is that your lie is believed by more people.
Society wants you to believe in god for the particular reason that it gives them control over you. If you believe there is one true god and he knows everything then at the end of your life (you believe) he sets your fate for eternity and it's only by being a good boy on earth that you get to spend a good eternity. Personally I find this argument very weak because if the only reason I did not steal, murder, etc. was because a book told me not to I would not be a decent human being.
In the last few weeks we have seen several tragedies, terrorist attacks in Manchester and London and a fire which it appears could have been avoided apart from a desire to cut costs: British people stood up and did what they could to help. Some were Muslim, some Christian, some Jewish and Atheist (there may be others) I don't believe this is anything other than a basic human feeling that this could so easily of happened to me and if it did what would I want others to do for me ? I should do that for those affected.
Why does the existence of the world require explanation?
If your explanation of the existence of the world is: God did it then I need an explanation of the existence of God. Note: this needs to be a non-circular argument. If God had a creator then the creator needs to be explained in detail including who created the creator, and who created the creators creator etc. If God does not need a creator why does it make more sense to stop at God and not at the existence of the universe as we observe it?
I'm not trying to "mess with your head" here but I really see all claims in the existence of God, fairies, pixies, Aslan to have equal validity: None.