Promiscuity is often denounced.  I don't see it that way.  It may be (actually it certainly is) a waste of time and a manifestation of insecurity (a need for constant reaffirmation that one is desirable) or maybe some other similar psychology, but it in itself is not evil or a sin or even bad karma.  If it is done with the main objective being to give one's partner pleasure, then it is actually good karma.

Where it gets ugly is when it involves infidelity (one is married or engaged and one has promised fidelity), since then it becomes lying and creates the likelihood of hurting someone.  Of course it also becomes ugly when precautions against disease spread and conception are not followed carefully.

The modern college student (especially young man) in the big cities of Vietnam finds himself in a sort of candy shop, and often prudence goes out the window (I never heard of a prudent college student anyway).  Men are safer with multiple partners, but women can produce a danger to themselves since some men are violently jealous after even one tryst.  This is grossly unfair, I know.

Staying in touch with reality is not an easy job for anyone.  It is so easy to get swept up in the moment by a bandwagon propagandist, or come to think something magical has happened by a skilled fraud using magic tricks, or come to believe things because the advocates play with the evidence and don't tell the whole truth (this is what religions do), or come to accept some nostrum from so much hoping it is true (wishful thinking) or even something simple like not wanting to be the odd man out in a group of believers and then have them turn on you with name-calling, such as "skeptic" (a title of honor in my mind).

Maybe one of the easiest ways to get out of touch with reality is to think that there must be truth (if there is smoke there is fire) of some sort in everything -- that the middle way between belief and disbelief is best -- no so, folks.  Belief must not happen and opinion assent happen only with good evidence.

Of course there is also just plain old insanity -- you know -- craziness, lunacy, paranoia out your ear, etc.

Whether Jesus existed or not as an actual person really is a matter of nothing more than historical interest.  Even if such a figure existed as a kernel around which myths evolved, the mythical Jesus never existed, and that is the one of interest.

The same thing can be said about Mohammed, who almost certainly existed as a real person but who did not do many of the things recounted about him, or of the Buddha (about whom there is less certainty).

This is a common thinking error in historiography -- that the existence of a myth tells us anything about history.  It doesn't.  Sometimes there is a historical kernel, but usually there is not, and we have no way to know.  There was no Troy, no Achilles, no Hercules, no Robin Hood, no King Arthur.  Since one cannot prove a negative, one cannot prove this, but one should assume it until there is good evidence otherwise, and the existence of the myth is not good evidence, especially if it contains miraculous or similar stuff.

The problems of interstellar travel can be overcome a few ways, and I think eventually will.  Human life expectancy may be greatly lengthened, or generational ships set out, or hibernation, and so on.  I don't think the light-speed barrier can be fudged, though.

The thing that makes their presence most unlikely is the great number of hurdles life would have to cross in order for "them" to be there -- some of which are almost certainly very unlikely.  Not that "they" don't exist, but they are almost certainly excruciatingly rare -- as rare as only one example in millions or billions of galaxies.

The way intelligent life can become common is for it to spread, and so far in our galaxy that hasn't happened or they would be here.

The historical existence of "Socrates" and of "Jesus" are different questions -- Socrates did not perform miracles and although he had his "voices," it was only his (reportedly) telling us about them that even gives us this idea.  No public miracles, no religious teaching -- just a steady inquiry into what might constitute "the good."  Even here Socrates did not pretend to have any answer -- he seems to have mainly just poked holes into what others thought.

That we have mainly Plato's word for what the man said, and this is really all just Plato's thinking, is understood.  Still there are independent reasons to think he was real, although almost certainly not quite what Plato describes.

The main issue is because there are no extraordinary claims here, the burden of proof is much lower.

We have an instinct to want to submit and worship (as well as to dominate).  It no doubt comes from the need of the group to follow a leader -- often otherwise no decision is made and generally no decision is the worst possible outcome.

We also have an instinct to believe what we were taught as children.  Again this probably evolved for group cohesion.

These instincts work by means of pleasure (joy, peace) and displeasure (fear, guilt) emotions triggered when we do something contrary to the instinct.

We flat-out don't understand what time is, whether past and future are realities or just illusions, what the present might be other than an infinitesimal between two illusions.  We also don't understand why it seems to have a direction forward (maybe it really does) when at the atomic level all events can go either forward or backward in time.

I think therefore it is a bit foolish to make statements like stuff has to exist for there to be time and that time is generated by events, although that seem the common-sense view.  Time is also one of the aspects of the "thing" called space-time, and flows at differing rates according to frame of reference -- stuff that works fine mathematically but the human mind is not built for and takes a good deal of thought to conceptualize.

Lack of belief in anything should be the default if one is rational in their approach to the world.  We are not entitled to "belief," but at best only to strong opinion.

I don't think (I have a strong opinion) that there is no God or gods.  This is based mainly on the weakness of the arguments presented for Him -- I have no need to assume the burden of providing evidence against.  Still, there is lots of evidence against -- from logical arguments to an objective look at the uncaring universe to the existence of suffering.  Theists have to rationalize out the kazoo to get around these problems with their view -- not a basis for sensible opinion forming.