[quote]ephrem wrote:
Atheism is as much a religion as not collection stamps is a hobby.
And law is religion now? How is law superstition?
[/quote]
From above:
"That’s what law is. Some people get together and establish a system of morality and right and wrong, then right down rules based on that system, then they enforce those rules. How can you do that without the religious aspect? "
Religion: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:”
A legal system fits that definition to a T.
I’ve brought this up in several threads and only ever received ad hominem attacks for it.
It’s very strait forward. A legal system fits the definition of a religion. Come on eph, you could be the first to actually address this point.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Atheism is as much a religion as not collection stamps is a hobby.
And law is religion now? How is law superstition?
[/quote]
From above:
"That’s what law is. Some people get together and establish a system of morality and right and wrong, then right down rules based on that system, then they enforce those rules. How can you do that without the religious aspect? "
Religion: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:”
A legal system fits that definition to a T.
I’ve brought this up in several threads and only ever received ad hominem attacks for it.
It’s very strait forward. A legal system fits the definition of a religion. Come on eph, you could be the first to actually address this point.[/quote]
Yeah, but no dice. You know as well as I do that without the divine religion is moot.
And when religion is allowed to legislate and to enforce that legislation, that would be fine with you?[/quote]
That’s what law is. Some people get together and establish a system of morality and right and wrong, then right down rules based on that system, then they enforce those rules. How can you do that without the religious aspect?[/quote]
I guess you can’t if you require an absolute authority to validate your laws.
Otherwise I’d say consensus.[/quote]
It isn’t about a claim of absolute authority, legislation assumes absolute authority. Not to do so would mean that a law isn’t binding to people that disagree.[/quote]
Then what do we need religion for?[/quote]
Religion isn’t about rules and authority. [/quote]
Well pat, it is, actually. Religion is all about rules and authority. [/quote]
Uh, no it’s not. It may have authority and rules, but it’s not about that. I think I know religion a little better than you do, would you not agree?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Atheism is as much a religion as not collection stamps is a hobby.
And law is religion now? How is law superstition?
[/quote]
From above:
"That’s what law is. Some people get together and establish a system of morality and right and wrong, then right down rules based on that system, then they enforce those rules. How can you do that without the religious aspect? "
Religion: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:”
A legal system fits that definition to a T.
I’ve brought this up in several threads and only ever received ad hominem attacks for it.
It’s very strait forward. A legal system fits the definition of a religion. Come on eph, you could be the first to actually address this point.[/quote]
Yeah, but no dice. You know as well as I do that without the divine religion is moot.[/quote]
I agree. But I disagree that a legal system is without it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was explaining how all law is religious in nature, and you seemed to think that meant we could do without religion, and in context of the discussion, law. Or that’s what I got from your question.
Did you mean to ask, why we need religion outside of the law?[/quote]
Law needs weight of force behind it, that is true. While in the past religion was perfectly suited for that job, it is no longer required for that service.
[/quote]
It was never required for the purpose, though it was used for that. Your setting up a classic strawman. If you can make religion just a set of rules with a big bad boogie man to enforce them then you can create a reason there is no need for it. But relgion isn’t about that and it really never has been. There are rules in it, but it’s not about the rules.
Most athletes haven’t
You can’t fix stupid.
[quote]
If we could just wave religion goodbye, “Farewell Religion, thanks for everything!”, and move on that would be great.
But that’s not going to happen, is it?[/quote]
What would be so great? You wouldn’t be bothered anymore…That little voice in your head that compels you relentlessly in these conversations would suddenly stop?
You already know humans are wired to be religious in biology. You blow up all the churches, kill all the religious and religion would re-emerge, perhaps unguided or with out the benefit of divine revelation, but it would continue. You sound very much like Marx who thought that if everybody would just cooperate together, there would be no need for the haves and have-nots. Needless to say that was an epic fail.
I’m sure that, even with your limited capabilities, understand that an absence of belief does not equal religion, nor a belief system.
I can only conclude from your persisting insistance that atheism is a religion that you are a “wolf”.
For someone who prides himself on being christian…[/quote]
It certainly acts like a religion, it is a belief system and people try to shove it down other people’s throats like people do with religion. But I agree it’s not a religion, even though it’s treated like one.
The purpose of religion is to communicate or interact with that which is greater than ourselves and is not sensible in any other way. Making yourself the greatest is just bloated ego, not communication.
I’m sure that, even with your limited capabilities, understand that an absence of belief does not equal religion, nor a belief system.
I can only conclude from your persisting insistance that atheism is a religion that you are a “wolf”.
For someone who prides himself on being christian…[/quote]
If you are a positive atheist, you hold the belief there is no god. That is diametrically the opposite of a lack of belief.[/quote]
I think it’s silly to entertain the belief that god does not exist.
I think it’s equally silly to entertain the belief that god does exist.
That is why I do neither.[/quote]
LOL! Bullshit. You do it all the time, right here on TNation. You aren’t blowing up the lifting threads, or the diet threads. You blow up the religion threads…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was explaining how all law is religious in nature, and you seemed to think that meant we could do without religion, and in context of the discussion, law. Or that’s what I got from your question.
Did you mean to ask, why we need religion outside of the law?[/quote]
Law needs weight of force behind it, that is true. While in the past religion was perfectly suited for that job, it is no longer required for that service.
[/quote]
It was never required for the purpose, though it was used for that. Your setting up a classic strawman. If you can make religion just a set of rules with a big bad boogie man to enforce them then you can create a reason there is no need for it. But relgion isn’t about that and it really never has been. There are rules in it, but it’s not about the rules.
Most athletes haven’t
You can’t fix stupid.
[quote]
If we could just wave religion goodbye, “Farewell Religion, thanks for everything!”, and move on that would be great.
But that’s not going to happen, is it?[/quote]
What would be so great? You wouldn’t be bothered anymore…That little voice in your head that compels you relentlessly in these conversations would suddenly stop?
You already know humans are wired to be religious in biology. You blow up all the churches, kill all the religious and religion would re-emerge, perhaps unguided or with out the benefit of divine revelation, but it would continue. You sound very much like Marx who thought that if everybody would just cooperate together, there would be no need for the haves and have-nots. Needless to say that was an epic fail. [/quote]
No pat, I’m a sad lonely guy who has nothing else to do on a friday night than to sit in his bedroom talking to you about these issues.
Yeah, but no dice. You know as well as I do that without the divine religion is moot.[/quote]
I agree. But I disagree that a legal system is without it.[/quote]
You disagree that a legal system is without a divine authority?[/quote]
yes.[/quote]
You equate law with religion, so that makes sense. A system of law however carries the force of repercussion, so no divine authority needed.[/quote]
To have laws you must agree upon a morality.
There is no discernible difference, when forcing that morality on others through law, whether you directly claim god’s authority, like in when the declaration or independence declared human rights, or if you vaguely site “conscience” and “social good”, like Stalin.
You are assuming divine authority when you force your morals on others.