Morality

[Agnostico]

No, we're not in agreement that the U.S. law was founded on Christian morals.  I simply noted that there was a relationship there, nothing more.  And no, I don't agree that religion was formed in order to create the social stability that moral codes and law provide, nor that it was necessary that it do so for us to have law and moral codes.  Even if religion did form for that purpose, it wouldn't follow that it was necessary for law and moral codes that it do so.  You seem to be engaged in nothing more than question begging.  A) The existence of a relationship between laws and morals was a result of religion forming to create the foundation for such; B) the evidence that religion was created for this purpose is that there is a relationship between it and laws and moral codes.  That's nothing but a circular argument.  You haven't provided any independent evidence that this is so, largely letting ignorance of the true causes of religion and civilization do all the work for you.  In addition, you've been provided with alternative theories for both the formation of civilization (Gae) and that of religion (myself).  Until you defeat those alternatives, it would be premature to embrace your theory, especially given that it seems to rest on nothing more than circular arguments, appeals to ignorance, and proof by assertion.

And finally, you've moved off of specific religions to a general claim that religions, whatever their form, contribute to the foundation of stable societies.  The Rohingya in Myanmar would beg to differ, as well as any accomplisheed student of comparative religion and social history.  Confucianism, which is what you were quoting there, was explicitly brought up because it was a largely secular philosophy, not a religious one.  Next thing you know, you'll be lowering the bar so far that any human behavior or philosophy will be considered "religion" and thus validation of your argument.  That's nothing more than equivocation and undermines your entire argument.

It's true that religion has functioned to encourage social cohesion and cooperation, but this has likely been the case both before and after the formation of civilized societies.  There's little evidence that societies developed on account of this function, nor that religion itself formed primarily to serve that function.  Both of those undermine your argument.

Excuse me Mr all knowing Fallaciousness. Whose whole argument lies on multiple fallacies which i cbf going through cos theres just too many.
U hold ur "need for a sky daddy" theory so high u think its fact. Hehehe   
And uv supplied nothing

Iv said these are just theories not fact. I can't be begging the question when i myself admit not to know. Wat an uneducated statement.
I can tell uv only just learnt about logical fallacies. Well at least I taught u kids something positive. Improve ur dogmatic arguments now
Iv supplied several references. U just refuse to look at them as u said urself...
U defeated ur own argument by ignoring the facts supplied.

Anywayz. One man entered and shook the cage of about 30 atheists. LoL. Ruffled everyones feathers.
I exposed differing views among each other, definitions, fallacies, inconsistencies the hollow moral position, contadictions, the negative approach, the dogma, the church and all the things that religion has.

I said that there are American atheists that are hostile, loud, obnoxious and active anti theists.
And there are Euro atheists that are MYOB, tolerant, kind and have no issue with theism.
The difference is that Americans have no history. No culture. They feel like they have no connection to Britain and European history.
And their anger is about as deep as the history of white America.

I think iv learnt all there is to learn about the atheist community.
Shallow and Dogmatic. All hail...

Cheerio