Morality

[Angrboda]

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.

Oh, by all means, please do. I could use a good laugh.