(October 14, 2014 at 11:06 am)Esquilax Wrote: But again, only the ones you want to follow. And hell, that's basically just describing me. I'm not a christian, but I celebrate christmas, use the word god as an expletive, etc etc. It's not like they gate that shit off from nonbelievers.
Think about that: the thing you just described is equally true of the religious and the atheistic.
That just goes to show that being atheist is not the same as being arreligious.
(October 14, 2014 at 11:06 am)Esquilax Wrote: What else is there, that's specific enough to be a defining aspect of religion? You'd think that the content of its historical narrative and moral pronouncements would be enough, no? I mean, without that initial claim, "there's a god, and he did X and Y and Z, and that's why his moral authority is worth trusting when he says you shouldn't do A and B and C," there's not much left that's religious, is there?
The question here is not of sufficiency but of necessity. It is not whether historical narrative and moral pronouncements are enough to define a religion, but whether they are necessary to do so. Take Hinduism for example - if you keep all the religious norms and practices (one may have personal reasons to do so) but discard most of the historical narrative and moral pronouncements that conflict with secular morality - does that mean you are not a Hindu?
