My comment that religion and philosophy are the same was in the very narrow context of identity. They both seek to give identity.
The methods used are completely different. One seeks to define a 'creator' in some way, the other by exploring the human condition to say who we are. Aithests in their own way also seek to define their position, often by who they are not.
In the context of the article none of us has the definitive answer as to who we are and how we got here.
I am happy to leave it in which ever way any of the posts want because it does not change the arguement about judgment.
It is funny how a passing or connecting passage in a an article can become such a major issue.

Hi Daviy

Well.. as I said I have no qualm with the bulk of your argument, but when you committ yourself to "paper" and try to persuade people of your arguments, you have to be prepared to accept criticism of ALL of what you write. No point getting bent out of shape about it.

You said:

"My comment that religion and philosophy are the same was in the very narrow context of identity. They both seek to give identity."

So this is a clarification of what you originally wrote. Again I disagree, unless you are re-defining "philosophy" as "personal philosophy about life" which could be construed to confer identity. Capital P philosophy and capital R religion are chalk and cheese