Curiouser and curiouser, Yuyutsu.

>>...nobody needs to invent a deity in order to be religious. Even atheists can be religious.<<

How do you reconcile this with your assertion early in the piece, when you explained to us that...

>>Etymologically however, the word "religion" comes from Latin "Re-Ligare" = "to bind [with God]"<<

I genuinely fail to see how an atheist, who clearly states a lack of belief in God, can at the same time be religious, and bind with God.

Of all the challenges you have set for us in this thread, that has to be king - because I have absolutely no doubt you will have an answer to it. Whether it is one that makes any sense to us mere mortals is the only unknown.

>>(strange logic - does the fact that deists love X makes X incorrect?)<<

I think I see where you are confused on this one, though.

It is the concept (that only laws stop people killing each other) that is incorrect.

While it is true that deists often use this argument, the fact remains that it is wrong because it is wrong, not simply because deists employ it. Sorry for any confusion there.

>>I stand by my statement: people who are truly irreligious have nothing to stop them murdering apart from fear of the law<<

That was not the issue. But you cannot then employ the logic "because people don't kill each other, they must be religious".

That's the fallacy that goes "Irreligious people kill. Therefore people who don't kill must be religious".

Likewise:

>>Those who abstain from murder simply due to the goodness of their heart... are at least to some degree religious even if they never heard the words "God"<<

Which once again sits ill with:

>>Etymologically however, the word "religion" comes from Latin "Re-Ligare" = "to bind [with God]"<<

On that basis, good people are able to bind with an entity of which they are entirely unaware.

Which I find particularly expedient. As well as being highly dubious logic.

Furthermore, Yuyutsu...

>>If you find this theological dissection too technical and rather refer to religion as "goodness", then so be it. There is no goodness but God's (as mentioned by Jesus in Mark 10:18)<<

I'd still like to call goodness, goodness, instead of religion, if that's ok with you.

Basically because you have employed the ultimate in circular arguments. Quoting Jesus, as "reported" by someone who wrote the story some forty years after it was supposed to have happened is tough enough to swallow. But at the same time you require us to accept that there is actually a God for goodness to belong to. So absent the acceptance that there is a God, the equation simply reads "goodness belongs to itself".

>>Accordingly, substitute "basic religion" with "basic goodness", which indeed is a requisite for the ability to get on with each other in what we call civilised society.<<

But there is absolutely no need to do this, since "basic goodness" remains "basic goodness", with or without the existence of any God.

Does that make sense to you now?

Congrats Y your perceived view of your self is more than good.
Even if it is unbelievable too.

Sorry Yuyutsu… I've been closely following all lines of argument and whilst philosophically the question of the proof of reality is still an open one, your methodology still seems to me to be arse about.

You seem to imagine God reflected in the mirror of consciousness, the virtual image being us.

I percieve us reflecting on the mirror of consciousness and imagining God.

Being able to describe an ontological hierarchy doesn't prove it, except perhaps to your own satisfaction – despite avidya;. Good for you. I just find it unsatisfactory, unsatisfying and circular in that it assumes the existence of Brahman and then assembles an explanation.

Similar to the "no true Scotsman" argument when presented as "no one, truly religious, would…".

It's never clear whose being the more insulted – the true or untrue Scotsman – the truly or the untruly 'religious'.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
Of what you believe other people think God is like you are ignorant of because God does not meet the description or image you portray of an immaginary friend in the sky.

True believers recognise a spiritul link with all reality, that it has purpose and destiny. That it had beginning, change and end, there is a spiritual link with the purpose of creation that inspires awe and respect. You seem to immagine a being somwhere in the universe that people believe exists. WRONG! GOD is Spirit.

Oops… Thought I'd clarified the last sentence to:

It's never clear whose being is the more insulted – the true or untrue Scotsman – the truly or the untruly 'religious'.