For the record, I wholly reject your thesis. However, taking you at your word, what then, does this mean? How does that change any discussion on religion, politics, or philosophy?

Your original point (some time ago) was that discussing politics (or philosophy) was the same as discussing religion, and those that advocated the former while denigrating the latter were, in your words, a hypocrite.

But you miss the critical point here, which is that "religion," "politics," and "philosophy" are three distinctly different topics. Saying one is a subset of another is a specious, barely tenable argument which you use to springboard into claims of hypocrisy.

The target of philosophy, or better still, sophology, is the pursuit of truth. The target of religion is about the pursuit of faith. Politics is simply using one or the other (or both) to organize the social order.

The pursuit of truth is just that—a pursuit of what is knowable. From philosophy, all other sciences flow. Philosophy begat law, mathematics, biology, and physics. There is a direct genealogical line from one to the other. But faith is defined as "belief in the absence of evidence," which is why there is a special branch of philosophy to the study of faith, a branch called theology. Here, people speak of "theological truths" or "religious truths" where the only supporting evidence required is faith, which is notoriously lacking as evidence.

So long as religion is permitted to reside within its own realm, it is permitted to concoct any tortured logic or fantasy it chooses. And so long as we operate within the realm of religion or theology, religion is safe from scrutiny and analysis. But, when religion steps out of its protected sphere and into the public realm, religion must rely on the same basis of fact as everyone else.

I would think that you, of all people, would have recognized the dissonance of your own arguments by looking in a dictionary. The term we use to describe politics guided by religion is "theocracy." However, the term we use to describe politics guided solely by philosophy is, quite simply, "politics."

"Replies that start with ad hominem attacks are a pretty sure sign that the reply is written by a true believer, not some one who is looking to argue their case."
Or that the reply is written by someone with little tolerance of stupidity. The whole "not some one who is looking to argue their case" thing falls apart when the case gets argued, and you respond by ignored the argument.

"our languages will not cleanly delineate between statements of faith, and statements of objective fact"
That is not true. Language *may* not delineate such. But it is fully capable of it. In fact, philosophy would be literally impossible without the linguistic capacity to differentiate fact from faith.

Let's make it simple. Theology, literally, is the study of god. That is what the word actually mean. So theology where people don't talk about god is, by definition, not theology and therefore impossible. It's also worth noting that theology is exclusive to theistic religions, so it cannot be, as you suggest, a universal umbrella for all that is not entirely objective.

As for law as the imposition of belief on others, it is absurd that in a discussion including philosophy that you make claims of the definitiveness of gravity and other natural forces. You cannot see gravity. You cannot touch or smell or hear gravity. You can only experience something that is described as gravity. As such, you have only your *belief* that gravity exists. You have only your belief that your body exists. Pretty much everything about the world we experience is predicated on belief at some level. The claim that death as a concept requires a statement of faith is arguably true, but it also renders 'faith' and belief' meaningless. Without such basic assumption that the world really exists, and that we don't want to experience pain or hardship (which is really where the idea of rights comes from), there is very little point in anything. Without those small statements of faith in reality, you have nihilism. I see a few different possibilities:

1. You think nihilism is cool. If so, you're both an idiot and a failure, since a real nihilist wouldn't be interacting with a computer.
2. You're defining belief (and philosophy, and theology) in a manner entirely different from the consensus understanding. Which makes you an idiot.
3. You don't really know what you're talking about. Which makes you an idiot.

Feel free to provide an alternate explanation, backed up by actual logic, as opposed to the 'I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and keep repeating this patently false bullshit until it comes true' approach.

The argument you are presenting is 'correct' in the manner you have presented it. But it is predicated on a number of assumptions and definitions contrary to the commonly accepted meaning. This is the same way that I can 'prove' – through legitimate mathematical processes – that 1=0. Both 'proofs' have flaws, both give obviously incorrect answers and both – while kind of amusing – are utterly useless as they add nothing to the understanding of their respective fields.

Replies that start with ad hominem attacks are a pretty sure sign that the reply is written by a true believer, not some one who is looking to argue their case.

Re: Death.

Death is a word that incorporates both a statement of faith, and some objective description. To attempt to argue using such a mixed word is to fail to understand something as basic as the difference between "objective evidence", and "proof."

"He has died." is not the same at all as "This person's heart has stopped beating, and in my experience, the likelihood of it be restarted is so small as to be not worth the effort." The first may (depending on local law and the medical training of the speaker) very well incorporate the second, but the second does not necessarily incorporate the first, if used by a true objectivist.

Human language is an emergent property. We intermix the theological and the objective as naturally as we breathe, thus our languages will not cleanly delineate between statements of faith, and statements of objective fact. To be human is to have a religion. It is also human to try to deny that, especially if you've been taught by someone you have faith in, that religion is evil. (For those of you who caught the joke, congratulations!)

The line between objective and construct (between what is, vs. what meaning we bring to what is) is so blurry that for most people it almost does not exist.

The obvious benefits of claiming to be objective when in fact you are pushing your own religious agenda, especially in the current social context, are a strong motivation for doing so. Doesn't change the fact that you have a religious agenda. It does make you irritable and aggressive, but dissonance on such a basic level is very unsettling, so your nastiness is entirely understandable.

Luck . . .

Philosophy is a sub-class of theology. Thus, if you believe that politics is a "type" (class) of philosophy, then . . . well, there it is. Philosophy is simply theology where the players have a gentleman's agreement to not mention the word "God".

Politics is not in any way objective. One need merely look at all the religious beliefs floating around that are used to drive the creation of law. Such as this one: "Everyone has a right to affordable health care."

If everyone had a right to affordable health care, and if politics were objective, and if "right" weren't a statement of faith (thus religious), there would be no need for politics at all.

We don't need to pass laws to make gravity work . . . it just does. No matter what laws you pass, gravity will still work, and it won't care about your silly laws.

Passing laws is the imposition of a statement of belief on others, backed by force and the threat of violence.

Not, your persuasions would not be more effective. That's the fundamental flaw of religious reasoning.

There seems to be an understanding amongst the religious that if they just present us with the "correct" understanding of the Bible, their god's words, or some other semantic abstraction, they'll be able to turn the mind of an unbeliever. But you entirely miss the point–you can't change belief in a logical conclusion by making it more palatable.

Logical (scientific) conclusions do not change because the counter argument is made more palatable. We learned that lesson when we stopped believing that sickness was due to demonic infestation and started believing in the germ theory of disease.

I am a Christian who will fully admit that most Christians have earned the derision seen on this board. For me, shoving my beliefs down another's throat goes against God's word, and Christ's example. He called us to be examples, not preachers or torturers. The age of the hell fire and brimstone message is long gone. Any Christian who tells a non-believer they are going to hell lacks even basic understanding of the scripture. Likewise for any Christian who believs that we have to force 'religion' on others. Religion is an invention of man, not God. Churches are governed by men, not God. Because man is fickle and self-serving, it is little wonder that so many find Christians and churches to be hypocritical.

I am happy to see that even non-believers can be open-minded in seeing that 100% of us do not fall in that category. (Although, even I can see that a majority do) In truth, I am a sinner, the same as anyone. And, that is exactly why I am a Christian. I need something better than myself to atone for my mistakes. Christ himself told us that like a doctor does not heal the healthy, neither did He come for the righteous. He came for the sinners, of which I fully admit to be.

Because I believe God's word to be truth, I believe in a God who loved all of us enough to give us the choice, the free, will to believe in Him or not. It isn't my duty or my right to judge the beliefs and lifestyles of others. Nor is it my right or duty to respond in anger because someone's beliefs do not match my own. If more of "us" lived our lives in Christ's example, we wouldn't be thought of so negatively, and our persuasions would most assuredly be more effective.