This is a spin off from Is Existentialism an obsolete philosophy? so as not to hijack that thread.
(And starting in the middle. Please read that thread for the context.)
Uh, no. I don’t think that’s true at all. Buddhism doesn’t appear to have any diety. It is certainly possible, (and I’ve heard of more than one,) to have a religion that isn’t based on supernateral entities affecting the behavior of the universe. “The universe just is this way, and here are the rituals and practices to get the system to work for you.” The supernatural entity claim isn’t neccesarry.
And the nature of existence claim isn’t sufficient. For instance. “The great Gooberslotch sneezed out his right nostril and the universe was formed. Three days later, he sneezed out his left nostril and seeded it with life.” Ok. Interesting… But unless we then say “What does that mean I should do?” we haven’t come anywhere close to making a religion.
Unless we then ask, “what do we do, do we need to treat other people a certain way?” it’s meaningless.
I can justify my statement that how we treat others is a base question of religion. How do you justify your statement that it isn’t? You made no defense of your statement at all. So… I had to ask you to explain it more fully. If you refuse to do more than make general unsupported statements, you aren’t engaging in the argument.
I wasn’t making a value judgement about what society should be based on. I was making a factual statement about how societies formed from religions in the first place. The religions that asked the questions I stated about how to treat people, and came up with answers that fostered being able to live together formed societies, and then the precepts of those religions eventually developed into codes of laws.