Endless argumentation is a primary cause of religion. 
“No, it isn’t”
“Yes, it is.”
No, it ISN’T"
YES, it IS!"
.
.
.
Then tell me how Heraclitus’ river or Theseus’ ship are topics that further a discussion about natural religion.
If there is no permanence then there is no basis for natural religion (or much of anything else). Language requires that words have meaning for more than a few seconds. A river is a river as long a quantity of water flows - perhaps tens of thousands of years. Theseus’ ship is his ship as long as the structure is maintained - perhaps hundreds of years.
The word “Ah-dam” means “the damming up of the loose spirit”. Endless argumentation is a type of “loose spirit”, unrestrained, undisciplined, anti-progressive.
All joy is founded in the sensation of progress toward an inner held hope. When there is nothing but chaotic, endless conflict, there is very little, if any, perception of progress or of hope and thus minimum joy.
Ahdam was created, not by conflict, but by agreement - saving from the conflict, Yeshua. When he said that he was there in the beginning, he wasn’t lying.
But to establish the agreeing that saves from the chaos (aka “Shiva”), life must realize the need for agreement. And that is most instinctively accomplished through the experience and perception of the threat of disagreement, conflict, chaos, shiva, the Devil. The perception of threat leads to the pursuit of hope. The very deeply established pursuit of hope, is what forms religion (the maintaining/binding of the gathering/legion/union).
“To stop all of this endless bickering, let’s all agree upon …”
It’s a natural response in defense of a natural occurrence in human interaction.
Related enough? 
Perhaps seeking an end to the “endless” disputes would be like asking for an end of all change, when some change may be beneficial to one or all. A naturalistic religion would probably include all changes noted in scientific prognostications about future events. It could not die with dogma, which is the ailment of current world religions. It would accept change as human growth and development within the ecosystems that continue to sustain us. In short it would be concerned with eugenics and ecosystems.
When is ‘change’ growth and development, and when is it counterproductive or gratuitous?
Ok look. James wins, cause, when you zoom onto a River at the molecular level, it is no longer Identified as a river. It is just a bunch of spheres.
So at the Zoom level of a river being a river, The river maintains a consistent identity within it’s word paramaters.
Zooming in the River Nile, to where you only see spheres, it is no longer the River nile.
James wins, Prismatic loses.
Doesn’t science daily deal with such distinctions?
No. Science only say that something happens a certain way. It doesn’t say if it is good or bad. Which is why you can kill millions of people with the science of a nuclear fission or you can heat and light their homes and keep them alive.
Science does not say if a country should change from a monarchy, to a republic, to a dictatorship.
A natural religion would ask of science that it relinquish its amoral stance about the consequences of events science causes. It could no longer pretend to be the innocent bystander or the toddler in a room with a loaded gun.
Should no scientists have a conscience?
But how can it do that if morality cannot be measured? Science depends on measurement of quantities.
I’d say morality can be measured. It can be the measure of well-being given to living beings.
Meditation
Utilitarianism
Morally Defensible Capitalism
The Protection Of Free Speech
An Equality With Other Species
The Concept Of Personal Responsibility
Altruism [ Both Reciprocal And Non Reciprocal ]
The Promotion Of Collectivism Over Individualism
Space Exploration With Regard To Finding A Second Earth
You are absolutely right and very perceptive too as not everyone would actually get this so well done you
Morality cannot be measured by science and it is wrong to think that it can
In what way wrong? J. Huxley believed that the scientific method for addressing claims about physical realities could be used to justify religious claims.
I just read part of this thread, so apologies…
Yes, everything changes, identity doesn’t hold… right? Well if everything changes, “everything changes” is an identity…
There are tenured professors all around the world who study a branch of philosophy called “continuity” it may be continuity of consciousness or some other continuity.
Continuity is a fact of life.
Religious claims extend beyond the physical into the realm of the metaphysical so cannot be investigated by the scientific method
Huxley disagrees. He proposes religion that denies the supernatural. As for the metaphysical, science goes there in projections of what the physical could become or even might be. When it comes to physical reality, science provides our best guess yet.
all the huxleys have worked for the ‘brave new world’ or the planetary depopulation agenda. There is only one immutable Law/Code, and which is that holding the cosmos together, and which is called Electricity.