• infinite_ass@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    It serves a need. Get rid of the need and you’ll get rid of the religious bullshit. But if you get rid of the religious bullshit without getting rid of the need, some other kind of bullshit will crop up.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Religion isn’t the need. Social interaction and the feeling of belonging and belief are the needs. Religion can and does fill that for many.

        And before you attack me, I’m atheist.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Nobody said it was. Just that it does meet some needs.

            Until you somehow convince those who have those needs that religion isn’t the correct way to meet those needs, you’re not going to get anywhere screaming that religion isn’t necessary. Those people firmly believe it is as it meets those needs for them and don’t have something else to do so.

            • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Nobody said it was.

              Well that’s just not true, but ignoring that…

              I didn’t scream anything, neither did the OP that started this. They stated it calmly and plainly. Obviously religion serves a function in society, but so does slavery. I’m not trying to convince anyone to give up their long-held beliefs, I’m simply defending my interpretation of reality as objectively as I can. Just like coffee, alcohol, and black market sex rings, no one needs religion. The only reason I could think of that you would want to argue against that position is if you believed it wasn’t true. But it is. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                Well that’s just not true, but ignoring that…

                No. Let’s not ignore that. If you’re going to call someone a liar, own up to it. The comment that spawned this chain says verbatim

                It serves a need.

                It being “religion” and “a need” would imply another, different “need”. Otherwise it would have been simpler and more direct to say something like “Religion is a need”.

                I didn’t scream anything

                Coming back and repeating the same shit that I just addressed from the previous comment … Constant repetition is literally someone shoving fingers in their ears and scream “LALALALALALA”. You even did it again in this post by stating “no one needs religion” when I already addressed that and even agreed with that sentiment, but wanted to specifically caveat why religion would count for “It serves a need”.

                Nobody said that anyone “needs” religion. Quite the contrary. The statement is “religion fills needs” to put it another way. I even clarified and made it clear that if you can find something else that fills the needs for those people that you could likely replace religion. But for some reason you keep trucking forward with your comments acting like someone said something they didn’t.

                The only reason I could think of that you would want to argue against that position is if you believed it wasn’t true.

                What the fuck logic is this? So I must believe that Religion is a need then? I’m atheist. I stated that outright from the beginning in my first post on this thread. Fuck “God”, “Yahweh”, “Mohammed”, or any other god that you or anyone else believes in, they’re all fake. I clearly don’t believe that religion is a “need”.

                • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  “It serves a need”

                  I clearly don’t believe that religion is a “need”

                  Now I don’t trust your definition of “need” or of “clearly”. What other words do you define in diametric opposition to their intended meaning?

                  People need oxygen, breathing serves that need. People need various organic compounds for energy, eating serves that need. People want to not be afraid of the void, religion serves that want. No one needs religion and it doesn’t “serve” a need, just a desire…🤷‍♂️ I’m sorry me simply restating my point triggers you so badly, just keep in mind that you’re not going to get anywhere screaming that religion serves needs.

                  • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 hour ago

                    Serves a need. As in meets some other need. Which I’ve already addressed. Further I even addressed what SPECIFIC needs that it could possible be serving.

                    Religion isn’t the need. Social interaction and the feeling of belonging and belief are the needs. Religion can and does fill that for many.

                    Social interaction: https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/we-are-hard-wired-to-be-social-248746
                    Feeling of belonging: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/is-having-a-sense-of-belonging-important

                    I’m done with you. You’re either purposefully obtuse, or a troll. It’s people like you who ruin actual discussion with people who could actually be educated and turned away from the fictitious man in the sky. You make up shit to address that nobody said. You ignore EVERYTHING other people post just to post your own drivel. It’s fucking useless and pointless. 3 seconds of googling could have saved yourself from looking like a fool.

                    Edit: you even go out of your way to somehow “break” the definition of clearly when in the previous fucking sentence I literally commit what amounts to the ultimate sin in nearly every abrahamic religion all while implying I somehow care about those religions. You’re special, and not in the good way.

        • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Painting baby toys with lead was pretty popular for awhile, so was filling your house with asbestos. Don’t confuse popularity with necessity, you might get cancer.

          • infinite_ass@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            The lead paint and the asbestos both served a need. For colored toys and insulation, specifically. And then we found a better way to serve that need. It isn’t a dumb need.

            Don’t assume that everybody who sees things differently is an idiot.

            • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              17 hours ago

              I didn’t call anyone an idiot, I just made the point that something being popular in society doesn’t even make it good for society, much less necessary. Just look at fentanyl, or network primetime television.