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.
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.
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. 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody needs religion.
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.
But other things can and do too, so religion isn’t necessary. That’s the point.
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.
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. 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
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 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”.
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.
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”.
Given its vast popularity, I expect that some would argue otherwise.
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.
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.
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.