• Saik0A
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month 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
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • Saik0A
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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.