4 ms·

> Now I'm in my 40's I do wonder if the lack of religion in society is leading us to a bad place I'm an atheist and have considered the same quite a bit. I won

> Now I'm in my 40's I do wonder if the lack of religion in society is leading us to a bad place I'm an atheist and have considered the same quite a bit. I wonder if some people need something to believe and direction and religion helps fence these people into society friendly pockets. I wonder today if what I would consider is that overly woke pocket (which I respect is very relative to personal views) and generally more extreme politics on all sides need something to believe in a fight for and religion when done well is a brilliant force for good in society this way to coral that energy to good places. ...but at the same time religion can be horribly controlling and toxic. And when religion finds absolute power it tends to go badly so I think the trade off between too much and too little, we are better going towards too little. Maybe somehow we need to look at the good parts of religion and work that into a non-religious society. Even little things like I'd love to see shops closed on Sunday again and return this as more simple downtime for family, friends and self. Also realise we dont need to spend money every day.

ur-whale 6y ago
> I wonder if some people need something to believe I totally understand your point (and agree with the stated goal of a non-religious society with the "good bits" of religion baked in), but, the "some" in your sentence above ... there be really scary dragons. Here's what I mean: would you say that "some" people deserve the right to vote while others don't? The argument that "some" people need religion has the implication that they're too dumb to figure out a path for themselves without the help of a guiding book. And that because of their limitations, the only way for them to "stick to the book" is to shrink-wrap the message into a fairy tale. In other words, that'd be a world where one part of the population (those who don't "need" religion) brainwashes and manipulates the other part into "doing the right thing" (whatever "right" actually is). You can see why this line of reasoning is a very slippery slope.
- Gustomaximus 6y ago
  I dont see the slippery slope. You're way over reading into 'some'. Some simply means, some people need to believe in something, and others dont. You cant thing this is an all or nothing position? And the leap to conclusion with: "implication that they're too dumb to figure out a path for themselves". I've not said or implied that anywhere, nor do I see that is a obvious implication. Taking this step is creating offence where there was none. And then concluding this could mean these people need to be brainwashed to believe the preferred format. That's a leap on a leap that had nothing to do with what I said, and pulling a worst case scenario into some semblance of the conclusion to focus on. And not trying to have a go at you, but I do this you've over read on a work and made fallacious leaps in logic flow to a worse case. We can do that with any scenario. I cant see why it has any significant reason to be the focus point based on the previous comment, so I dont see why this is slippery slope as maybe it could happen but there is no direction from previous to align those events. But that's me, and some people will agree, and some wont :)

ur-whale 6y ago

> I wonder if some people need something to believe I totally understand your point (and agree with the stated goal of a non-religious society with the "good bits" of religion baked in), but, the "some" in your sentence above ... there be really scary dragons. Here's what I mean: would you say that "some" people deserve the right to vote while others don't? The argument that "some" people need religion has the implication that they're too dumb to figure out a path for themselves without the help of a guiding book. And that because of their limitations, the only way for them to "stick to the book" is to shrink-wrap the message into a fairy tale. In other words, that'd be a world where one part of the population (those who don't "need" religion) brainwashes and manipulates the other part into "doing the right thing" (whatever "right" actually is). You can see why this line of reasoning is a very slippery slope.

Gustomaximus 6y ago
I dont see the slippery slope. You're way over reading into 'some'. Some simply means, some people need to believe in something, and others dont. You cant thing this is an all or nothing position? And the leap to conclusion with: "implication that they're too dumb to figure out a path for themselves". I've not said or implied that anywhere, nor do I see that is a obvious implication. Taking this step is creating offence where there was none. And then concluding this could mean these people need to be brainwashed to believe the preferred format. That's a leap on a leap that had nothing to do with what I said, and pulling a worst case scenario into some semblance of the conclusion to focus on. And not trying to have a go at you, but I do this you've over read on a work and made fallacious leaps in logic flow to a worse case. We can do that with any scenario. I cant see why it has any significant reason to be the focus point based on the previous comment, so I dont see why this is slippery slope as maybe it could happen but there is no direction from previous to align those events. But that's me, and some people will agree, and some wont :)