• flamboyantkoala@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Having a reason to live, a reason to do the right thing is a good thing. Religion done right accepts that the world is tough, they accept each other for their mistakes, teach one another how to get through life without anger and they forgive. It’s something very hard to get in day to day America. Until someone comes up with a better way to do this religion will still have a place.

    But ultimately belief in a God isn’t deluded, intelligent design is still a real possibility.

      • flamboyantkoala@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        No such thing. Any ideology based and unprovable and unverified claims is a mistake by definition.

        Given that religion is the root of past major civilizations which we are built on I’d say we wouldn’t have science without it. Hardly a mistake in my opinion. We might still be beating each other in the head with rocks without religion.

        You’re mistaken on both counts, I’m afraid. Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html and subsequent pages.

        This doesn’t disprove intelligent design. People still argue we are a simulation within science. That’s a form of intelligent design. As is sending a spacecraft that terraforms the beginning of the world and steers throughout history. There are plenty of ways in which a god could have formed us.

        • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago
          No such thing. Any ideology based and unprovable and unverified claims is a mistake by definition.
          

          Given that religion is the root of past major civilizations which we are built on I’d say we wouldn’t have science without it.

          We wouldn’t have science without oxygen either, and that doesn’t mean that science owes its existence to oxygen. The post-hoc fallacy runs rampant in your assertion.

          Hardly a mistake in my opinion.

          Is religion based in unverified and unverified claims? Yes. That’s by definition a mistake. I don’t care about how useful or convenient it is or it was in the past; I only care about whether is true or not, and if we’re justified in accepting it based on that. Accepting untruths for convenience is always a mistake.

          We might still be beating each other in the head with rocks without religion.

          That nonsense would be hilarious if it wasn’t tragic.