[partyficial]

> I personally don't find religion necessary to live an ethical and fulfilling life

"I personally don't find science necessary to live a modern and fulfilling life"

(I say, as I type using a computer on the internet)

People love to remove attribution when it suits their short-sighted view.

Just as you can attribute something I enjoy today to science, I can attribute something you enjoy today to religion.

[BobaFloutist]

That's true, you don't need to be a practitioner of science to live a modern and fulfilling life.

Are you trying to argue that some things I consider valuable were first developed within religion (which I won't argue with, though I think there's more to dig into there than might be immediately obvious), or that I need to personally practice religion to live an ethical and fulfilling life, and I just don't realize it?

Because, if it's the latter, you're again refusing to consider the possibility that I don't need religion. And again, my argument isn't even that that isn't true, though I fervently believe that, it's that telling me that I'm wrong and I need religion even if I don't think I do is a terrible way to convince me that we can find common ground.

[partyficial]

the contradiction is with the words - ethical:religion ~ modern:science.

ethics comes from religion. modernity comes from science.

if you say - "I don't need religion to tell me not to kill people"

then i say - "ok. so, why don't you go around killing people?"

you say - "i just don't have the desire to". or "i am compassionate"

i say - "ok. you do you. what about me? I wish to kill people. what's stopping me?"

you say - "consequences. police. law & order"

i say - "so if there was no police in a suburb, or no punishment for killing, I can kill people?"

Your argument falls dead.

Because religion tells us one thing - the law of Karma - there is no place or time in the universe where an action does not have a consequence. Regardless of your belief in God or the soul or spirit or afterlife or past lives.

Almost sounds like newton drew inspiration from the old golden rule - Treat others as you'd like to be treated.

Why? Because every action has an equal and opposite reaction - you WILL be treated exactly as you treated others, whether in this life or the next. Ergo, if you don't want to be killed, don't kill. if you want to be killed, go ahead.

[wizzwizz4]

And I can attribute something you enjoy today to a butterfly, flapping its wings on the shore of the Atlantic, seventeen years ago. People love to take a selective view of complex systems (for example, by picking only some nodes in the web of causality to call "attribution"), using biases like "relevance" and "significance" and "a non-omniscient positionality", and many especially love to call other views "ignorant" or "short-sighted".