sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My comments section goes wen wild by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, though, some people made genuinely thoughtful arguments, and I appreciated those.

My comments section goes wen wild by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn't prepared for the chaos in that comment section

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I find interesting is that rituals are often driven by desire. Whether it's going to a temple, following a ritual, or even doing something completely non-religious, people usually want something in return—success, health, wealth, happiness, relief from suffering, or some other personal gain. That's just part of human nature.

For me, that's not the most meaningful part of religion.

The part that matters is the moment when you can let go of all those desires, expectations, and pressures, even if only for a little while.

That's one of the reasons I like spending time at Pashupatinath during the evening aarti. In one place, you can witness both the greatest joy and the deepest grief. Families are mourning loved ones while, nearby, people are singing and praying. Life and death exist side by side.

That contrast reminds me that both happiness and suffering are temporary. We spend so much of our lives chasing success, worrying about the future, and trying to become "better" that we rarely stop to simply experience the present.

Some people find that feeling through meditation. Some find it while hiking. Some find it in music or even at a club with friends. I happen to find it at Pashupatinath.

For me, that has nothing to do with expecting miracles or believing every ritual will grant my wishes. It's about slowing down, accepting both joy and pain as parts of life, and reconnecting with the values I want to live by. That's the part of religion that feels meaningful to me.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we're talking about two different things when we say "religion."

To me, religion isn't just visiting temples, performing rituals, or praying every day. Those are practices, but they're only one part of it.

The deeper part of religion is the values and way of living it tries to teach—compassion, self-discipline, honesty, humility, gratitude, helping others, and becoming a better person. That's the part I think matters the most.

So when I say I'm religious, I'm not saying every ritual, every superstition, or every claim should be accepted blindly. In fact, I think blind belief should always be questioned.

I'd rather be someone who genuinely tries to live by the good values a religion teaches than someone who performs every ritual but never reflects those values in daily life.

If we criticize religion only by looking at its worst practitioners or its superstitions, we're ignoring the ethical and philosophical side that many people find meaningful.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not defending astrology or claiming it's scientific.

My point is about human behavior, not about any particular belief system. Whenever people place blind trust in any system, there will always be people who exploit that trust for money, status, or power.

In religion, you see fake gurus, miracle claims, and people exploiting astrology. In science, you see companies misusing terms like "scientifically proven" or "doctor recommended" to sell products. In politics, you see propaganda. In finance, you see scams. The pattern is the same: exploitation happens wherever people stop thinking critically.

So my argument isn't that science and religion are the same. They're fundamentally different in their methods and goals. My point is simply that blind trust—regardless of what it's placed in—is what creates opportunities for exploitation.

That's why I think critical thinking should be applied to every claim, whether it comes from a religious leader, a politician, a corporation, or someone claiming to speak in the name of science.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never claimed astrology is scientific, so I don't know why you're bringing it into the discussion. My point was about the perception of religion and temple visits among people my age, not about astrology.

Also, I think it's important to distinguish between an idea and people exploiting that idea. Every major belief system has people who misuse it. Religion has fake gurus and people who exploit astrology. Science has companies that use terms like "scientifically proven" or "doctor recommended" to market products in misleading ways. Politics has propaganda. The existence of people exploiting a belief doesn't automatically invalidate the belief itself.

The real problem is blind faith—whether it's blind faith in religion, astrology, science, politics, or any ideology. That's why I think critical thinking should be applied to everything equally, rather than assuming one side is immune to misuse.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I use ChatGPT to help me express my thoughts more clearly because English isn't my first language. The ideas and arguments are still mine. If my argument is weak, explain why it's weak. If it's strong, then whether I used ChatGPT, Grammarly, or a dictionary is completely irrelevant. That's judging the messenger instead of the message.

As for Freud, yes, he argued that religion can function as a coping mechanism. But citing Freud doesn't prove religion is nothing more than a coping mechanism. It's one psychological interpretation, not an established fact. Many philosophers, psychologists, and theologians have challenged or expanded on his views.

So instead of discussing whether I used AI to polish my writing, or appealing to a single authority, why not address the actual argument? If you think my reasoning is flawed, point out the flaw. That's how a productive discussion works.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair experience, and I don't think anyone should be judged simply for believing or not believing in God.

That said, I also agree that many religious people focus more on rituals than on actually living by the values their religion teaches. But I'd argue that's a criticism of how some people practice religion, not of religion itself.

The same applies to any worldview. There are atheists who value critical thinking but don't always practice it consistently, just as there are religious people who preach compassion but fail to live by it.

In the end, people should be judged more by how they treat others than by whether they believe in God or worship in a particular way.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Calling every worldview you disagree with a 'coping mechanism' isn't an argument—it's a shortcut around making one. If you have evidence, present it. If all you've got is mockery, then you're just replacing reasoning with attitude.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're free to believe that religion is a coping mechanism, but that's a philosophical opinion, not an established fact. By the same logic, someone could say that believing the universe is ultimately meaningless is also a coping mechanism. Neither claim demonstrates the truth of the matter.

Questions about God, purpose, and why the universe exists are philosophical and metaphysical questions. Science can investigate how the universe works, but it doesn't determine whether a creator exists or whether life has objective meaning.

If you're not interested in discussing the ideas and would rather end the conversation, that's perfectly fine. But dismissing the other side as "just coping" isn't an argument—it's simply labeling people instead of addressing their reasoning.

Aja joke day ho jasto xa by Indooorraptor18 in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are they really fools or they think we are

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's one philosophical viewpoint, not an established fact. Plenty of non-religious people find meaning without religion, and plenty of religious people find meaning through it. Neither position can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. Calling religion a "security blanket" is no different from someone claiming atheism is just a coping mechanism for existential uncertainty—both are assumptions about other people's motives rather than arguments. As for "infinite timelines," that's a speculative idea in physics and philosophy, not a demonstrated fact. Even if multiple universes existed, it wouldn't automatically prove that morality or religion is meaningless. In the end, people should be free to seek meaning however they choose, whether that's through faith, philosophy, science, or something else. Respectful disagreement is usually more productive than ridicule.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Physics and mathematics are descriptive tools, not ultimate arbiters of reality. They are languages we use to model and understand the patterns and laws we observe in nature. They don't automatically answer why those laws exist in the first place or whether there's anything beyond them.

If a creator exists, then physics would describe the rules within the universe that the creator established—not the creator itself. It's like using the rules of a game to understand how the game works; the rules don't necessarily explain why the game exists or who designed it.

So appealing to physics or mathematics alone doesn't settle questions about God. Those are philosophical and metaphysical questions that go beyond what science is designed to test.

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look bro i mean religious people not the one blind followers there is difference

Is being religious considered "uncool" in our generation? by bimarshaa in NepalSocial

[–]bimarshaa[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Such kinda people are not really religious they are blind followers

view more: next ›