There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

America's nonreligious are a growing, diverse phenomenon. They really don't like organized religion

Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled.

Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades.

“Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.

ohlaph ,

I don’t mind organized religion. What I do hate is that religion pushing their beliefs onto everyone they meet, pushing their religion beliefs throughout school systems, etc. If religious can keep to themselves, I see it like yoga or CrossFit.

Sir_Simon_Spamalot ,

Clearly, you haven’t met crossfitters

jose1324 ,

Clearly you don’t own an airfryer

Kernal64 ,

Or an instapot!

elucubra ,

Or an ARCH user.

Sir_Simon_Spamalot ,

No, but my wife wants us to :(

jose1324 ,

Don’t give in. Just get a good oven for everything and it’s the same

new_acct_who_dis ,

Or a bidet

Hadriscus ,

Obviously you’re not a golfer

cmhe ,

IDK about equalizing religion and yoga. At minimum, the yoga exercises seem pretty useful for getting a flexible and healthy body, and (judeo-christian) religous ceremonies are mostly just a reason for people to get together, which many other activities can do as well.

The positives that people get from religion are mostly about the feeling of being part of a community, with their own lore, rules, codex and ceremonies. Just like DnD groups, with the major difference that some members actually belief all of that stuff, which is spooky and dangerous, because that opens these people to all sorts of other crazy ideas.

TheCee ,
@TheCee@programming.dev avatar

If religious can keep to themselves

Since religions compete, that doesn’t sound feasible.

Senuf ,

Although all religions are useless and shouldn’t have any privilege, only to be practiced in their own spaces, I am aware that not all religions compete in a proselytistic way. I understand that, for example, Judaism doesn’t proselytise and that “converting” to Judaism is even a long and difficult process, which makes me think it is like discouraging conversion, in some way, by making it so uphill.

TheCee ,
@TheCee@programming.dev avatar

Pretty sure you can be born into judaism, though. Chances are, it is even the default scenario with even semi-religious parents.

That’s not “keeping to yourself” to me. That’s like passing the cigarettes to your kids.

Senuf ,

Yeah, I agree, to a certain point. Most Jewish people I know, though, aren’t religious at all but for following certain traditions that don’t even include eating kosher food. Of course that doesn’t include orthodox Jews, but I don’t know any.

As for the training of it (“That’s not “keeping to yourself” to me. That’s like passing the cigarettes to your kids” and the “default scenario”), well, it’s the default upbringing in every family. Besides exceptions, conservative parents will raise conservative kids because that’s their growing environment, the same with more liberal ones, etc. That’s not proselytising, it’s a while different thing

TheCee ,
@TheCee@programming.dev avatar

That’s not proselytising, it’s a while different thing

I don’t see your point. How is brainwashing children ok when wololo-ing people is not? Even from an egocentric perspective, you have to live in a society.

Senuf , (edited )

I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall. Would you mind pointing at the part where I said so it or even implied so?

What I said is that that isn’t proselytising. It’s a different concept to raise your kids in a certain way and to go to others who already have a different faith (or none) and try to convince them to convert.

Of course, I know that everyone is born without any religion and by that account the limit is blurred, yet to raise a kid into one’s own faith and/or traditions is not the same as proselytising.

As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.

Edit: word

TheCee ,
@TheCee@programming.dev avatar

I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall.

Fair enough, you didn’t. I apologize. I lost track of the chain of posters and mixed you up with the first poster who didn’t seem to recognize the dangers of passing belief to children.

As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.

That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn’t seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.

Senuf ,

Apologies accepted, of course.

That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn’t seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.

On one hand, I agree. Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive. I mean, ultraorthodix Jews are as fanatical as your fellow Taliban or the right-wing Christians.

Thanks for this exchange of opinions.

TheCee ,
@TheCee@programming.dev avatar

Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive.

Yes, that’s what I’m counting on, since I assume that ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution. Unfortunately, the most whackiest, edgiest religions seem to be the most fit. Therefore my answer to the top level post.

Senuf ,

I agree.

And your phrasing (italics are mine)

ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution.

was quite interesting. Was it an intended pun? It made me laugh.

TheCee ,
@TheCee@programming.dev avatar

Was it an intended pun?

Unfortunately, no.

CADmonkey ,

A crossfit trainer, an ex-marine, and a born-again christian all walk into a bar.

We know that, because they won’t stop telling everyone.

zalgotext ,

I’m surprised this comment has lasted 6 hours without anyone saying “there’s no such thing as an ex-marine”

Hadriscus ,

why ?

Syringe ,

Because SEMPER FI !!! OOORAH!!

CADmonkey ,

I, too, am disappointed by the lack of offended ex-marine comments.

stolid_agnostic ,

Unfortunately you can’t have religion without people trying to evangelize. It’s part of the problem.

sanpedropeddler ,

But… you can. It already exists

MetalJewSolid ,

its like they dont realize that christianity isn’t the only religion in the world

cogman ,

Yeah, sort of funny. A good number of religions are hard to convert to (or don’t take converts). Partially because religion in human history has been a tool for a community to distinguish why they are better than outsiders. A lot of older religions died from this exclusivity.

Hadriscus ,

That’s not correct. Where I live, religion is intertwined with daily life and yet nobody ever tried to talk me into anything

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

There’s a world of difference between “you should join my religion, we don’t eat fish” and “my religion says you can’t eat fish.”

nBodyProblem ,

Agreed

Atheism and science are also a type of religious belief. Ultimately, as long as someone isn’t hurting anyone else or trying to force their beliefs on others, I don’t care what they believe.

HikingVet ,

Could you expand your thoughts on this?

I’m always curious when this is said as to what is meant when Atheism and science are called religious.

Soggy ,

“ThEy AlL rEqUiRe FaItH”

It’s a gross misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation.

HikingVet ,

Yeah, that’s the standard line they give.

I find it’s usually intentional misrepresentation.

nBodyProblem ,

Sure. To be clear, I’m an engineer and an atheist so I don’t mean it to attack either Athiesm or science by any means.

To start with, we cannot get true knowledge of the world outside ourselves by sensory perception alone. Rather, the way we interpret our sensory inputs is by applying it to some metaphysical framework of how we believe the outside world works.

As a small example, Descartes famously brought up analogy of a melting candle. A totally naive person being born into existence would see melted wax and hardened wax as two different substances. Sensory perception alone would lie to this person. Only by interpreting it through this metaphysical framework do we come to the conclusion that melted wax and hardened wax are the same thing at different temperatures.

This extends to deeper concepts that we can’t directly explain by our experience alone. At some point we stop using our own direct experience and expand our metaphysical framework using something else.

The thing that springs from that “something else” is religion, and in many instances it doesn’t necessarily encompass a concept of divinity or worship. In abrahamic religions it is the Judeo-Christian god. In Daoism it’s the belief in the Dao, an unexplainable force tied to the events of the natural world. In science it’s belief in the scientific method’s ability to produce objective truth with sufficient cooperation and experimentation. They’re all models of the outside world that stem from something beyond a single individuals sensory perception.

lingh0e ,

Spiritual faith and faith in the scientific method are not the same.

Scientific knowledge is SUPPOSED to be challenged and changed as we gain new information. Religious faith is expected to be accepted without question and regardless of information.

nBodyProblem ,

Spiritual faith and faith in the scientific method are not the same.

They’re both belief systems pertaining to knowledge of the universe beyond your immediate perception

Scientific knowledge is SUPPOSED to be challenged and changed as we gain new information.

Of course. However, the central tenet of science doesn’t rely on scientific knowledge but the scientific method itself and it’s assumed power to find objective truth. Any questions about the viability of the scientific method to find objective truth tend to be aggressively rejected.

Religious faith is expected to be accepted without question and regardless of information.

This isn’t necessarily true. There are some religions that have no authoritative text, central authority, or official dogma; they encourage new perspectives in the nature of the universe. Daoism is one.

Hadriscus ,

lmao

HawlSera ,

Atheism? Sure some New Atheist branches practice it like a faith

Science? It’s a tool for measuring things… it is about as much of a religion as a ruler

nBodyProblem ,

Science? It’s a tool for measuring things… it is about as much of a religion as a ruler

It’s not, it’s a system that seeks to understand our world at a deeper level and predict future events.

It’s funny you mention that, though, because it brings up one of the difficulties in science. Measurements we base our scientific theories on rely on instruments, most of which themselves rely on other theories for reliable operation and interpretation of data.

One philosopher of science famously brought up the analogy of a surveyor who doesn’t understand magnetism. He attempts to use a compass as a surveying tool near some hidden source of magnetic field. Without understanding of the underlying principles of magnetism and local magnetic field, he would assume the compass unfailingly points north and the resulting measurements of the local geography would be wrong. Those flawed measurements might then be used by geologists, leading to the development of theories supported by flawed data.

There is always a degree of uncertainty in the instruments we use to develop and test our hypotheses because there is no such thing as certain knowledge in science. However, at some point we simply put faith in the scientific method and presume that our underlying theories are sufficiently accurate for our purposes and proceed accordingly.

lingh0e ,

Your surveyor story sounds like something a christian apologist would say, or someone who doesn’t know the difference between science and religion.

Even stone age people knew the difference between East and West. If a surveyor incorrectly used a compass his work could still be verified by looking at a goddamn sunrise. If the surveyor ignored the conflicting data and, as you say “put his faith in his instruments”, it ceases to be the scientific method and becomes dogmatic fanaticism.

nBodyProblem ,

Do you not understand what a thought experiment is? It’s an exaggerated example to better illustrate a concept, in this case the concept that reliable calibration and use of instruments is itself based on some underlying theory of operation.

Even stone age people knew the difference between East and West. If a surveyor incorrectly used a compass his work could still be verified by looking at a goddamn sunrise. If the surveyor ignored the conflicting data and, as you say “put his faith in his instruments”, it ceases to be the scientific method and becomes dogmatic fanaticism.

If it helps you understand the concept, imagine that the source of error is very weak, only disturbing the compass by a few degrees at any given location.

HawlSera ,

Doubt

Soggy ,

I mind the normalization of magical thinking. It’s the same reason I bristle at astrology and tarot and luck charms.

kicksystem ,

And that has a whole bunch of negative consequences, because these people won’t listen to reason if it inconveniences them

thelastknowngod ,

I used to have that really common thought of “I don’t care what you believe in. Just don’t try to push your opinion on me.”

No. It’s bullshit.

The very existence of religion is a psychological drain on society. We are all worse off the longer it stays around. There is no such thing as a good religious person and anyone who says they are religious I immediately distrust.

Chunk ,

I don’t immediately distrust religious people but I do kind of roll my eyes and smirk a little bit on the inside.

Octavio ,

If I’m lucky I can manage to keep the eyeroll and smirk on the inside. I’m kind of inelegant with social graces though.

applebusch ,

Yeah. It’s at the root of a lot of the problems with conservatives in the US. Religion trains people in believing because they were told to believe, and holding to these beliefs in the face of all suffering and hardship. It’s a gateway drug to conspiracy theories and paranoid delusions.

Honytawk ,

Gateway drug to conspiracy theories?

Religion IS a conspiracy theory

Enkrod ,
@Enkrod@feddit.de avatar

There is no such thing as a good religious person

That’s a bridge too far for me.

Yes, faith is in and off itself detrimental to our society. Religiosity is a strong detrimental force, a mind-virus, a meme that damages the ability to clearly perceive reality.

But just like people who are infected with an infectious virus aren’t bad, not all religious people are automatically bad people. I don’t think they are good because they are religious, but that doesn’t mean they are not good or not religious. So let us not fall into the same absolutist thoughts as the fervent deniers of secular goodness.

thelastknowngod ,

The good ones enable the shitty ones.

Case ,

Agreed.

I have met good people who are Christian. They usually don’t cowl all their behavior behind god.

There you’re friends dad, who barely knows you, who helps you get your car running so his kid and friends can make it to a metal show. He didn’t like metal, but he kept it to himself other than saying it wasn’t his genre, which is a fair statement.

Why did he devote an afternoon and a couple trips to auto zone? Because all in all we were good kids. He wanted us to have fun, but to arrive (and ultimately) come home safe.

stolid_agnostic ,

The comment you are responding to is reactionary in nature and surely the result of a great deal of pain and trauma at the hands of the sort of people they are referring to. In this case, I think it is ok to let someone express their emotions and assume that they don’t really mean for it to be a universal statement.

killeronthecorner ,
@killeronthecorner@lemmy.world avatar

Why would you assume they don’t mean it to be universally applied?

The biggest religions in the world harbor the largest rings of pedophiles, bigots and oppressors of women and children that exist.

There are surely religious people that consider themselves good and act in a moral way, but their support of organizations that allow and defend such abhorrent values and behavior defies that.

As someone put further down “the good ones enable the bad ones”. So while you or I might not take the same stance in our own lives, I can absolutely understand why someone might not want anything to do with religion or religious people.

stolid_agnostic ,

I’m trying to be charitable to the person who started this part of the thread. There are most definitely perfectly good religious people out there though they are involved with toxic organizations.

killeronthecorner ,
@killeronthecorner@lemmy.world avatar

Is being involved with a toxic organization not toxic? Or are you saying these people are victims of their religion?

stolid_agnostic ,

IRT the first part, I think so. Even if you’re a genuinely kind person, if you support an organization that practices cruelty, you are supporting cruelty.

IRT the second part, I wasn’t saying that, but would agree with that statement–people are often a victim of their cultures.

ThePenitentOne ,

Religious people push their beliefs on people all the time, that's what it is made to do so people can concentrate power. If a religious person has kids, you can guess how they are going to think. The whole idea is just complete bullshit and so stupid that anybody with a capacity to think critically knows it is false. Only people incapable of self reflection or thinking actually believe it.

MonkRome ,

There is no such thing as a good religious person

I’ve known extremely religious people that were very kind to everyone around them, only focused on doing good in the world, and never pushed their beliefs on anyone else. “Good” and “evil” are very reductive and simplistic terms. Good people can have beliefs that are not good for society and they are not completely defined by that. If we go to that absolute then there isn’t a good person that exists. Pretty much everyone harbors beliefs, irrespective of religion, that when examined may be detrimental to society, they just don’t know their own blind spots.

cogman ,

Well said. Though I will say that we need to stop giving religions passes for bigotry.

Churches in the US get huge tax breaks, can set up explicitly racist schools, or they can operate worse than the worst MLM. Some of the followers are somewhat to blame, but really it’s the organizations as a whole that need to be revisited.

Why should my tax dollars subsidize a church building where the pastor tells their congregation that people like me are an evil that should be purged from society? Why should they subsidize a pastor that has a private jet? Or a church that actively protects child abusers and/or wife beaters?

And frankly, it’s only certain religions that receive these sort of benefits. Any sort of native religion or niche religion won’t get half the benefits we give to multimillion dollar religions.

thelastknowngod ,

I’ve known extremely religious people that were very kind to everyone around them, only focused on doing good in the world

Being religious is not a requirement for doing good in the world. If the religion did not exist these extremely religious people you know could continue to do good in the world while not simultaneously supporting organizations that enable corruption, abuse, dishonesty, violence, oppression, etc, etc…

If anyone is still believing in these hokey stories or exploitative organizations they are either willfully ignorant to the world around them, gullible rubes who are victims of a centuries old scam, or actively benefitting from that exploitation.

I stand by my statements. Religion is a virus. It’s a net negative in the world that stands in the way of all human progress.

MonkRome ,

I was responding to you saying “there’s no such thing as a good religious person”. I don’t really disagree with the rest of your perspective, yet your arguing as if you assume I do. I think it’s reductive and crass to judge someone on a single data point. That was my primary point.

stolid_agnostic ,

As a gay person, I have a saying that is similar: “When I meet someone who says they are conservative, I know that I have just met someone who wants me to suffer.”

sanpedropeddler ,

What is it you hate so much about religion? I could see disliking specific religious practices, but what problem does every religion share that makes you immediately distrust all religious people?

Rivalarrival ,

The conflation of personal belief with objective reality.

When someone tells me they are religious, they are saying the voices in their heads are more important than the voices in their ears. They are saying the vision in their mind’s eye is more important than the vision in their eyeballs.

When a schizophrenic tells us they are going to listen to the voices in their head, we should be worried. We should be worried even if their voices are currently telling them to be an upstanding member of society, because we don’t know what those voices will be saying tomorrow.

kicksystem ,

I couldnt agree more. I have totally underestimated how nutty religious people truly are. I used to think Christians are good neighbours and boring law abiding citizens, but when push comes to shove and you really need them it turns out that they are just nutcases who are very adept at playing the good neighbour role. At least that has been my experience. I just can’t trust adults who believe in fairy tales anymore.

dlrht ,

I totally get what you’re saying, but that’s not at all what religion is. If someone is listening to voices in their head, they’re not religious. They’re just crazy. I know many religious people who do not “listen to voices in their head” and it’s my belief that you’ve had terrible encounters and experiences with people claiming to be religious. But to generalize is not a good thing. I’ve met very sane religious people that do not do the things you say, I think it’s unfair of you to make such a sweeping claim that anyone who claims to be religious is immediately a crazy person to you. That idea itself sounds crazy to me

ProdigalFrog ,

To be fair, a large amount of Christians, including many at the church I used to attend in my younger days, will often recommend they “Ask God for advice” on big or troubling decisions or issues in their life, and those people will then say “God told me to do X” after they asked God for help.

So… I think there actually is a pretty fair amount of crazy religious types out there. The churches I’ve been to almost always had a big emphasis on getting to the point where you’re having a conversation with god, asking him for guidance, etc. I always interpreted that as being literal, and not a metaphor.

Rivalarrival ,

If someone is listening to voices in their head, they’re not religious. They’re just crazy.

I did not mean to claim religious people are “crazy.” What I described is “faith”, but without the virtuous connotations commonly ascribed to that concept.

Based on your comment, though, I would say I have accurately conveyed to you my state of mind upon hearing an individual proudly portray themselves as “religious” or “spiritual”. It is profoundly disturbing to hear someone readily admit a belief that their thoughts supersede reality.

sanpedropeddler ,

I find the comparison between religion and schizophrenia to be a little over the top. There is a big difference between believing something that cannot be proven true, and having actual schizophrenic delusions.

Religious beliefs don’t inherently impair your ability to function. And clearly they have some emotional function or value given that peoples around the world created their own unique religions without fail.

I really don’t see why you care so much about what people believe as long as their beliefs aren’t hurting anyone else. You are creating a problem where there is none.

Rivalarrival ,

There is a big difference between believing something that cannot be proven true, and having actual schizophrenic delusions.

I would argue the former is the more worrying of the two. We all know not to trust the schizophrenic.

But religious people aren’t just saying “God Bless You” when we sneeze. They are telling us how to vote, whether to wear masks, vaccinate our children, shun our neighbors, annihilate nations, and they are doing this on the basis of entirely unsupported, yet strongly held personal belief.

You are creating a problem where there is none.

Any suggestion that there isn’t a problem is demonstrably false, and your claim that I am creating the problem is gaslighting. I’m not going to waste a bunch of time pointing at a bunch of lesser religiously-supported evils to prove it. I’m just going to take them as read, and skip to the end: religious zealots fly planes into buildings.

sanpedropeddler ,

But religious people aren’t just saying “God Bless You” when we sneeze. They are telling us how to vote, whether to wear masks, vaccinate our children, shun our neighbors, annihilate nations, and they are doing this on the basis of entirely unsupported, yet strongly held personal belief.

Ah, so your problems with religion are actually problems with specific religious practices. Its almost like you should just hate those practices instead of directing your anger at a very broad concept.

Your justification for distrusting all religious people is a small minority of Christians and Muslims. Grow up and treat people like people

Rivalarrival , (edited )

Ah, so your problems with religion are actually problems with specific religious practices.

Where did you get that idea? I don’t believe that is a valid conclusion raising from my arguments.

It’s almost like you should just hate those practices instead of directing your anger at a very broad concept.

My “anger at a very broad concept” should have been a clue that those specific harmful practices I mentioned were exemplar, and not an exhaustive list. Further examples could be drawn from every organized religion, as well as from any and all individual “spiritual” beliefs.

No, my distrust of religious people is not based solely on those few examples of harm that I have presented, but on the underlying philosophical model, which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation. This is a “content of character” question, not a condemnation of specific religions.

sanpedropeddler ,

which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation.

This is an oversimplification of religion. There is a difference between someone’s religious beliefs, and how they approach logic in a real world situation. A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what. They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion. If they aren’t capable of this, then I agree its a problem. But its not a problem with religion, its a problem with the person.

So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.

And no, it is not gaslighting to point out why you are wrong about something. That’s a ridiculous tactic to avoid the tiniest bit of self reflection.

Rivalarrival ,

So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.

None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.

This is an oversimplification of religion.

It is the fundamental basis of religion. The common denominator. The sine qua non: the component without which the philosophical model in question could not be reasonably described as religious.

A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what

Conceded.

They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion.

The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact. In declaring themselves religious, they indicate that there are certain circumstances where they intend to do just that.

sanpedropeddler ,

None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.

From what I can gather, it effectively is your argument. You dislike that people believe things that are not supported with evidence. I do not personally think it matters because they gain value from it and do not harm others in the process. What am I missing?

The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact.

I can’t disagree with that, but I just don’t see why it matters so much. If they seriously gain that much value from believing something, then let them.

Rivalarrival ,

and do not harm others in the process.

I have presented no arguments suggesting they are harmless. I have not accepted your premise that they cause no harm. Indeed, I have provided a few examples of common, relatively minor harms, as well as references to the 9/11 attacks as non-exhaustive examples.

You acknowledged these harms when you strawmanned my position. You can’t rationally claim that no such harms exist, when you have directly acknowledged they do.

We can disagree on the prevalence of such harms: you have indicated a belief they are rare, and I have refused to waste my time producing an exhaustive list.

sanpedropeddler ,

You say your problem is that they believe things that are unsupported. Is that all, or do you dislike that because you think it leads to practices you don’t like?

Such things do of course exist, but they don’t constitute the dislike for all religion. Religious beliefs differ wildly and it makes little sense to denounce all of them because some cause problems.

Earlier you said that it wasn’t any specific practices that caused you to dislike religion. So, I focused on your problem just with the unsupported beliefs. Now you again bring up specific practices you don’t like.

I don’t understand what you are even trying to say at this point.

Rivalarrival ,

Faith is a disease. In the faithful who aren’t currently hurting anyone, the disease is dormant. They are still infected, and given the right set of circumstances, they will cause harm. A particular variety of the faithful were not putting people at risk, until COVID came around and their faithful infections came to be known as “antivax” and “antimask”.

Trying to stop the “specific practices” without inoculating against faith is like trying to stop the spread of typhoid without innoculating Mary Mallon against the disease. The faithful are the cause and carriers, regardless of whether they are currently showing symptoms.

sanpedropeddler ,

This makes slightly more sense to me although it is painfully overdramatic.

I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm. As far as I am aware, a religious person is not any more of a ticking time bomb than anyone else.

Blaming religion for these problems without tackling the underlying psychological issues is not going to help in any meaningful way. You just spread more hate and make the world a worse place, instead of approaching the situation with the slightest bit of empathy.

I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do. Its not a characteristic of religion or the lack thereof, its a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.

If you care so much about these problems, then recognize that the world is not so black and white that you can always find an idea to make your enemy no matter the circumstances. The way to fix these problems is not to alienate massive groups of people because you think they might become bad one day. That’s a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.

Rivalarrival ,

I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm.

Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality. The faithful merely need to imagine the existence of their own triggers.

It’s a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.

I do not concede that this is a symptom of mental illness. What I am talking about is an error in judgment, not a defect in the ability to reason.

I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do.

I’m not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups “conflate personal belief with objective reality”? If so, I would likely have the same criticism.

That’s a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.

Where did I claim to “hate” anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was “distrust”. I did once use the word “anger” in a description of my position, but I was directly quoting you at the time. You have inserted quite a lot of emotive concepts on my behalf that I have not actually expressed. I will renew my claims of “strawmen” and “gaslighting”.

sanpedropeddler ,

Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality.

No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.

That’s just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them. It is very possible to have incorrect reasoning without being religious.

The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general. Everyone has justified a belief with bad logic because its too difficult to admit you are wrong. I’ve done it and still occasionally catch myself doing it. I believe you’re doing it right now, although I’ll admit I don’t know you well enough to know for sure. I’m guessing you had some negative experience with religion and now justify your distaste for it by claiming religious people are more prone to doing horrible things.

I’m not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups “conflate personal belief with objective reality”?

Yes, the only difference is that their bad reasoning is not religious in nature. That’s why your problem should be people that do that, not religious people. They are not related.

Where did I claim to “hate” anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was “distrust”.

Here I was using hate to refer to the examples you gave like anti vaccine and anti mask people. I’m assuming you do hate that, as you should.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.

Remember what “faith” means in this context: the conflation of personal belief with objective reality. The act of “Justify[ing] any belief” is an act of “faith”.

That’s just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them.

That is how certain people work, not all people. You have identified a set of people who “conflate their personal beliefs with objective reality”.

The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general.

I don’t think so, but let’s check on it: is it a mental health issue when we use an incorrect order of operations in a mathematical statement? For example, x=1+2*3. Is the person who gets “7” mentally healthy? Is the person who gets “9” mentally unhealthy? What of the 3-year-old, who has not yet been taught numbers, and scribbles a stick image of a cat on the sheet?

An individual who does not comprehend the meaning of PEMDAS/BEDMAS is still capable of rational thought. The lack of knowledge will lead them to a fallacious conclusion, but their process of reaching that conclusion is still rational.

A deliberate refusal to accept and follow PEMDAS/BEDMAS rules is an error, but is not an indication of mental illness.

The knowledge that individual belief must be subordinate to objective reality is a philosophical model that not everyone has learned, but ignorance of that philosophy is certainly not indicative of a mental health condition.

sanpedropeddler ,

That is how certain people work, not all people.

No. It is literally a function of the human brain. www.healthline.com/health/stress/amygdala-hijack#… Every single person on earth has done this and will do it again.

I don’t think so, but let’s check on it: is it a mental health issue when we use an incorrect order of operations in a mathematical statement?

That is simple incorrect logic. What I’m talking about is emotions overriding logic.

Having faith in a religion is very different from justifying emotional reactions with bad logic. You are conflating your personal belief that they are the same with objective reality.

Everyone conflates personal belief with objective reality to varying degrees. A mentally healthy person can process their emotions well and recognize when they do so most of the time. A mentally unhealthy person will not recognize it because of their lack of emotional intelligence.

Again, I am not talking about a clinical condition that inhibits clear logic. I’m talking about the ability to process your emotions in a healthy way.

Rivalarrival ,

Every single person on earth has done this and will do it again.

From your link, emphasis mine:

An amygdala hijack is an automatic response. Your body takes action without any conscious input from you.

“Belief” is a “conscious input.” Conflating belief with objective reality is a conscious act, as is “declaration of an individual’s religiosity”. “Philosophy” is a consciously-developed worldview. As an unconscious response, “Amygdala hijack” is well outside the scope of these conscious, deliberate acts.

I have confined the scope of my discussion to the realm of consciousness, as it is only within this realm that we are capable of deliberate action. The unconscious realm does not interest me.

sanpedropeddler ,

Yes, you do not consciously make the decision to give up rational thought to emotion. This does not detract from my argument.

Have you considered that an automatic response might have a large impact on what you believe? The reason people don’t see the lack of logic in their beliefs is because their emotions don’t allow it.

Even outside of this specific function, neocortex activity is inversely correlated with amygdala activity. The more emotionally attached to a belief they are, the more difficult it is to stop believing it.

I don’t see how you can just ignore this and pretend it has nothing to do with our conversation. It is literally the entire cause of the problems you’ve mentioned.

Rivalarrival , (edited )

Have you considered that an automatic response might have a large impact on what you believe? The reason people don’t see the lack of logic in their beliefs is because their emotions don’t allow it.

I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision, and you are ignoring their emotional response to their own rationalization.

There’s a video floating around of a guy who instinctively reacted to a threat by hiding behind his significant other. He reacted in fear. Now comes the rationalization phase: He tries to understand the act he instinctively performed. Rationalization is the act of applying his philosophical model to his actions. He evaluates his behavior against the expectations of his model.

He could subscribe to a philosophical model where the sanctity of his body is greater than that of hers, in which case he could rationalize that his actions were good and proper. (He would then experience the emotion of “pride” that he followed his philosophical model correctly.)

He could subscribe to a philosophical model where he is expected to protect other people from harm. He would then rationalize that his actions were improper. (He would then experience the emotion of “shame” for falling short of his idealizes principles.)

(It is important to note that we are talking about a fraction of a second between the unconscious act and the rationalization of that act: the actor is feeling “pride” or “shame” at his action before his significant other has even realized what he has done. His initial, instantaneous reaction may not be controllable by his philosophical model. He might initially flinch behind her in fear, realize his error, and move to shield her from harm. Or, he might deliberately abandon her, and seek better protection from the perceived threat by fleeing. The point is that within fractions of a second, his actions are being influenced by his philosophical model. The “automatic response” you are talking stops being relevant as soon as this has occurred, and the philosophical model becomes the driving factor.)

In both cases, the initial act is identical, sparked by an unconscious, unintentional process. “Amygdala hijacking” may, indeed, be responsible for this initial act, but it is not responsible for the differing effects. The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor. Philosophy plays a big part in driving emotion.

I am uninterested in discussing the conditions that are, by definition, outside of the will and control of the individual. My interest here extends only to those things we can consciously affect.

sanpedropeddler ,

The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor.

The outcome is whatever avoids the feeling of shame, unless the person is emotionally intelligent enough to recognize it happening. It absolutely can and will affect your logic.

The response is not just to physical threats, it is trying to avoid negative emotions. That may be the shame from recognizing your actions, or realizing your belief is illogical.

I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision

Emotion is the initial decision. The rationalizations are just an attempt to pretend is reasonable.

Rivalarrival ,

Do you have any relevant issues to add, or shall we conclude our discussion?

sanpedropeddler ,

That’s what I was just doing, but I guess I’ll expand upon it.

Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief? No, they did not sit down and logically come to the conclusion that vaccines or masks are bad. Chances are, they heard a story on Facebook about it that scared them into that belief.

They thought with their emotions instead of actual logic, because they aren’t in touch with their emotions enough to reliably differentiate between the two.

There was no conscious decision to conflate personal belief with reality. All of the examples you’ve given were not caused by a conscious decision at all. They were caused by unconscious emotional processes that they failed to recognize.

To say that things that happen without conscious input are irrelevant to this conversation is completely incorrect. The difference between a normal religious person and a religious person with the problematic beliefs you’ve mentioned is this unconscious process.

A normal person regardless of religiosity is mentally capable of recognizing that process. A mentally unhealthy person regardless of religiosity is not capable of this.

When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:

I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation, so I will desperately try to end it while maintaining the illusion that my argument had any value in the first place.

Rivalarrival ,

Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief?

That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses. By definition, they are not controllable. There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.

The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy. We can’t affect the immediate response, but we can affect the rationalization process by focusing on a different philosophical model.

A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss. A philosophy that rejects this mitigates your issues.

When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:

I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation,

Your condescending tone aside, that is correct. You are diverting us away from a path of consciously affecting behavior and mindsets, and toward a path that, by definition, we cannot. You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road; I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.

sanpedropeddler ,

There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.

There absolutely is a point in discussing things you can’t affect. Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.

That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses.

It is. If part of the topic of this conversation is people that think with their emotions, it would tell you that emotions are absolutely related to this conversation. You brought those groups up as examples yourself.

The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy.

Not true. You can learn to control your emotions to some extent without changing philosophy. Also, your philosophy is usually based on your emotions. Not the other way around. The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion. There is no argument to be made that a human life has value. We all agree its bad anyway though, because death causes negative emotions.

A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss

No one believes their personal beliefs to be more important than objective reality. They believe their personal beliefs are objective reality. They do this because of their emotions. That’s why its important to discuss them.

You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road

It is a destination, not a dead end. The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.

I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.

You had nothing of value to add to begin with. You literally just dislike religion for no reason.

Rivalarrival ,

Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.

“Emotions” are the unconscious responses. “Emotional awareness” is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model against which to evaluate the emotional reaction. You are restating my arguments.

The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion

Rejected. Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.

The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.

It seems important that you be right. I have already conceded that I have nothing to add to that aspect of the conversation. You won.

Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?

sanpedropeddler ,

Emotional awareness" is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model in which to evaluate the emotional reaction.

No, I am describing emotional awareness. The ability to understand your emotions and limit their effect on your reasoning is not a philosophical model.

Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.

This is a surprisingly good argument, but it does not prove the conclusion you came to. Its more of an exception to what I said. It demonstrates that emotional responses can be impacted by philosophy. It does not demonstrate that this is always how it works, or even most of the time.

It seems important that you be right.

Yes, my goal in this argument was in fact to prove I am right. I do not like hateful views with no reasoning behind them.

Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?

I’m not particularly happy because you are going to continue believing hateful nonsense, but at least I tried. I should’ve expected as much anyway, given that I’m arguing with people on the internet.

Rivalarrival ,

hateful nonsense

Rejected, with my previous arguments. Strawman, gaslighting, ad hominem.

Nothing else you have said furthers the discussion.

sanpedropeddler ,

The discussion is apparently over now because you won’t continue it. But that doesn’t stop you from naming fallacies at me I guess.

We’ve had quite a long conversation, and you have yet to provide a half decent argument for your distrust of religious people. Therefore, hateful nonsense. I can’t misrepresent your argument when I’m not even actually representing it. I’m just describing what I think it essentially boils down to. Its hateful nonsense.

Again, correcting you is not gaslighting. You are literally just wrong.

I did not personally attack you. I have worded things in passive aggressive ways throughout this conversation, but that’s about it. If you are referring specifically to the “hateful nonsense” part, that’s again just a description of your belief.

Are you actually done now? Or will you keep saying random words hoping something works.

Hadriscus ,

That’s actually a little frightening, please refrain from making such blanket statements like this one. Surely a part of you must know this is wrong

kicksystem ,

I couldn’t agree more with the statement made. People who believe in fairy tales can’t be fully trusted.

Hadriscus ,

Well, that’s very short-sighted and factually incorrect. I wish you meet more people and your outlook changes

kicksystem ,

I think it is somewhat hard to change my outlook at this point. My reasoning is that truly devout religious people have been infected with a mind virus. They may be nice people or pretend to be nice people, but there is also the mind virus, which is ultimately not trust worthy. In general, if hard decisions need to be made by a third party that potentially have a big impact on my life I’d not fully trust a religious person.

In daily life I am very friendly with a bunch of religious people, but I mistrust the religious part of them.

Crass_Spektakel ,
@Crass_Spektakel@lemmy.world avatar

Non-Religion is cool if you get used to it. 91% of all Germans are “Not practising any religion”. On paper some 70% still are members of religious communities but otherwise we don’t give a fuck and instead going to church we meet for beer and bretzel breakfast on sunday. We stopped being religious after two World Wars as God was never on our side. Now we ain’t on his side either. Never been more happy.

Funny thing, officially Religion is part of school. But from what I remember it was more a history lesson. I remember every jewish and muslim holiday but not a single Christian Martyrer. Yes, around half of religious lessons at school was about other religions. Most likely because of selective memory - on holidays I could have beer and bretzel breakfast. Martyrers don’t feed me.

Cosmos7349 ,

misread your comment and thought you said that most people only went to church on Sundays for beer and bretzel breakfast. Was like, shit, I could get behind that religion.

Crass_Spektakel ,
@Crass_Spektakel@lemmy.world avatar

Go back 50 years and that was what we did: Go to church for 30 Minutes and sing, then feast with beer, sausages and bretzels for 60 minutes.

Enkrod ,
@Enkrod@feddit.de avatar

Just don’t forget that it wasn’t easy for us to hem in religion. It’s not like the churches were okay with becoming irrelevant. They got dragged into the age of enlightenment by their hair, kicking and screaming and fighting against progress with all their might. We tamed that tiger, but it still remembers its claws and it is still a dangerous beast.

Also please don’t forget the huge amount of influence the churches still have on German politics. Public Broadcasting has representatives of the churches in their Broadcasting Councils, the two churches continue to be some of the biggest lobbying-groups with explicit offices connecting them directly to the government. You can’t party and dance in the street on a Good Friday, Public broadcasting is not allowed to air “Monty Python’s Life of Brian” on Good Friday, and even public screenings by secular groups are illegal.

elucubra ,

Well, a hypothetical god not being on your side in WWI and especially WWII seems kinda warranted, no? That would be the kind of god you read about in the bibl… Oh… ummm… wait

rjs001 ,
@rjs001@lemmygrad.ml avatar

The claim that they don’t like organized religion is questionable. I’ve run into a ridiculous number of “atheists” who were completely supportive of religion for some odd reason

tammie ,
@tammie@lemmy.world avatar

maybe because they have their own opinion but aren’t interested in acting like everyone has to share it?

rjs001 ,
@rjs001@lemmygrad.ml avatar

If you are supportive of being religious then the claim that you don’t like organized religion is bullshit. Also, if they think what you said then I have absolutely zero interest in being around that kind of person

tammie ,
@tammie@lemmy.world avatar

I wasn’t aware I cared what kind of people you like to be around

rjs001 ,
@rjs001@lemmygrad.ml avatar

You cared enough to respond

randon31415 ,

I don’t belong to any organized religion, I’m a democrat. Wait, that isn’t how that goes…

Bathtubwalrus ,

Proud to be in the statistic! Jesus freak to agnostic and very anti organized religion. Glad I got away from religion, I didn’t realize what a drain on my life it was until I got out. I’m upset at the years I wasted, but live and learn I guess!

Shou ,

I feel you. Escaping a fatih is one hell of an experience, but so liberating when you can finally see if for what it is.

ohlaph ,

I’m with you. It was scary at first but quite liberating.

FordBeeblebrox ,

Growing up in a super religious family and watching all the nonsense up close is why I’m an atheist today. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MOTHERFUCKERS

Hail Satan and donate to your local Satanic temple

clanginator ,

Also grew up in a super religious family (homeschooled pk) and joined TST 4 years ago.

IMO brainwashing children from the time they’re born into a religion that spreads hate is wrong.

rjs001 ,
@rjs001@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Didn’t Satanic Temple have people in leadership who liked Richard Spencer?

tigeruppercut ,

Not that I could find with a quick search. I did find a “satanic forum” that seemed to be so populated by nazis that they were saying he wasn’t enough of a nazi for them.

rjs001 ,
@rjs001@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I don’t know, maybe I am remembering wrong

IMongoose ,

So there is The Satanic Temple which advocates for reproductive rights and separation of church and state and the Church of Satan which seems like some edgelord nihilistic thing.

But! I’m doing some googling and it seems that TSTs founder may be a Nazi. Like, an actual in love with Hitler Nazi. Reddit thread here:

reddit.com/…/whats_everyones_take_on_the_tsts_luc…

rjs001 ,
@rjs001@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Yeah, I’m not talking about the Church of Satan. Greaves and other members who are higher ups in TST definitely rub me the wrong way politically. I would definitely like to see some of the stuff to verify that that post is taking about

IMongoose ,

Ya, I looked at several articles and Greaves seems very sketchy. Some of their chapters have broken off and a few of the top activists have distanced themselves from him. Sucks, I thought they were cool but the fact that their finances are closed and they try to host orgies for “real satanists”(wut) puts me off a lot.

FlashMobOfOne ,
@FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world avatar

Not growing fast enough, sadly.

And I say this as one of them.

funkless_eck ,

people identifying as irrelegious has grown from 5% to 30% in the past 50 years, but some skeptics say, like with left-handedness, LGBTQ+, trans folks, the actual number hasn’t changed, just the reporting and the stigma around identifying as such has.

MossyFeathers , (edited )

Honestly, from the people I’ve talked to in the furry community, there have been a few of them who are either A) still christian (though often with unorthodox views on what “sin” is, or what is required for someone to be “saved”) or B) hold christian beliefs and believe that Jesus is a good role model (as he’s portrayed in the “canon” biblical texts).

However, if you asked them point blank if they’re religious they’d probably give you answers ranging from, “hell no” to “eh, kinda” or “it’s complicated”. All of them have expressed some level of distaste for organized religion though, which I agree with.

Imo religion’s fine so long as you’re using your brain and you aren’t hurting others; we live in a fucked up world, if that’s the drug you have to smoke to get through the day, then cool, go for it. However, everything starts going wrong when religion becomes organized.

protovack ,

is this the part where twenty somethings on the internet gather to exclaim loudly “I hate hypocrites too”?

then you should love jesus, because he hated religious hypocrites just as much as you do. In fact, it was those hypocrites who killed him.

If jesus returned today, he would be killed at a MAGA rally, probably.

i’m a christian in SPITE of the church, not because of it.

GnomeKat ,
@GnomeKat@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

this isn’t about you

TheHighRoad ,
@TheHighRoad@lemmy.world avatar

Your not gonna get a lot of love, but I hear you. Jesus is the enemy of modern Christianity.

jjjalljs ,

I’m not Christian but there are some good bits in the Christian Bible I’d be happy if more people followed. “pray in the closet” , the good Samaritan, and the sheep and the goats mostly.

Unfortunately a lot of people use religion as an excuse to be a huge asshole.

Clown_Tempura ,

The time for organized religion to clean house and save themselves from being taken over by fascist child rapists is long past. Sucks to suck. Would be a silver lining in a sea of shit if I saw religion at least in America wither away and die in my lifetime.

JigglySackles ,

When your congregation are loud bigots, racists, and assholes, or when your clergy fuck kids and cover it up, or when the religion as a whole surpresses or hates certain genders or sexualities… This is not a surprising trend at all to anyone reasonable.

Mango ,

I don’t like organized anything. People who organize bully and financially dominate those who aren’t.

VitoScaletta ,

Organised labour is an exception for me

Mango ,

Do you mean employment? I think employment is the worst of business because it’s essentially a mode of control over the price of your efforts.

rjs001 ,
@rjs001@lemmygrad.ml avatar

This is one of the silliest comments I have read in quite a while

ComradeChairmanKGB ,
@ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml avatar

When a cat organizes all its turds by placing them in the same box, it’s actually doing bullying because it knows you’ll have to clean them all up anyway.

Mango ,

Heckin homonyms.

callouscomic , (edited )

Religion gave my family and the closed groups I was forced to be raised around excuses for all their abuse and desire to judge others. Religion is a core part of all my childhood abuse and trauma and my own adult issues. I have zero interaction with any of them anymore, and I cannot respect anyone who proselytizes in the slightest about anything.

In my lifetime, those who followed organized religion of many types are always those who are the meanest, most ruthless, judgmental critical assholes I have ever dealt with. They sure put on a good show, but I’ve seen who they truly are enough to spot it anymore. All bullshit. Excuses for liars to hide behind.

sanpedropeddler ,

I have zeroninteraction with any of them anymore, and I cannot respect anyone who proselytizes in the slightest about anything.

Agreed, and this is coming from a religious person. I think people who proselytize are extremely misguided. I understand wanting other people to be a part of something that is such an important part of your life, but that’s not the way to do it at all.

I was raised agnostic and became religious later. I couldn’t have the relationship with my religion I do now if I was solicited by someone else to do it. You can’t give someone that experience if they don’t want it. All you can do is be nice to them and help them if they are genuinely interested.

Aarrodri ,

I’m in Dollywood in Tennessee and almost everybody is wearing T necklaces and/or faith shirts… it’s kinda weird (I’m from d.c. area). I expected to see more red hats but have not seen a single one.

KingThrillgore ,
@KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

I don’t think people are interested in going to a place every Sunday and hearing about how they’re going to hell.

ComradeChairmanKGB ,
@ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Would you rather waste a few hours listening to an old pedophile tell you you’re going to be tortured for eternity, or do literally anything else with your day off? Tough choice truly.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •