• Gladaed@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Classic American perspective in the comments.

    You know, a lot of regions have religions that aren’t cults. Also tv mega churches are not common in the old world.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

      All religions are cults.

      That there exist congregations that aren’t actively being taken advantage of, or doing evil shit, doesn’t mean people living their lives believing things that aren’t real and making choices based on that belief, are harmless.

      You can be the kindest soul on earth, but if you believe stabbing someone in the heart helps them, you might still do it.

      Believers do that type of shit all the time, like words spoken while meaning well, but doing harm. They look at reality through the distorting lens of faith, they can’t ever truly see it. There is a fatal disconnect between perception and reality.

      They thank God instead of their doctor, they tell their depressed children to consult Jesus when they need medication, they feel crushed by bad luck because it can’t just be bad luck, everything is god’s plan, meaning they feel they deserve it.

      Religion adds so many tiny twists to reality, and every single one hurts someone. Both the believer and those around them. If you haven’t seen it happen, you’re the exception, not the rule.

    • Aielman15@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m Italian.

      Four years ago the DDL Zan, a law that sought to fight language and deeds that amount to religious, political and racial discrimination by adding aggravating factors for sexual orientation, gender and gender identity, was proposed.

      Among its detractors, the Vatican itself, who urged Italy to stop the law because, according to them, the Law calls into question church’s ‘freedom of organisation’ and threatens ‘freedom of thought’.

      While those cartoonish evil cults aren’t common, they are not the only evil religious organizations in the world. The head of one of the abrahamic religions, and one of the most popular religions in the world, fought against the freedom of my fellow LGBT+ individuals because of their supposed right of hate speech, apparently. So no, it’s not an American perspective, and yes, all religions are evil.

      • awesomesauce309@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        As an American, the churches here are pooling resources to buy politicians and hospitals in low income areas to enforce their views on abortion and gender healthcare. The church is a business and religion is the advertisement that keeps that evil funded.

        I’ve never seen the amount of pro religion comments as I’ve seen in this thread. And they’re all so… coughGPTcough ….verbose.

  • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “extremism” is what neoliberals invented to liken egalitarians with Nazis to make themselves look good.

  • fastandcurious@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I recently visited reddit and was horrified to see how many people there say “Lol he believes in sky dady, his opinions are worthless, ban all religion” and even some extreme comments like “All christians are pedoes” and I am seeing this rising slowly on lemmy as well

    Any sort of extremism is bad, whether that’s religious, political or atheistic(?), and thats what we should be fighting, banning hijabs is not gonna do any good

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Extremism is not bad. The only proper response to fascism is antifascism, for example. Balance is not a virtue, that’s like saying we need both the KKK and the antiracists to make a nice balance.

      • fastandcurious@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        ‘Two wrongs make a right’

        What did an avg. Christian do who works 9-5, barely makes up enough money to support his family and kids, to be a called a pedophile, just the fact that he prays to a god? I love lemmy but All civil discussion is lost when you go against the majority opinion, which ironically enough is the exact same thing that fascist right wingers do, but ofc it’s not the same thing

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are you legitimately calling antiracism and antifascism a “wrong” just so you can take this “enlightened centrist” approach? What the fuck. Again, extremism isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, it depends on what you’re being extremist about. Being extremely antiracist? Good. Being extremely racist? Extremely bad.

          The average Christain who works 9-5, barely makes enough money to support his family and kids, is also homophobic, transphobic, racist, and sexist. It is the minority among religious people to take the correct approach.

          I am not blaming religious people, but Religion itself.

        • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          which ironically enough is the exact same thing that fascist right wingers do, but ofc it’s not the same thing

          Middle Ground Fallacy. Just because two sides exist does not mean the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are issues where one side is objectively right. Supporting the side that is wrong does not make you a advocate for civility; it makes you wrong.

          Now, could there be more polite discussion? Sure. Does that mean anti-theists should allow religion to further taint our politics, rights, and conversation? Absolutely not.

          GTFO of here with this bullshit.

        • qaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What did an avg. Christian do who works 9-5, barely makes up enough money to support his family and kids, to be a called a pedophile, just the fact that he prays to a god?

          That’s indeed very rude behavior towards your hypothetical person.

    • fastandcurious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well then you should not try to convince people to accept atheism as well🤷🏻

      Edit: This is not a serious counter argument in case it isn’t clear, ofc no one is going to every individual person, events and stalls are put up for this purpose, so it is obv. that the only one who will go there are the ones who are interested, there should be no force involved

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trying to save a person by pulling them out of the cave of ignorance isn’t the same thing as trying to convince them that the boogyman wants them to stay in the dark. This is an enormous false equivalency.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Trying to save a person by pulling them out of the cave of ignorance

          A religious person has the exact same argument…

          • Vespair@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I’m aware. The difference is in that one of our beliefs is founded in the observable world and the other delusion. One holds up to scrutiny and the other does not.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              The difference is in that one of our beliefs is founded in the observable world and the other delusion. One holds up to scrutiny and the other does not.

              Scientific scrutiny shows there are health benefits to belonging to a religious organization. The only thing that “holds up to scrutiny” is “I’m right and you’re wrong” which, again, the religious person also believes.

              So instead of having “rules for thee but not for me”, maybe everyone should not be trying to force their beliefs on others.

              • Vespair@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Assuming we’ve read the same study, that study also showed the exact same benefits you’re describing could be achieved with regular yoga or meditation; it seems to me the real benefit is getting out of your own head and devoting yourself to something other than your internal monologue for awhile.

                But beyond that, any health benefits are entirely an aside to whether or not the philosophy itself holds up to scrutiny, which no religion I’ve encountered does.

                Finally, I don’t believe in rules for thee, not me. They are welcome to present their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas as well. I believe in the power of veracity; I am not challenged by false ideals. I’m not anti-proselytizing, i believe in proselytizing the proselytizers.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I have never had an athiest knock on my door and tell me I needed to stop believing in God or I am going to suffer for eternity.

        The thing convincing people to be athiests isn’t other athiests. Facts and logic are the missionaries for athieism.

    • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that they aren’t trying to convince anyone to join their religion, they are trying to remove the choice by changing laws to reflect their religion. They could give two shits about if you believe, as long as you obey.

  • WallEx@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Institutionalized religion is bad, religion for yourself isn’t imho. I can understand the need for answers, although I don’t necessarily need them. I think that is part of tolerance, to accept the believes of others.

    • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can understand the need for answers, although I don’t necessarily need them.

      Btw do you think atheists always need answers for everything? I think atheists can be okay without knowing the answer. The religious people are the ones who always wants an answer(wrong answer counts) and they always explain thinks they can’t explain as “god’s creation/mystery/whatever”

      • WallEx@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No I certainly don’t have have all the answers, the people that think they do are a huge problem.

        I can understand the need for an explanation, but I simply don’t have that need, although I like to know how things work. But if we as humantiy don’t know I don’t think its so bad.

        Yeah, if you try to change the facts because of your believe we have a problem. If your religion can adapt to new facts (or live besides them) I don’t really care.

        • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          People created god as an explaination of how the world is created and maintained. People who do science really knows that we can’t know everything for sure, and are familiar and okay with not knowing that thing.

          I said we cant know everything but we must be okay with that. Religion just takes something they see and put the “god made this” label and refuses to question god.

          If religious people don’t have that need for explaination, would they belive god created everything? Aren’t they okay with saying “we don’t really know how everything was created”?

          I can understand the need for an explanation

          Religion usually explains with something wrong and the followers simply take it as real truth. Don’t say atheists are the ones who need explaination for everything

          • WallEx@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no one religion and they sure don’t handle conflicts with science the same way, so which one are you talking about?

            For example, Buddhism in its core is accepting of change in the world and aims to adapt.

            • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              which one are you talking about?

              Which is “your” religion? I’m pretty sure it isnt Buddhism. I am talking about whatever religion that puts “god” as almighty and the one who made everything including us.

              • WallEx@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I dont have one, but its an important part of peoples lives, so i think about this stuff.

                The point being, that i have less issues with that way of resolving conflicts between your believes and scientific facts.

                • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thoose “god belivers” are like against spirit of science. Not scientific facts but scientific spirit of accepting that we have much more things to know and cannot put a god as someone who made everything the way it is, without questioning.

    • Ignotum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      An adult that still believes in Santa might not lead to anything bad, but it leads to them indoctrinating their children to also believe in Santa into adulthood,

      And if some dude can live on the north pole and travel to every home on earth in one night, then other equally ludicrous ideas might not sound so far fetched

      And before you know it you’re wearing radioactive stickers to rebalance your chakras, sticking jade eggs up your ass to bring luck and you’re blowing up a shopping mall because your imaginary friend hates gay people

      • The_Vampire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Millions of religious people exist from all sorts of ideological spectrums. The vast, vast majority are not evil and don’t do bad things.

        The extremism present in religious people is also apparent and present in atheists, agnostics, or whatever generic belief system you can think of. Religion by itself doesn’t cause extremism: ad hominems, whataboutisms, and disinformation causes extremism. Constantly comparing yourself to an enemy and convincing yourself you are in the absolute right causes extremism. Sure, you see some ‘religious’ people going crazy and shooting up places. They also have manifestos that are completely detached from reality in a way that reeks of far-right propaganda and disinformation, and never any real coherence or thought given to the religious teachings they supposedly follow (if they mention their religious texts at all, it’s often cherry-picking or outright incorrect).

        We should not try to fix the issues of mental health that plague a lot of countries by going after religion. If anything, that would only backfire by virtue of validating any persecution complex religious people might have. We should instead focus on providing affordable mental healthcare that is easily, immediately accessible and normalized for the wider population, as well as providing clear sources of valid information and having any questionable sources that construe facts and claim to not be news sources in lawsuits or elsewhere be forced to clearly denote themselves as not news regularly.

        • Ignotum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That sounds an awful lot like sexual depravity, which makes god sad for some reason so i believe you’ll be cast into a fiery pit to have your skin melted off, regrown, then melted off again, for all eternity. And this will be just, a punishment that fits the crime

          And while you’re in excruciating pain for all eternity just remember: god loves you ♥️

    • 7heo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Religion for yourself” in the age of internet of called “personal belief”. So, the term “religion” now only means, like it or not, “institutionalized religion”.

      This is 100% caused by the fact that people “identify” as Y (not using X as a variable, as it is now a fucking confusing buzzword), and are subsequently grouped together in “echo rooms” by various platforms algorithms. This happened so overwhelmingly that in less than a decade, it redefined the default behavior of people, online, and you will now see people automatically seeking those echo rooms. Even on Lemmy, where people are literally seeking instances that will validate their own beliefs, and block those they do not share.

      • WallEx@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thats … Just your believes man

        If you keep away from social media as much as possible (as anyone should) its not so bad. I know a few people, that don’t go to church but believe in god.

        No one feels great by being critiqued, but its necessary imho.

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need religion to believe in something, did this occur to you? I don’t have anything against people who believe some even weird shit. Let me hear it, let us discuss it, but do as you please (who am i to judge? I don’t know the truth).

      But the moment you enter some cult (or religion if you prefer that term), you’re on my hate-list. They are to control the weak sheeple. Period.

      Why do people always take it, that belief equals religion?

  • meyotch@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    A distinction without a difference. Religion produces demonstrable harm to many people. To be religious is to be an extremist. The entire idea that a being from your imagination should influence my behavior is whack.

    • fastandcurious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again, can you tell me how if you are not religious, how is religion influencing you? And how is your opinion different than any other religious extremist who also claims that anyone who doesn’t follow x religion is bigot? It’s the same thing where everyone is just hating everyone else who doesn’t share the same belief, except being an atheist somehow gives you a free pass to bash on everyone else’s belief, you all then should not be complaining if anyone starts saying all atheism is extremism

      • meyotch@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Something about my religious leaders wanting to strap electrodes to my junk and torture me for being gay has given me some strong opinions. Don’t you dare dismiss my experiences as invalid, I’m fighting terrorists here.

        • tourist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          My friend is estranged from his family because he is trans and they don’t accept him because the bible says blablabla

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Religion teaches and reinforces bigoted and anti-science views, generally. Yes, there are good people that reject this basis of their religion, but religion itself has done far more harm than good.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re putting words in my mouth, lmao. I explicitly separated Religious people from Religion itself, and you’re tying them together as slander.

            Religion has done more harm than good as it has been the foundation of racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, rejection of science such as Evolution, and more. Religious people can be good, and have done good things, but Religion itself is harmful.

            I respect people’s rights to practice, but I don’t respect Religious people using religion as justification for anything bigoted, anti-science, or generally harmful.

            • Haagel@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The audacity of claiming that religious adherents are uniquely racist!

              Racism is literally the foundation of Darwinism, as explicitly stated by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix.

              It’s right there in the title of Darwin’s book: *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life *

              It’s human nature to fight each other, and the tendency towards extremism is universal.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I did not claim religious people were uniquely racist, only that religion supports and reinforces racism. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth and actually answer my actual points.

                Human Nature is a naturalistic fallacy, and is a way to avoid actually addressing whether or not religion assists and reinforces racism or not.

                • Haagel@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You said it’s the foundation of racism.

                  foundation noun foun·​da·​tion 1 : the act of founding here since the foundation of the school 2 : a basis (such as a tenet, principle, or axiom) upon which something stands or is supported the foundations of geometry the rumor is without foundation in fact

                  Technical arguments don’t change the fact that Darwinism is inherently racist.

        • fastandcurious@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Please provide sources for your claims, what religion you want to believe in is a different topic, read the books of all the major religions and see how many and which one of them is ‘bigoted’ and ‘Anti-Scientific’

          If you are not gonna do that, atleast not fire such claims because you yourself don’t have the knowledge.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            All major religions reject science by asserting the baseless claim of divinity. They propose a foundational divine, without any proof. This is anti-science.

            As for being bigoted, quick examples are Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions supporting homophobia, transphobia, sexism, strong gender roles, and more.

    • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because apparently Christianity is the only religion in existence and all religious people want you to practice their religion. Or something.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be religious is to be an extremist.

      Over 80% of people in the US believe in one religion or another. The country is not 80% extremists.

      • smitten@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        And there’s the problem with the idea of extremism to begin with. It’s only extreme because too different. The idea of extremist ideologies is inherently conservative, and really we should be judging ideologies by how they negatively or positively affect people.

  • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tbf extremism itself isn’t wrong. Any perspective can be considered extreme if it is too different from the status quo. Different isn’t necessarily bad.

    Granted religious extremism is typically far right reactionary ideology which is bad so I’m not really defending it. However, I find that a lot of people, especially Americans, call anything that radically challenges the current system extreme and therefore bad.

    • Belzebubulubu@mujico.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are half right but I understand where you are coming from, you see extremism as what the bigots tell you it is (feminism, LGBT+, etc). But I in fact thing that taking an idea and turning the notch to a 100 always turns it bad, for example: Feminism turns into misandry when turn to the extreme, right wing turns into facism, black right movements can turn into black power, religion turns into cults, etc.

      But I agree that there are some cases in where this does not apply like gender equality (but thought I don’t know how that works tho).

      • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is an aspect of horseshoe theory which is pretty meh tbh. Could you not say that the current status quo is extreme? It would have been considered that way by monarchists back in the day. Extremism is just radical change to the current social order which can end very well or very poorly.

        Personally I think labelling ideologies as extreme is a way for those who benefit from the current social order to encourage those who don’t to dismiss radical change as dangerous and destructive rather than an opportunity for growth.

        Capitalism is an extreme change when compared to feudalism but it is better no?

        If you’re interested I’d really recommend reading blackshirts and reds by Michael Parenti pdf audio. it’s a relatively short read at only 154 pages but it really helped develop my views on this subject

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tbf extremism itself isn’t wrong

      The same can be said about religion. Less than 20% of Americans identify as Atheist or Agnostic, the far right extremists do not have support from 80% of the population.

  • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the argument for moderation is the worst in the religious context.

    Pascal was right about his Wager in one way. If god exists, it should change everything for you. Especially the christian one. Eternity in pain or pleasure outweighs everything.

    If that is your reality, how is failing god moderation?

    Seriously if you don’t want people to die from cancer at all, how is that not extermist?

    Are reference point defines “moderation”? Look at us vs eu politics.

    Even if you want to define moderation as the average or median position in a society, then Nazism can be moderation if you get enough Nazi together.

    Wake up, my fellow extremist.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pascal’s wager doesn’t even attempt to make a philosophical argument for God’s existence, and it only works if you assume a singular god. Of course in this case it’s Christianity.

      So let’s say someone agrees that it’s better to worship a god on the off chance they exist than to not do so and end up in hell, now what? Where do I go from here? You’ve opened up a can of worms because now I have to decide what the logical choice is (since PW only relies purely on logic) in which god to choose.

      The “logical choice” only works when you have a singular alternative, but if you have a dozen different gods to choose from then everything falls apart. The only logical thing to do is to worship the god with the worst hell, on the off chance that they are the one true God. At least you spared yourself from that.

      In the end though the wager essentially only sees/works with atheism and one religion, which is why it’s so flawed. The moment you introduce multiple religions to a coin toss logic scenario it fails to work.

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You typed so much and understood so little.

        I don’t think pascal’s wager works. Which is why I said, I said he is right about one thing which is the infinites reward fucking up everything. IF!!! there is a god, and he rewards and punishes you like pascal believed, then everything becomes irrelevant compared to it. Failing to follow god would be an extremist action. Unacceptable due to the unmeasurable damage it would cause. Think about it, in an atheistic world, a Terror Attack is bad, like really bad, but the damage is finite. In pascal’s world, disbelief has worse consequences. The harm is bigger, to a literally infinite amount. For pascal, your disbelief should be worse than bombing a Christian church while there is a service.

        • retrieval4558@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are talking about different and compatible critiques of pascal’s wager, and your condescension at the beginning of the post is unwarranted because he is correct, just not talking about the same thing you are.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      In regards to the wager, the actual canonical depiction of Hell wasn’t eternal torture but instead not being allowed into God’s presence so, eh…

      Miss me with turning into Fanta regardless

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which misses the point of my argument.

        I don’t say you are wrong. But my point is strictly about what people believe and how these beliefs should be quite important and turn “moderation” to “extermism” from their pov.

    • Gladaed@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your assumption is that religion wants you to suffer.

      Religion, in my experience, wants you to be compassionate, accepting and give back to the community. This is not extreme.

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Could you show me that assumption? I don’t see that assumption present in my comment. Please help me to understand your perspective. Thanks.

        • Gladaed@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most people talk about Religions people being fanaticists with a disregard for human wellbeing. (Outside of their religion) I associate this with the sects that emigrated to America due to prosecution in Europe and American New religons. (Amish, those Utah people etc., those wierd evangelicals(?))

          Of course there are also good religious groups in America.