919
Another L for bigotry
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
919 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
8357 readers
962 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Eh, all religion is just cancer.
It is, but the manner in which this woman destroyed this douche was art.
As a follower of Jesus Christ, I'm disappointed you think that. I firmly believe there's a religion for everyone on this planet. And that hatred of religion as a concept can easily lead to dismissing foreign cultures' spiritual practices.
if those spiritual practices are being used to oppress, as is often the case, then good. We should disregard them. There are cultures who believe that sexually abusing young men is just, because they need to consume "the spirit of life" through another man's semen in order to produce offspring. Should we be respecting those practices?
People are allowed to believe in whatever nonsense they like in the comfort of their own homes, but the second that shit spills out into the real world, it almost universally becomes a problem.
I beg you to take a moment to understand and empathise with your neighbours. The Haudenosaunee, the Koori, the Maya, have done nothing to harm you.
Oh damn, well you better drop the mic after that one 🙄
Yes, I'm going to dismiss foreign culture religion, just like I dismiss my culture's religions. They're not special just because they're not from here, it's still the same humans
Worshipping people 2 thousand years dead is stupid.
And if you found out the natives of the land you live on were teaching religion to their children, would you support the government kidnapping the children and putting them with white families to learn science and writing and "civilised manners"? That's the kind of actual historical event I'm concerned about happening when religious knowledge is valued less than white people's idea of academic knowledge.
Religious knowledge is explicitly less valuable than academic knowledge.
I'm not talking about christian, white people's idea of manners and civilization. That is still awful. Instead of kidnapping, that's what public schools should be for, teaching reading, writing, and science.
Those kidnappings were genocide. I advocate for religion to be suppressed, especially the sexist and racist ones(but not only), not for all forms of culture and tradition to be suppressed.
Well I will describe a religious belief I hold to you, and I'm eager to hear what you think of it.
Burning fossil fuels is a sin. We're not supposed to dig them out of the ground and burn them. When fossil fuels are burned, they react and turn to greenhouse gases, which warm the planet and bring natural disasters. And because Elohim is a god of great wrath, the disasters do not just harm those who sinned, but everyone, and disproportionately the poorest who don't have the resources to survive natural disaster. To find peace with the world around us, we must stop fossil fuel emissions and sacrifice our billionaires to Elohim upon a ritual pyre.
A great example on why religious knowledge is less valuable than scientific knowledge. The belief that the issues are that simple and blocks understanding of why it happens and how to prevent similar situations from recurring.
More however, the god parts have no value. If you insert science into religion, it's still science. The science information should be extracted from the religious knowledge, and the less valuable religious parts discarded.
And all religions have science in them. Pacific Islanders know things about wayfaring and wave dynamics that physicists are just now discovering. Colonisers in Australia spoiled the environment by disregarding indigenous conservation practices. Buddhists have been teaching western psychologists about the uses of meditation for the past two decades. The Haudenosaunee taught Karl Marx's friends about communism. Muslims were avoiding dangerous meats before germ theory was invented. For hundreds of years, westerners have dismissed religious knowledge and said oopsie when they later learned there was science inside the religion. I caution you not to make the same mistake.
I'm appreciative that you're entirely misunderstanding what I think should be happening in favor of writing your own narrative. I do not think that religious texts and oral histories should be erased. They should be studied. I think that religion deserves suppression. There will be no magical discoveries religious people make anymore. Most of that was likely not religious until they made it as such to get people to believe them in the first place.
The scientific information can and should be taken in. But, I explicitly said "less value" not no value in regards to religious knowledge, which you so kindly ignored, again to write your own narrative, one where you condescendingly assume I did not already know what you just stated
I implore you to consider the fact that every living culture on this earth is still changing, evolving, and growing, and even some dead religions have been revived. And these religions have access to the scientific method just as you do.
So unless you mean to imply that science is finished making discoveries, which I'm certain you don't, then religions will keep making discoveries. The Buddhists are still improving their meditation techniques. The Pacific islanders are still training to be better wayfarers. The Australian Aboriginals are learning to care for a land ravaged by climate change.
Religions as dead things written in an old book is a western idea and I fear you have projected this onto distinctly nonwestern religions where truth comes from a connection to the ancestors and the land, constantly evolving as the people and the land evolve. And to nonwestern religions where truth comes from exploration of the mind, and surely you can see the mind is a highly dynamic environment in the modern day, ripe for fresh discoveries.
Religions are anti science. Any small advancements they may make on the side do not make up for the rest. But frankly, they aren't making advancements on a religious basis.
They are not.
That's science, not religion.
Which they are using in a scientific manner, and their use is not religious, and will not be changed by reducing religion.
If they are adding religion to it, it isn't the scientific method.
I don't think they're dead, I think they have nothing to contribute to science that cannot be contributed to better by scientifically motivated people, who will remain as such religion or no. Again with you pushing your own narrative of what you want my opinions and statements to be.
Religions do not define where truth comes from. It comes from the same places in every place. It can come from the mind, or observation, and study. It's ripe for discoveries and that has NOTHING to do with religion, of any sort.
This person seems intent on shoe horning their magical thinking into science. And if you're at all like me, then you would know from personal experience that they are incompatible. And it's pretty clear given how fallacious every single argument they've made has been.
No, people invented religions in an attempt to explain things that they did not understand.
Things that the scientific method has allowed us to understand.
That is not science.
That's a cute story that provides a tidy explanation for religion, but is it supported by the anthropological evidence? Where are your sources? Are you sure you're not just making up stories in an attempt to explain things that you do not understand?
It's a well documented sociological phenomenon. Read a (different) book.
Perhaps you could provide the search query terms which will lead me to an empirical study confirming your hypothesis? I'm not sure what to search to find your evidence for you.
Yeah let me get right on that so you can just move the goalposts.
Here look at me doing it anyway because it took like 30 seconds
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9286862/
Your hypothesis was that people use religion to explain the unknown, while this study concludes that religious people are more likely to judge the unknown as unknowable. Needless to say, one cannot explain the unknowable. Therefore, your hypothesis is countered by this evidence.
Once again, science proves that tidy little stories atheists make up to explain the world around us are just that - stories. Next time, I'd suggest avoiding speculation you can't back up with empirical research.
It's like you're incapable of going a single comment without at least one logical fallacy.
You do realise that atheism is not a religious position right? Atheist people don't hate God despite what various Bible bashes try to claim, atheists don't believe in God. It hard to hate someone that you don't believe exists.
Equally atheists don't hate religion as a concept, they just don't find any of it to be convincing.
There's a difference between atheism and anti-theism that a lot of people (both religious and non-religious) seem to miss.
I do understand that. Theism and atheism are pretty much perpendicular to the issue of religion. There are many theistic religions, many atheistic religions, many irreligious theistic beliefs, and many irreligious atheistic beliefs. Though fewer irreligious people on both sides of the theism debate than I think most are willing to admit. For example any atheist who watches Andrew Tate's videos is not, I think, an atheist or irreligious.
It's like you're just inventing your own definitions of words on the fly.
What THE FUCK does Andrew Tate have to do with atheism?
Well Andrew Tate is obviously trying to gather worshippers and become the god of masculinity
Can you help me with a christlike waffle recipe?
I agree with you completely, Christianity is a disease on society. I am not a Christian. I consider Christianity to be a blatant heresy against our lord and saviour, Jesus Christ. I, like Jesus, believe in the principles of Judaism. You might say I'm part of the Jesus-worshipping Jewish cult. Paul is the inventor of Christianity, and his innovation was to twist Judaism to fit with Roman ideals. Elohim is the god to the oppressed, and Paul thought he could make Him god to the oppressors. It's a paradox.
I am deeply opposed to Roman ideology. Did you know the Nazis considered themselves to be Romans? And now we have a Fourth Reich of the Roman Empire gathering strength in the west. All very Christian, of course. So I tell you truly that I think as poorly of Christianity as you do, because I am a follower of Christ.
Give me a fucking break.
There are plenty of people who don't have a religion, and they seem to be just fine. I personally don't think that I need religion, but since it seems to make my life better, I'm glad that I have it.
Why would you center your life around something that neither you, not any single person in the past 2000+ years has been able to verify or prove in even the most basic fashion?
Don't you care about believing true things?
Why should I care about truth? I think kindness and wisdom are more important for making good decisions. Sure, truth has its place, like with medical decisions and climate policy. But it doesn't need to infect every aspect of our lives. I don't care about truth when I go to the movies and watch a red metal man punch a big purple man.
Because truth allows us to cure awful, painful and debilitating diseases, for one? Need more examples, or...?
Oh ok, so we just turn off the part of our brain that cares about truth for what benefit exactly?
Yes, yes, I already said truth is good for medical decisions. I just don't think it needs to be crammed into every aspect of our lives. Sometimes people just want a break from truth.
"A break from truth" is how we end up with fascism. It's why we end up with racism and bigotry.
No, just no. What is the benefit to any of this?
If we set aside truth for a moment, then we can enjoy fiction. It's called suspending one's disbelief.
You think I'm unable to enjoy fiction? I'm just able to tell the difference between fiction and reality. An ability that I believe is REALLY fucking important.
Well there you go, you don't care about truth all the time, you have time in your life to set truth aside and enjoy fantasy. You just hadn't realised it until I pointed it out.