• @cosmicrookie
    link
    158 months ago

    If extremist = trying to convince others, who are not interested, to join you relligion, then I agree

    • @SPRUNT
      link
      58 months 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.

      • @cosmicrookie
        link
        58 months ago

        Then it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is just the excuse to gain power over others.

    • @fastandcuriousOP
      link
      -7
      edit-2
      8 months 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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        8 months 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        58 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -18 months ago

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

          A religious person has the exact same argument…

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            58 months 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -18 months 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                38 months 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.