What do you think of people who CONSTANTLY talk about religion?
4d 2h ago by lemmy.blahaj.zone/u/atheqtpie in asklemmy@lemmy.mlAs a Christian who doesn't follow much of the super religious "rules", I think it's kind of a red flag but sometimes it's not. Red flag because my girlfriend's ex-friend was super devout and put it all over her bio and was very ableist and homophobic. My friend, for example, is agnostic, so he's not sure if spirituality exists. He has a friend who's super devout and constantly talks about Christianity. She has a Discord server about Christianity and most of her friends are Christian who just talk about Jesus and God all the time. She puts the crosses and bible verses in her bio too. She's very nice and tries to be accepting but seems kinda judgmental or like "Oh, your non-traditional ways are... nice I guess."
She constantly asks my friend how his relationship with God is and if he reads the Bible and what his favorite verses are, even when he says he's not super religious.
My mom as of recent has become super religious, and while she is pretty left-leaning, thinks the only way to believe is to be Christian and you HAVE to believe in Jesus or you'll die instead of live forever in Heaven.

LOL
What's really LOLcringe is the actual video of which this is the thumbnail
I treat religious people as dormant terrorists. They may be a good neighbor, a fun sex partner (although rarely for my standards) or even a loving SO, but deep inside they all made a compromise with non rational arguments and that will come up at different stages of stress.
The people you are describing have that threshold very low, but you are no different than them to me.
A little stronger wording than I'd normally use, but fundamentally my opinion. Any religious person either is incapable of or does not care to base their actions and opinions on reality, and that proclivity will manifest in other aspects of their life.
I either say dormant terrorists or "the crazy lady in The Mist".
Potato, Potato.
I treat it more as a form of mental illness akin to schizophrenia or psychosis. They live in a fantasy world and if you encroach on that world wrongly they can turn ugly on you.
Might be more of a developmental impairment. For children, magical thinking is normal and expected. They might sincerely think they can cause something to happen by thinking about it or engaging in some kind of paranormal way. Like, if a 4 year old points at you with a finger guns gesture and yells 'bang', they might just be trying to be silly; but they might also be genuinely trying to kill you. You'll know if immediately after, they look down at their finger-gun with a wtf expression cuz they're actually surprised it didn't work.
Again, normal. Unnerving, but normal.
They should grow out of that shit by about age 7 iirc.
Lots of people never grow out of it, they just compartmentalize that kind of thinking as religion... they know they can't kill you with finger guns, but Jesus? His finger guns are real!!.
Those people need a fuck ton of therapy.
Development impairment might be a better description yeah. I haven't given it too much thought as luckily I don't have many people like this around me. It just always struck me as weird that the medical/psychiatrist community doesn't dare to touch it.
The same could be said for the ideologues that inhabit Lemmy. Virtually all of them are atheists, but there's a much higher chance of them turning into terrorists than say your Ned Flanders neighbor.
Irrationality is not exclusive to religion.
Ah yes. I forgot that the Crusades were waged by atheists.
The crusades were very localized series of wars that happened in a relatively underpopulated region of the world nearly a 1000 years ago. Mao single handedly killed more people than all of the Crusades combined in a few years.
That's an unfortunate typo.
Damn, you weren't kidding. I fixed it
I appreciate your correction of that typo. I can see your counterpoint.
I agree with the first and last sentence, but data is just not on your side for the middle one. I have a very wide-ranging definition of both religion and priest, which includes respective extremes such as wallstreetbetters and Elon Musk, and nazis and... Elon Musk I guess.
The point is that extremism isn't dependent on a particular religion or ideology. You can have a Marxist extremist who ends being a terrorist and one that isn't. Likewise, a Christian next door could also be fundamentalist terrorist or just be a normal person who happens to be believe in Christian teachings.
My comparison with terrorist dormant cells has nothing to do with extremism. It is comparing the ways in which the real nature of their belief can prove "problematic" given the right conditions.
The condition that separates the two is extremism, and that's not exclusive to any religion or religion in general. It applies to any ideology really.
Every person that compromises on rationality, given the right condition, becomes what you call an extremist. Religious are like that necessarily. Nazis and fascists the same. Marxists not quite.
You're making the assumption that some ideologies are inherently rational and some are irrational. While I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that some ideologies are more rational than others, all ideologies have a set of points and interpretations that are rational and a set that's irrational.
For example, I don't think Marxism is a rational ideology. However, I can still recognize a difference between misguided beliefs and terrorist level extremism within the ideology. All Marxists ultimately believe that class struggle and inequality are the source for most problems in the world, however, what makes an extremist that is how they interpret this.
A rational person would think this means redistribution of resources and wealth, however an irrational person would think this means killing anybody they deem to be a capitalist or bourgeoisie. Any rational Marxist under the right circumstances can go from the former to the latter. However, just because that possibility exists, I don't think it's fair to say that all Marxists are terrorist based on a hypothetical assumption. The same logic applies to religion.
You are probably talking about tankies such as the ones on lemmy.ml, when you talk of Marxists. I am talking about Marx when I talk about Marxism. If anything, he was hyper-rationalizing economical and social observations.
For the rest, you seem to be making my exact same point.
A Christian or a Muslim has no possibility to seriously call himself one, especially in 2025, without admitting that they compromise about rational statements in their belief.
A Nazi or a Fascist's ideology is ONLY the negation of right to liberty and ultimately life of those against their ideology/liking.
I am talking about Marx when I talk about Marxism.
So was I actually. I think the core philosophy behind Marxism is not very rational. It's a framework that will never work in the real world because its inherently flawed.
For the rest, you seem to be making my exact same point.
We have similar definitions but different conclusions. I think the very concept of a dormant terrorist is nonsense. A person is either a terrorist or they're not. You're a terrorist if you carry out violence against civilians to further a political cause or is actively intending to do so. Someone is a potential terrorist if they support terrorist acts or have thought about carrying out one themselves but just haven't acted upon it. Everybody else beyond that is a not a terrorist.
A Christian or a Muslim has no possibility to seriously call himself one, especially in 2025, without admitting that they compromise about rational statements in their belief.
This is only true if you assume your interpretation is the only valid one. The vast majority of religious people in the world are not "pure" followers, but they are still followers nonetheless. For example, you have muslims who think that jihad is a literal holy war against the enemies of islam, but you also have muslims who think jihad is an internal struggle that god has given humans a test their faith. Both of these are irrational points of view, however, they're still both valid even if they contradict each other. It's fine to call specific individuals or groups terrorists or potential terrorists, however, generalizing a demographic that numbers in the billions as dormant terrorists because you assume that there exists a hypothetical set of circumstances that can turn them into terrorist is in of itself an irrational belief. This assumption applies to literally everybody.
A Nazi or a Fascist’s ideology is ONLY the negation of right to liberty and ultimately life of those against their ideology/liking.
That's not quite true. Authoritarianism =/= fascism, they're not one and the same. While fascism is an authoritarian ideology, it's not the only one. There's a whole lot of other ideologies that also revolve around establishing tyranny for better control.
I would personally be annoyed by such a person and not want to associate with them. I have no issue with religious people, or even talking to them about religion, but if they're just constantly preaching or trying to convert me, that would get on my nerves very quickly.
I work next to a former pastor. He's the most based religious person that I've met, and he's imo what Christianity should be about. His big thing is your relationship with God is between you and him. This guy isn't here to judge, and knows that it's not his place. He mostly believes that if you're a good person you'll get to heaven.
I don't agree with his religious views, but we can comfortably discuss philosophically about religion. More Christians should be like him and not like the fanatics and hypocrites.
This is my favorite answer ITT.
Whether religious, agnostic or atheist its the zealotry & hubris that gets annoying. Why does everyone have to be right all the time?
I'm tired, boss.
Edit: sorry for the downer reply. It is good talking to smart people about philosophy/religion. I suspect the signal to noise ratio on the internet doesn't help.
The fun thing about agnostics and atheists that exhibit "zealotry and hubris" is they're almost always victims of extreme religious environments that got out and want to help others, only to have people like you group them with their previous oppressors.
Is it not a reasonable grouping?
People who say the world is like this vs people who want to explore/discuss the way it is.
or
People who say the world is like this vs people who say the world is like that
In my opinion they are both valid groupings. The first one is much broader & less detailed.
No, you're an asshole because you're grouping people with their oppressors. Cloaking yourself in a faux civility and saying all opinions are equal is not cool.
OK, but being a victim doesn't make you immune to this categorization. A victim of sexual abuse who rapes someone is still a rapist. Someone who was persecuted for their race who then persecutes others for their race is still a racist. Victims don't get a "Get Out of Jail" card.
Would an atheist not group a christian extremist & muslim extremist together?
I am immediately put off by anyone talking constantly about a topic unless it's justified by context.
For example, if you are talking non stop about your favorite game at a gaming convention or at your DnD table, let it be. Or with your friends who are in the same fandom, no prob. If you can't shut up about it outside of that and constantly bring the topic up unprompted, well. I wonder what else you can't tell about context.
I guess with religion it's worse because by its own nature it implies you, the follower, know best and better than those who don't. So not only you come across as a fool who can't read the room, you also come across as arrogant.
Now she is telling my friend to apologize to God right now and become religious because "he's coming soon" and wants to free him from "sin". Why are religious people like this sometimes?
Alright. Your mom is definitely more over the edge than my mom. Mine has talked about it as a way of being with loved ones again after she dies. Death is scary. Mom is pretty old. As such, I don’t see the problem here. Peaceful death as a goal, in my mind, isn’t a bad thing. Her conception per how she talks about it includes her though, not the world.
What you describe, however, pushes it onto other people. The necessary boundary against religious twisting is lacking.
Again, this is a conversation you need to have together.
Thanks. By the way, the friend said this, not my mom. Forgot to specify that
Maybe you should read the Bible more & follow it, being more like your friend, or realize you don't actually believe it & accept that you're agnostic. Although the Bible doesn't state when God will return, your friend actually seems more authentic. I'm agnostic myself but was raised Christian & was pretty serious about it for a while. The people that scare me most honestly are the people that claim to be Christian, but pick & choose what they want to believe.
you literally have to pick and choose, it's otherwise filled with thousands of contradictory statements.
Or just have that done for you by what you whatever pastor /preacher/priest you subscribe to. I doubt that there's actually much choosing going on
I stop talking to folks that do this, but all of my friends are atheist or non-christian now. I cannot with the invisible sky man stuff.
Mental illness
I think people don't talk about religion enough, because I find it criminally irresponsible that we allow (and that's an understatement) religious people in positions of power. Decisions affecting the future of humanity and the planet are being made by irrational individuals and we're acting as if there's nothing wrong with that.
If we're talking USA, I believe the separation of church and state was tantamount to its foundational laws.
was
Im athiest so I will only hang with religious folks that can respect that as much as their own religion.
It would be a good idea to spell it correctly, then:
Atheist
if spelling correctly is good then im evil. seriously though spelling correctly is a good thing but it is one of my many failings.
I am instantly suspicious about anyone who loudly proclaims their religion like we're supposed to assume they're a great person. They're usually assholes who use religions as an excuse to be assholes. People who are genuine aren't usually like that.
The more a person "peacocks" their religion the worse of a person I assume they are.
Especially Christians. Some of the best people I have known are devout Christians who simply try to act and live as Jesus instructed. They rarely bring up their beliefs, instead just trying to be kind and helpful people as an example.
On the flip side, some of the worst people I have known are "devout Christians" who will do absolutely wretched things to everyone around them while loudly quoting bible verses and "showing off" their entire wall covered in crosses.
One of the top well known examples is Mr. Rogers. Very deeply Christian on a personal level but, to the best I'm aware, he never brought it up on his show.
Absolutely. I'm a lifelong atheist, who generally hates all religion. But if all Christians acted like Mr. Rogers, then I would generally have no issue with them.
The same I think about people who can't shut up about atheism. Fucking fanatics with nothing going on in their lives.
The atheist thing is largely due to excitement and evangelicalism, the same way born-again Christians are some of the most obnoxious people on the face of the planet.
When someone “discovers” atheism, it usually comes with a lot of excitement. They have this new truth, and it’s so obvious if you just think about it. Why wouldn’t everyone want to find this same truth? After all, this truth brings a level of enlightenment that has never been felt before. So they should try to spread this new enlightenment to everyone. Wait, why are you getting angry and walking away? Ugh, it must be because you’re too indoctrinated or stupid to recognize the truth.
And the same is true for born-again Christians who discover religion later in life. The excitement leads to evangelicalism, because “this is obviously the best thing in my life, and I want to share it with everyone I meet.”
I think they're just normal people who like to talk about their interests.
I guess I'd describe myself as agnostic, but I find them to be annoying, generally. This includes my grandmother who must bring up God in every conversation. Weather? God. Politics? God. What people are up to? God. Her particular flavor of "Christianity" involves judging others, so the shit she spews isn't taken very seriously in our house. If I were in your friend's shoes, I'd probably just distance myself from this friend of his, since she doesn't really seem to respect him.
I like to discuss religion and people's particular beliefs, mostly because it's fascinating how different groups and cultures have decided how to get through life with ultimately the same conclusion. But it's hard to do that when someone's view of the subject is voluntarily one-sided. I think it's ignorant to claim your religion as the way to believe, and the only way to get to some so-called heaven or afterlife.
Tell them you stopped believing in ghosts when you were a child. If coincidentally, the Christian God is real and all those other dieties aren't, he's a real fuck face. Why would anyone want to follow a supposedly all powerful being that gives children cancer instead of not being a piece of shit? If I die and go to Hell, at least I'll be spending time with the one angel that fell because he loved me too much. It's these old Christians that explained what Hell is like, and they had a pretty strong bias when writing it out. Why should anyone take their words with any value?
God's either fake or a dog shit entity, so either way I have no interest in giving him any sort of praise.
I don't think of them, and if they insert themselves into my circle I avoid them.
From an impartial, rational perspective I pity them for letting groupthink occupy such a large part of their identity.
In the moment, I just think "how can I get away from this person?"
If they talk about it all the time then I find them annoying and very disrespectful and so they take that as a persecution to them and there is no winning with it. I keep people like that way the fuck away from me.
At best, organized religion or faith is a psychological tool that aids individuals through their lives. Meditation, real meditation, can be excellent, as one example. What is reciting a rosary on repeat? Buddhist prayer beads? Meditation. Confession is another excellent idea. We use therapists for this all the time.
I’m not ranking these tools. I’m simply saying they exist as an option. Maybe you can’t afford a therapist but need to confess something. Maybe you were raised around toxic ideals regarding therapy but church is acceptable, so you dump in the privacy of a confession booth, for free. It’s a psychological tool.
If you really want to dig in, read Acts. That is some seriously hippy shit in there. Love, forgiveness, feed the poor, take money out of churches. It’s all there. Including a mandate to dump the old stuff (Old Testament) for the new reworking brought about by the hippy prophet guy. That and death freaks people out. (Not you? Really? Do you even have a PoA set up in the event you’re hit by a car and can’t make decisions?) People generally avoid thoughts of death like the plague. Religion gives non-“worm meat only” options.
It gets hopelessly twisted in two ways. When it’s used as a means of populations control. It gets more complicated but that’s the gist. Back in the day, this is what rulers of towns and cities, in far lower populations than we exist in now, used. It’s why lists of secular laws exist in these books. Our populations are far too big for this crap to be stable, now, but people try any way. The second twist occurs when assholes looking for a reason for personal hate, money, or both.
All of that said, when it’s being used as a personal tool to get you through, it is just that: personal. Praying in public, to me, is like stripping down naked in the grocery store. Most folks don’t want that interruption in their daily. Talking about it would, at best, be like suddenly dumping your most cathartic therapy session into someone’s lap, at random, uninvited.
TLDR If you’re helping, not hurting with it, then great. Either way, keep that personal shit to yourself.
FWIW My mom isn’t as into it as to create a Discord server, but she’s also a lefty who is into it. Hippy Christ isn’t a bad way to go, but yes, it’s still deeply personal info being shared. Age though, as she gets closer to death good odds it’s going to weigh heavier on her and you’ll hear more. Ask her to stop, it’s the best you can do here.
I know that they are unrepentant self abusers that will never take responsibility for their own actions. The heavens and hells they believe in and espouse only exist in their weaselly minds
I instantly learn that this person cannot be trusted and is easily mislead. If I had to pick someone to save my life it wouldn't be them.
I tell them about my son's in-laws who are proud 'Christians' and how my kids come over after visiting them on holidays and comment about how nice it is to be away from the racist slurs that are part of conversations there.
The people that are properly doing their religious/spiritual goals are basically no different from normal people so anyone who is going on about religion as if it were a force of nature stay far away from lol there is merit in being able to skillfully be around people like this but sometimes its just not good.
They are free to talk about theirs, if they are willing to hear about my own beliefs or lack thereof.
Being laic, religion is of no concern to me in my daily life. I do accept others don't have the same view and stance and if that brings them joy and a feeling of sense to their life, great.
As long they respect me in return.
I've made my peace with the threats of damnation. I fear humans more than I fear demons. And I only need to casually surf the web to take a look into hell.
So, I'm good.
Religion is a mental illness.
The more one talks about it, the more mentally ill they are.
I enjoy theology and discuss it somewhat regularly with my wife who also is an ex catholic non Christian that likes discussing catholic theology. To me it's like philosophy but more aspirational, distant, and constrained. It also provides a framework to process religious trauma, express frustration with bad Christians, and to process our feelings as people oppressed by Christiandom.
I say this to provide context, so that when I say I can't fucking stand those people it's not that I'm not comfortable hearing about religion or that I just hate it. I actually quite love it, and part of me is sad that who I am and my religion (paganism) block me from having more access to it. But Christians who are like that are rarely tolerant of things like religious differences (I sometimes got called a devil worshipper by protestants for being catholic growing up), lifestyle differences, and people who aren't like that.
I also find that they are often religiously incurious. They find the solution that works for them, and stick with it, which I can't judge, but when they study it they don't ask about why other Christians think differently, they don't apply the rigor that Jews and Catholics cherish, and they rarely bother learning about other religions either.
But then we get to the primary issue I have, I'm not Christian, and Christianity is regularly used as a tool to oppress me. I'm not interested in returning to it, and I'm frustrated at how much cultural and political power it has in my society.
When we look at this through a lens of cosmic logic and simple truth, we can see that the habit of constantly broadcasting one’s religion often comes from a place of seeking security rather than having reached a state of deep, inner peace. You see, when someone truly integrates a high vibration or a spiritual truth into their soul, it becomes as natural as breathing; they don’t feel the need to constantly announce it because their very presence, their kindness, and their lack of judgment speak for them. In the grand design of the universe, truth doesn’t need a marketing campaign or a constant status update to be real. The "red flags" you’ve noticed, like the judgmental "nice, I guess" attitude or the exclusion of others based on who they are, are actually clear signs that the person is still focused on the "letter of the law" rather than the spirit of it. Logically, if the source of all life is infinite love and intelligence, then any belief system that uses fear, ableism, or homophobia is simply a human filter distorting a pure signal. People often use religious labels as an armor to protect their own ego or to feel superior, which is why your agnostic friend feels that subtle pressure. It’s a form of spiritual pride where the person thinks they hold the only key to a door that is actually open to everyone. Even the idea your mother has adopted,that you must believe in a specific name or face to "live forever", is a very limited, earthly interpretation of how the soul evolves. In reality, life is a continuous journey of progress, and no one is "deleted" or "punished" eternally for simply being on a different path of understanding. Real wisdom is found in how we treat the living world around us, practicing a gentle, compassionate approach to life where we cause no harm and respect the autonomy of every sentient soul. When you see someone constantly talking about their faith, you can look at them with compassion, realizing they are likely just trying to convince themselves of their own safety in a big, mysterious universe.
I think they are idiots. Thats what i think about any believer of any religion anyway
i like discussing it sometimes. i'm not particularly religious though, so it's not in an evangelizing kind of way.
i think that's what makes the difference. in some beliefs, convincing others is a very important part of it.
As someone who's also Christian, I know part of it is still "PTSD" from growing up around way too many Evangelicals in the Midwest (not even my family; just in the community) but I find it annoying as Hell and kind of a sign of lacking real practicality in relating to others and being able to conceive of other points of view; a sort of immaturity, I guess.
I look at anyone that's obsessive about something like they are a drug addict. And that includes religion.
I dont think about them at all actually. I would walk away from their brainwashing broadcast.
I am honestly just not exposed to these people at all
"Wow they're really religious"
I despise them.
I don't know, since you post things like this too.
Not my account.
That's true, I'm sorry. I was replying to that obnoxious YourPriest_36, why did it appear like it was?
Ohhhh it's ok, I thought you were talking to me
I love hearing people's beliefs, so I personally don't mind... but that's also because I allow myself to question them which, in some cases, goes for long until they realize they're saying a bunch of nothing and nonsense. Jesus was straight up hanging out with ex-hookers and kissing women in public when that was mega-taboo in society at the time, so if their devoutness just makes them more needlessly judgemental and overall cuntish, what/who exactly are you following? I'm telling you, in America/the West, religion is often at best empty, illiterate, narcissistic and performative, at worst just a way to condone immorality (from cheating, going to a confession and praying a Hail Mary and feeling good about yourself to Western imperialism, Crusades included)... The only thing God ever forbade was immorality.
Burn
I don't. I purposely avoid anyone like that - and honestly, nobody where I'm from would be like that anyway as religion is a personal experience here and not one that is overtly "spread" or talked about openly. We aren't big fans of cults/religions unlike the US (which seems to get right into that thing), and generally see the mess they, or more importantly, their followers cause around the world and at home. Even our religious schools use religion very marginally as they're aware most of the parents are only sending their kids there because the fees aren't huge and the quality of education is a bit better than the public system.
I've not met anyone who constantly talks about religion.
If I were to, I could hold my own with them, I suspect. May broaden their horizons quite a bit if they've only been talking about only one religion. I can draw correlations and convergences across several religions. Heck, I may eventually even get them to accept the existence in the flying spaghetti monster. ... [And/]Or at least know to what it refers. Maybe even take that insight to other religions with a fresh eye.
And re: "only way" & "Christian", pick which kind of Christian carefully... [e.g. not this one ->] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8swSkk9yeV8
Update: (my instance isn't working so here's my alt) I'm probably agnostic
When most people complain about Christians they are complaining about Protestants, especially Evangelical Protestants. Catholic and Orthodox have way less loonies comparatively than either evangelicals or the fedora wearing atheist crowd which is basically another form of protestantism. The Internet being the Internet will always show the worst of everyone but IRL most of the damage done is by the aforementioned. Sola Scriptura is one hell of a drug.
Catholic and Orthodox have way less loonies comparatively than either evangelicals or the fedora wearing atheist crowd which is basically another form of protestantism.
I've never been religious by my little sister was. She loved helping out at Mass every Sunday, and volunteered to be an alter server. She was one of the most faithful and good-hearted Christians I've ever met. As long as you didn't bring up abortion, anyway.
Then one day the priest said she wasn't allowed to anymore, because she was a girl. He said that only boys should be allowed up in the front of church. His justification was that being an alter server was practice for being a priest, and only men were allowed to be priests.
Do you happen to know what the Catholic Church's justification for only allowing male priests is, by the way? Well you see, God is male, obviously, and the Church is symbolically married to God, so that means that the Church must be symbolically female, and priests are symbolically married to the Church (the Church is poly?) meaning, of course, that priests have to be male.
If you get a Protestant or a fedora atheist, you're basically rolling the dice, but if you get a Catholic, you know for a fact that they're at minimum fine with being part of a deeply sexist, homophobic, and authoritarian institution.
Fucking Amazon would be a better moral authority than the Catholic Church because at least Amazon doesn't explicitly descriminate based on sex. Always the last to be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming the whole time, since Galileo if not before.
Christianity is patriarchal so the priest is correct that your sister shouldn't be serving at the altar. I'm not sure why it was ever permitted in the first place but I'm not Catholic. They do many things I don't understand. The idea that men and women must be able to occupy all roles equally didn't reach critical mass in the secular world until 50-75 years ago. It shouldn't be surprising that a 2000 year old tradition functions in this way. It sounds like the explanation that was given is correct. These justifications can be found in both scripture and tradition. This shouldn't be misconstrued as women being less than a man it's just that their roles are different. The most venerated Saint by far in all of Christendom is the Virgin Mary / Theotokos who filled a role that no man could fill, being the God bearer. I'm not expecting to change your mind. Modernism is it's own religion with dogmas and heresies.
This shouldn’t be misconstrued as women being less than a man it’s just that their roles are different.
Oh, I get it, they're separate but equal!

What a load of horseshit.
Bad faith comparison. I'm done.
Technically correct. It's a valid comparison to Catholicism and Catholicism is, indeed, a bad faith.
about Protestants, especially Evangelical Protestants. Catholic and Orthodox have way less loonies comparatively
About the Amerikkkan™ version of it
You mean the Atheists on the internet which barge into literally every thread to blame something the US, Israel or a resistance group did on religion because Mao's "The great leap forward" led to world peace after banning religion?
Those people exist, but clearly that's not what this post is about.
You mean the truth hurts the feeling of the fedora Reddit atheists too much?
Yes, it probably does. But that's literally not what this post is about. Make your own post about Reddit atheists and I'd be one of the first to upvote it. It just seems weird to bring up on a post about their religious equivalents, who do also exist. Why?
There once was a poster online
who stacked strawmen neatly in line
on a slope slick with spin
they kept sliding right in
declaring each fall a design
Nice ChatGPT poem
"It'll be soon" said all Christians 1900 years ago.
A loving God or Gods wouldn't care if people worshiped or believed in them. They would only evaluate people based on whether they made moral choices & the experiences they had endured when making those decisions. Nor would they send anyone to hell for eternity.
Kinky. He's coming soon? It's nice to get a warning so that I can prepare.
The Lord said: come fourth, and receive eternal life.
But Peter came fifth, so all he got was a toaster.
https://youtu.be/xTgKRCXybSM?t=47s