A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.
The woman on the floor is thinking about all the gay people she screamed at about God’s wrath, and all the beatings she took from her husband because he was the Head of her, and all of the time and money she wasted on the church, and all of the beatings she let her husband give to her kids lest she “spoil the child,” and all of the bs she swallowed from Republicans, and all of the shame she carried for masturbating, and all of the abuse she hurled at women outside abortion clinics, and all.of the children she’d terrified at Sunday School, and all of the things she never tried because someone had told her not to.
And that’s just the beginning. She’ll also have to figure out where to go from here. Does she now live a lie and try to keep up in her social religious circles? Does she come out and risk being ostracized by her friends and community? Will she have to move? Is she married? If so, how is she going to break it to her life partner?
That dude wouldn’t be so smug when he realizes he just turned her life upside down. It’s not just a belief, it’s a lifestyle.
It’s a shit lifestyle that needs to die.
Could you elaborate on that?
The person who replied to you went on a rant about voting. Which I agree, religious people tend to vote against their interests. But spending 3 paragraphs talking about voting and nothing else doesn’t really elaborate on why it’s a shit lifestyle does it? I’ll add what I think are the worst aspects of a religious lifestyle.
The biggest issue with a religious lifestyle, in my opinion, is the fact that truly believing in a religion, especially a deity means you have been convinced, and are able to convince yourself to believe in something for which there is no evidence (ive heard religious arguments that faith is a “radical” belief in something that defies logic). The concept of God, for the most part, isn’t that bad. The issue is, if you’ve let in one truth about your life that you believe is true despite any supporting evidence and no logical reason, that opens the door for more random beliefs that aren’t founded on evidence. Or more accurately, they may believe new things (good or bad) for one reason or another but the idea that something needs evidence or solid reasoning to be believed doesn’t factor into their calculations nearly as much.
This means that a religious lifestyle is random, based on where and how they were raised with an ethos of not questioning their foundational beliefs. This means many religious communities grow up fine, and it means many grow up in the bizarre bigoted looney-tunes world I’m sure you’ve seen if you know religious people from disparate backgrounds.
Idk exactly what that person necessarily meant, but to me, a lifestyle based on beliefs that the person has been trained not to question and doesn’t need evidence to be true is kind of shit.
And in before people say that not all (or even most) religious people are like that. I agree that a religious person could easily be raised as someone who engages in logical reasoning and only accepts new beliefs if they think they have sufficient evidence etc. That’s probably true. I’m explaining why I think religion opens the door to a shit lifestyle because of religion.
Religious people might be polite, might even do good things, but they vote for people who do terrible things. Ideally, the whole thing would be done away with. Convincing people to reject facts and vote their feelings is never a gpod combo.
If religious people recused themselves from voting, I wouldn’t care much. But they’re dragging our country down. They’re gullible tools of awful rich men. They fight any forms of progress.
And yeah yeah you’re about to tell me about your aunt Maple who isn’t like that, she’s really lovely and doesn’t preach at you and just likes going to church for the social element. But who does she vote for??
Being religious doesn’t mean you vote for Trump. Thinking that way just encourages them.
Plenty of religious people actually vote for the person more likely to feed the hungry, liberate the captive, take care of the earth, etc. You know, the way the Bible teaches.
Not most of em.
Only if your view of “religious” is limited to white Evangelical Protestants.
But most people have a broader worldview than that.
I kid you not, all that kind of personal history creates a massive sunk cost fallacy that will make it impossible for them to admit that they may possibly be wrong.
Eh doing that isn’t really worth the headache. Blind faith is, IMO, a socially acceptable mental illness. You can’t cure a mental illness by brute force; all your gonna do is tire yourself out.
It’s not even that, the comic really does get right to the point. It would absolutely crush some people. My grandmother finds strength to deal with such bullshit by her beliefs so I wouldn’t dare take that away from her. It’s harmless as long as they aren’t the type to push their beliefs on you and hurt you for it.
Okay but as a kid, I got crushed because my family was religious and threw me out like literal fucking trash. This shit never stays harmless, and it keeps people susceptible to the worst instincts to do shit like fascism. Its always the most vulnerable who this shit hurts, so nobody cares.
So I don’t give a shit how good your delusion makes you feel. If you want to hurt people to feel good, keep it between you and yourself and just put a needle in your arm. Plus, if something goes wrong there, you have narcan.
I’m sorry you went through that but I literally said “It’s harmless as long as they aren’t the type to push their beliefs on you and hurt you for it.”
My family has always been live and let live. They’re religious but you wouldn’t know it unless you spent enough time with them to hear them mention going to mass or whatever.
But they always do. Its like the mythical ‘good cop’, they act as cover for the rest, and (almost) never take real action to compensate for the damage the majority do. Its one if those circumstances where being individually harmless is not systemically harmless.
I think I can agree with that. They may not like what the church has to say about LGBT+ people, but they also don’t actively fight for their rights either.
I do have a gay cousin though and they all love him, but yeah how they act within their own family doesn’t change how society at large deals with those issues.
I’d absofuckinglutley love to see religion eventually go by the wayside, too much pain and suffer caused by it, but to “forcefully” remove someone from within it can also be really damaging to that individual who may not be hurting anyone. I don’t really know what the answer is there though. Hopefully in time we move away from these magical stories. :/
The solution isnt shallow stripping if shit or reeducation camps that basically amount to bullying, but actually fixing the core problems. I know I tend to talk about a lot of American atheists as ‘Christianity as directed by Christopher Nolan’; all the explicit magic and camp stripped out, but otherwise the exact same ways of thinking they were raised with.
But the most anyone can do anything here is halfway, so…
In my eyes that’s just being a hypocrite.
You’re either following the rules completely or you’re cherry picking and a hypocrite.
That can absolutely be true, but the context here is just the comic where some guys got a “win” and totally crushed a person we don’t know anything about.
My initial comment was replying to someone saying it’s not worth it because of how difficult it can be with no payout. I just wanted to remind them that the outcome can be really bad for some people.
On a related topic: my mother isn’t religious, but she believes in “karma” and “reiki healing,” all that new age b.s. It helps her cope with life and i’d never want to take that from her just because it isnt real unless she starts using that as a way to cure cancer or something that will actually hurt her.
Your grandma is not (necessarily - I don’t know her, she could be trafficking people) a bad person, but her beliefs and that of so many others who also are good (at least they might be) people provide the fertile ground for the growth of an agressive weed. It’s not the grounds fault, it could be growing strawberries instead, but right now its existence nourishes a strangling vine that bears poisonous fruit.
We definetly should not poison the ground to kill the weed, though that certainly is a way to get rid of it. But we absolutely need to prevent it from spreading, new fields should not be infected by it and with the exhaution of the old places of growth, we might manage to extinct it.
That’s why it is important to keep in mind that your grandma is (most likely) okay to just exist as a believer, but that the beliefs she holds are roots of something, that must not spread.
Your grandma is not (necessarily - I don’t know her, she could be trafficking people) a bad person,
She’s actually the head of the #2 highest volume child trafficking organization! I’m so proud! Lol
I do agree with what you said though, I just couldn’t help making the joke. :P
Also imo a church directory is a con-man’s gold mine. Especially elderly church members, they’ve been taught all their lives to Believe anyone exuding confidence and claiming to have answers and solutions.
So wouldn’t that mean actively going around telling newbies why church is bad? Which is what we don’t want religious folks doing?
The thing I always feel the need to remind people: they would be that kind of person without religion.
Not my grandma, she always says it’s God that helps her through her troubles and that her faith in his support is what helps her cope with bad times.
There are other ways that I totally agree, she says God helped her survive, but in those cases I remind her it’s her own intelligence and resourcefulness that got her through those situations.
What I mean, which I didn’t make clear in my original post, was: If religion was erased before she was born, she’d still find something to place her faith in and power up her innate resourcefulness. And the people who force their views on others would find another authoritative vehicle for that. But you’re right, if you rip that foundation out now, you risk more harm than good.
I think that depends on the person. Some would be completely lost without their god.
From the same author:
That’s pretty funny.
Funny, but Simpsons did it.
simpsons is going for so long i think they might have done literally every joke in existance by now
Cool cool, now do the one where the mother was previously being a transphobic piece of shit because “her god told her so”.
I’ve decided that I can’t change my mother’s beliefs nor should I. I told her that we have a no-politics rule as of summer 2020. It saved our relationship.
I wish mine did that. I said one thing about Trump not having as much money as he claims, and my mom got all insulted. She said that maybe we shouldn’t talk about politics, etc, and I agreed to be nice. I don’t like to talk politics at all, even with like-minded people. But she’ll blame a company getting hacked and losing my personal info on democrats, and tell me that she can’t wait until all democrats die off.
But now she just spouts of any shit that comes to her mind without a care, while I’m keeping to our dealt and shutting up. I doubt she even remembers our promise, because the moment it wasn’t convenient for her, she dropped it.
the moment it wasn’t convenient for her, she dropped it.
Sticking to the (lack of) principles of the Republican Party, I see!
Part of this was what finally got me off Facebook. People I liked, family members, posting dumb shit, and me letting it trigger me. It was literally only on Facebook, family gatherings were fun times. And honestly, since Trump, and despite the dichotomy that exists in my family and probably every other family, we seem to speak less about politics.
I’ve been off Facebook for somewhere between 10 and 15 years. I quit it because I didn’t care about what friends and family posted because they were all very religious, and I couldn’t post what I really wanted without offending said friends and family.
Instead of having faith in God, I have faith in the next generation to do slightly better each time. I can’t really bring it to myself to tell my grandma there’s no heaven or hell and her entire life has been a lie. Ignorance is truly bliss sometimes.
Slightly being the key word. I used to think we’d be fine after boomers die and millenials take over (sorry Gen X yes we always forget you) but then realized there are plenty of terrible Gen Y and then for a moment Gen Z was going to change labor politics gun control environment gender/sexuality and be super accepting but there’s still a huge proportion who still want to MAGA… we’ll see how bad alpha is
like my nephews say the same racist shit on their discord and valorant as I saw on 4chan 20 years ago and it’s just sad
If yo mama cries over religion, then maybe she needs professional help.
I’m certainly not religious, but I understand that a lot of people use religion to supplement a lacking support network. Yes, they should find healthier ways to receive the support they need, but if you force them to abandon their religion without having another source of support to replace it, they’re going to feel very isolated and scared, possibly leading to tears. Especially if their son forced them into that situation and then immediately left, showing complete disregard for their feelings.
Not from a priest though.
Maybe you need professional help
"Hey, you know that belief system that attempts to answer the great unanswerable questions and gives you some shred of comfort? Nah, you live in an unfeeling, uncaring world. There is nothing, no great answer. Just living until you die.
Why are you crying?"
If you call yourself an atheist vs agnostic, I immediately just see an edgy teenager who wants to be confrontational. Not someone seeking actual answers or discussion. Most of the greatest scientific thinkers acknowledge that science is the answer to “how?”, but not “why?”. We simply don’t have that answer. Anyone claiming to is arrogant at best.
attempts to answer the great unanswerable
I can also try to do that, where is my money?
gives you some shred of comfort
I mean if lying to yourself and others gives you comfort, then my point stands that you need help
unfeeling, uncaring world
Absolutely not, otherwise i would have written “she can go fuck herself”, but i didnt because people deserve better than being forced to believe in some century old mental mindgame of bullshit.
Just living until you die.
Thats correct, but life is amazing and full of cool stuff already. There is no need to limit your happiness with some archaic system of self oppression.
People who have grown up in a culture of religion assume that there’s nothing but pain in atheism, when actually it’s quite liberating. The intellectual honesty of atheism is simple, refreshing, and empowering. I for one have never been more at peace with myself.
It turns out that fearmongering about death (eg. most religious teachings of an afterlife) perpetuates the fear of death. Atheists must make peace with the reality of the universe and when they do the fear simply goes away.
I can also try to do that, where is my money?
You lack the charisma of a televangelist and the backing of a wealthy group to lobby against taxing your gains.
I mean if lying to yourself and others gives you comfort, then my point stands that you need help
Truth hurts and most people don’t like being in pain most of the time.
Absolutely not, otherwise i would have written “she can go fuck herself”, but i didnt because people deserve better than being forced to believe in some century old mental mindgame of bullshit.
You assume they are being forced and not do so willingly. Those looking for stability tend to cling to ideas that don’t change multiple times over the course of their life. An ancient religion is considerably more stable than the ever-changing discoveries of science.
Thats correct, but life is amazing and full of cool stuff already. There is no need to limit your happiness with some archaic system of self oppression.
Most people don’t get to see those. Each individual has a limited experience through life and we all tend to take for granted the idea that we all experience the same things in the same way. We don’t.
If you can’t understand why someone would cling to religion, at least try to understand that the same can be said about them regarding you.
Not sure why @fishos@lemmy.world is only replying in DMs but here’s the response I couldn’t send there:
The reason people are assuming you’re a theist is because (1) you’re spouting the same things apologists do. The quote you opened with is a (debatably bigoted) caricature of atheists designed to make them seem unreasonable.
Then there’s the “how, not why” which is a deliberately vaguely worded claim which apologists use to smuggle in an implication of some sort of cosmic purpose, as if “why” means “what’s the purpose behind it?” Science answers both the how and why when “why” only means “why.” (Why does it rain? Water cycle. How does it rain? Water cycle.)
(2) You’re also perpetuating the falsehood (I’d say “lying” but maybe you’re misinformed) that atheists are all gnostic like Christians tend to do to make atheism seem more loaded than it is. Gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists are both “atheists.” Saying all atheists are gnostic atheists is like someone saying all Christians are Catholics. I agree that gnostic atheism is unfounded, but I didn’t see a single person there make a gnostic claim, yet that’s the strawman you’re wrestling with.
And (3) you actually didn’t say you were an agnostic atheist, let alone “clearly.”
Nah, you live in an unfeeling, uncaring world. There is nothing, no great answer. Just living until you die.
I don’t agree with that other guy, but now you’re just wrestling with a straw man. Nobody says these things.
Nature and physics may not have the capacity to care about you, but you have friends, family, and pets that do whether God exists or not. And there’s plenty of questions that seem like we won’t get an answer for the foreseeable future, but that doesn’t mean you can’t find any meaning or joy in trying, or that you can’t tackle smaller questions that could build up to answering a greater one.
Just living until you die.
This part is particularly cartoonish. Nobody says life is just living until you die. That’s a debatably bigoted caricature that Christians invented.
We live the same lives theists do, and we have just as many meaningful experiences and relationships. We just don’t sacrifice enormous amounts of our time worshiping or thinking about something that can’t be shown to exist unless you take someone’s word for it.
Just like nobody knows for certain if centaurs or the Tooth Fairy actually exist or not. Right.
…I can certainly relate to the idea that we cannot fully comprehend reality. No, seriously, I do; and I’m often ranting against assumers claiming to know shit that they cannot reliably know*.
But, at the end of the day, this shit is supposed to be practical, not some mental masturbation over the metaphysical fabric of the reality. You need to draw the line somewhere and say “nah, this is likely enough to be bullshit that we can safely say «it’s bullshit»”. Otherwise your “agnosticism” is simply a fancy name for solipsism.
*for example, implying that they know who says it (edgy teenager) and “intention” (to be confrontational), based on the label that one might use (atheist). That stinks assumption from a distance, like it or not.
There are lots of ways to approach meaning, and more broadly spirituality and community, without theism.
This is a weird take on atheism that reads like you’ve only seen atheists online creeping out of /r/atheism or some similar place. There’s no more reason that “why” should be answered by Christianity than by any number of philosophies that don’t require a god, and pegging someone as arrogant for ascribing to those beliefs is silly.
Agnosticism was coined because people were afraid of coming out as atheists, but it’s really the same thing.
Atheist thinks there’s no evidence for god so it doesn’t make sense to believe in one.
Agnostic thinks there’s no evidence for god, so it’s unlikely there’s one.
In both cases, the person is science first and would change their opinion if proof was presented but before that they don’t believe in god.
That’s not what agnostic means. Agnostics believe “there is no way to know”, so you can have Agnostic Theists (we can’t know for sure, but I believe God exists) as well as Agnostic Atheists (we can’t know for sure, but I don’t believe God exists).
The opposite is gnosticism, and you can similarly have Gnostic Theists (God exists and I can prove it) and Gnostic Atheists (God doesn’t exist, and I can prove it).
Looks like I made a small mistake, but it just takes agnostic closer to atheist
The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe
Most agnostics are atheists because the evidence always favors atheism. But there really are a handful of agnostic theists out there!
So what you’re saying is that there’s people who don’t believe that god(s) exist but they believe in it/them anyways?
Or they believe in some trash evidence for the existence of god
No, they are agnostic theists, which means that they believe there is no way to know if god exists or not, but they believe in god anyway.
Agnosticism is about believing whether the existence of god is testable, not about whether god actually exists or not.
Obviously the vast majority of agnostics are also atheists, because it’s silly to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But there are some few who feel that god is out there even if we cannot know for sure.
Simpler: he’s saying that there are people who believe in something, but they don’t claim to know it.
For example. I brew some coffee at 14:00. Now it’s 18:00. I believe that my coffee is still warm, but I don’t know it - because I have no data to back up that knowledge. I can however generate said knowledge by grabbing a cup of coffee. (I just did it. It’s warm.)
What the agnostic theists do is like that. With a key difference: they cannot generate said knowledge, and they know it. They cannot grab that cup of coffee.
So your arguments for agnosticism over atheism is that you don’t want to make religious people feel uncomfortable and science isn’t philosophy?
how on earth was that your takeaway from that comment?
neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question “is there a god?”
it’s edgy teen territory to act like they can
neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question “is there a god?”
That’s a loaded question. What type of god? You wanna define it before you ask if it exists.
And after you define it, you can also gather all the proof that it exists and you can present it to science and to philosophy. And they will look at all that proof and say “X”. Because they doubt.
But it’s still on you to prove your claim that there is a god, if you believe it. If you’re just on the sidelines asking because you’re not sure - there’s a simpler answer: yes, there is a god. It is me. And I need about 10% of your monthly income. Get in touch, I’ll send you some details where you can donate your share. In return, I will of course love you unconditionally until you slightly annoy me with your lifestyle (which I already know you will, I am omniscient and I literally made you this way, you have no choice in the matter), at which point you will know my vengeance, for I am the Lord. Throughout this period where I exact my retribution, the expectation is that you’ll shut up and take it, and never forget about that 10% you owe me. Otherwise I will literally put you through hell.
If you somehow doubt ANY of these claims, for reasons like “why would God contact me on the internet, or need my money, or hate me for how he made me”, or any of these silly questions, just remember - neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question “is there a god?”. Just like they can’t provide objective truth to “is god that dude on lemmy?”
That’s a loaded question. What type of god? You wanna define it before you ask if it exists.
given that we’re very clearly talking in the context of a christian god here, I’m not sure what additional information you need
but what if i’m god ha ha he he
this is just that edgy teenager shit again
Nope. I’m God. Please remember, you have as much evidence I am not, as I have that god doesn’t exist.
And just for that “edgy teenager” comment, I’ll put a word in to make sure you’re tortured by the devil with the most jagged penis.
Please remember, you have as much evidence I am not, as I have that god doesn’t exist.
you’re still behaving as if i’m trying to convince you of the existence of a god, rather than you trying to convince me that one doesn’t exist
do you understand the difference?
Their first part is a short work of fiction about making a religious person feel bad.
Their second is saying that science doesn’t answer the question “why.”
Philosophy asks “why” at least it does here on Earth.
The first part is a response to “why would somebody be sad if their religion turned out to be false”, which for the record, if you need it explained to you why that might be, you’re really earning that “edgy teenager” label.
The second is saying that there’s literally no way to be sure of answers on the scale of “is there a god?”, science included
Philosophy asks some “why?” questions, but if you think it’s equipped to definitively answer all of them you don’t know much about philosophy.
Atheism is trying to prove a negative
Gnostic atheism is not the same as agnostic atheism. You’re talking about a subsect of atheism.
What are you on about? Atheism is rejecting a ridiculous belief system. There is nothing for atheists to prove, they made no claims. Religion is the one making claims, so it’s on them to prove it. Atheism simply says “no thanks, the evidence you provide is insufficient and I don’t believe you”.
Atheism is trying to prove a negative
What are you on about? Atheism is rejecting a ridiculous belief system.
Y’all are arguing the same thing with these two sentences.
There is nothing for atheists to prove, they made no claims. Religion is the one making claims, so it’s on them to prove it. Atheism simply says “no thanks, the evidence you provide is insufficient and I don’t believe you”.
That sounds like trying to disprove a negative to me. Just because it’s an absurd negative doesn’t mean it’s not impossible to disprove it.
I don’t want to get into all the nitty gritty, but the weight against the big sky person is “we definitely don’t see it.” and the argument for the big sky person is “we definitely feel it.”
Y’all are both spending a lot of time arguing about the big sky person regardless of your stance.
*edit actually, i just saw this comment, and i’m not gonna argue with that.
You messaged me directly rather than responding in the thread, but messaging back is failing, so I will respond here.
There is no theory involving deities that fits the models of the universe we have based on observable evidence, and there is no evidence in support of any theory involving deities.
For anything else we would say that this thing doesn’t exist and leave it at that.
Agnosticism gets lost in the fallacy that since it’s logically impossible to prove non-existence we must hold open the possibility of existence without evidence.
So I’m an atheist because it is the default state to be, it makes no statement requiring evidence, and it doesn’t require fallacy.
You live in a universe whose only source of joy, hope, inspiration, and meaning is sapient minds like yours. The entire observable cosmos has so far turned out to be nothing but dead rocks, dead dust, and dead gas, except for beings like you. Your very existence is an act of defiance worthy of pride. Stand tall, sophont. Create the future you wish to see, for YOUR KIND are the only ones who you’ve met who are capable of bringing it about!
If yo mama is crying, it’s probably because she gave birth to you.
If yo momma is crying, it’s probably because I ain’t been up for a booty call in a few days.
it’s probably because I ain’t been up for a booty call in a few days.
Yeah… your inability to get it up is not my momma’s problem.
Yeah, she isn’t being paid for that
What? Are you jealous of people who earn money in more honest ways than you?
Shit, how do you know about my crypto mine slaves?
Anyway, she got to pay off your college debt somehow
she got to pay off your college debt somehow
Hey… don’t judge. That’s how she paid off yours, too.
Be pragmatic in your atheism advocacy. Lay out your arguments why supernatural thinking is bad, both from an epistemological and pragmatic sense, poke at contradictions of the other person’s religion with reality, and warn about the dangers of organized religion specifically, just don’t cross the line of actually engaging in nuclear warfare.
If they haven’t been brainwashed enough, they’ll bite, even if it takes them months. If they have been brainwashed enough but they have intellectual honesty and curiosity, they may begin a self-questioning process themselves that will eventually make them crash, and it will be painful, but once they get recovered they’ll be grateful. If they don’t have that intellectual honesty, you’ve at least planted the potential seeds for them to decide at some later point that superstition was indeed bullshit, which may or may not come into fruition in the future. If the person you’re talking with is an intellectual donkey (in terms of unwillingness to reason), you have nothing to gain from that conversation.
When it comes to old religious people, though, I limit myself to relentlessly attacking the church. Due to their material conditions, they have the lowest chance to ever leaving their beliefs anyway, so my goal is just to make them wary of any dumbfuck hate preacher they may find.
Meh. All reasoning is grounded in emotion. Even atheistic reasoning. That’s why argumentation does zip. It’s like trying to fix a warped floor by moving the rug around.
Ah yeah, propaganda and stereotyping.
I don’t believe in Gawd but I certainly hope my maid does.
I struggled a lot when I lost my faith. I truly believe I’m better off now but I don’t take other people’s spiritual paths lightly. You go to dark places when you haven’t learned how to cope otherwise.
I had the opposite experience. I was convinced I was going to hell and that there was nothing I could do about it, so I thought I may as well be glutinous and selfish to enjoy my time here before getting tortured for eternity. It caused me some serious trauma, and on top of that it led to me hurting family and friends.
I don’t think I could’ve ever left my self-loathing and selfishness behind if I didn’t let go of my religion.
Yeah, and also I wouldn’t go out of my way to shit on someone who believes we live in a simulation. Simulation theory is sort of plausible with our current understanding of tech—but right now it has just as much evidence as most religions (which is none for both). So yeah, I don’t think it’s good practice to try and dunk on people for their beliefs.
Ragebait doesn’t deserve all this spilled ink.
Pretty good yoko geri for a neckbeard to be throwin
Idk that knee on the planted leg looks locked.
- for a neckbeard :D
This is why I may never be able to fully repair my relationship with my religious father after my own journey out, because I love him too much to undermine the belief that sustains him as an 87 year old.
My own journey out has been incredibly painful and challenging but that is MY life path, not his. He stuck with my mother for 25 years to the very end after her Parkinsons diagnosis and he got to watch her choke to death on some food at the end.
I really believe my father doesn’t need the religion to be that good and faithful, because he is just basically made of good stuff. But I will never attack his faith even though in my heart of hearts I find the foundations of that faith to be risible. What would be gained? What would it say about me if I did?
All I want is an apology for forcing their religion onto me so aggressively as a child. I don’t think that is too much to ask, but they sure seem to think it is.
not even an apology. I don’t need anyone to be sorry. The nuns who beat me will never be sorry, they think that they’re doing it for God and nothing can be wrong when you’re doing it for God. But if one of the other adults that I trust could at least say ‘Hey, they shouldn’t have beat you with sticks. They were wrong for that.’ it would make me feel like maybe I wasn’t a fucking crazy person for not wanting to get beat with sticks. But they won’t. Everyone pretends it didn’t happen, or that it was some sort of misunderstanding, because everyone needs to maintain the delusion that everything the church does is good just because it’s the church doing it. For years I was essentially told “that didn’t happen because the church wouldn’t do that but if they did it’s because you deserved it”. What can a six year old do to deserve being beaten with a yardstick by a grown woman?
My philosophy is if they are truly happy with what they believe and aren’t harming other people with vitriolic speech or dogmatic beliefs just leave them be. It’s not harming anything for them to comfortable in their little bubble.
But when they put on their “holier than thou … I know better and I am going to push my beliefs on you” hat the gloves are off. Although it’s unlikely you’ll change their mind, you can usually score a few jabs that rock their world just a smidgeon.
Yeah, I have no desire to “change” anyone either. As long as they are decent people, that’s enough for me.
She’s crying because she realized that she could buy a second home if she hadn’t been foolishly donating to the church all this time.
![Victory? [elder cactus]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/244d43ec-eeec-4e9c-a97a-a7e978cc47a5.jpeg){kind=link}