this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
1230 points (97.3% liked)
People Twitter
10303 readers
855 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 international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. If you replace the "x" at their site with xcancel (so it beomes xcancel.com), and you're not on mobile, it will save video. https://web.archive.org/save is another great option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is so biggoted about hating on religion? Religion is a choice, a choice to be irresposnible and ignore evidence.
I was an Ortodox Cristian. I live with fundamentalist Ortodox Cristians, and I am at fault for how radical they are, because I believed it 100%. But I'm not one anymore, too many things made it fucking obvious that you have to be delusional to believe it. Eventually, if you are reasonable at all, you will realize.
EDIT: To be ironically one of the voices of reason, yes, most people can't just break out, I understand.
They need to be deprogrammed.
Because hating the religion is a thin excuse for racism. And being of a certain race is not a choice.
Because when they say "Muslim", they aren't talking about a white person, even though there are white Muslims.
Indeed the person and the religion should be separated. I hate Islam, but not most Muslims. Christianity, but not most Christians. And so on. The religions and their zealots are capable of great evil, whereas the people usually either were born into a religious family, or they were just looking for hope in dark times. Of course I find it best to keep it all to yourself anyway, unless talking with people you know will understand you
I don't have a problem with religious folks who are reasonable about their religion. The problem is that so many of them are not.
I actually can't give a crap about a person's race. Like I'm thoroughly against the Gaza genocide. I don't care if other people associate religion with race, I don't have to fall in line with anyone really. Actually, not falling in line is the entire point.
Race, gender, and quite a few things aren't a choice. I have some tolerance for heavily indoctrinated people, but I don't know how to deprogram them, and I'm quite irritated that states are intentionally spreading religion.
It taints everything, and ruins lives. My parents right now are ignoring signs of diseases because "if god wants to take you, he will take you". I can't even begin to describe how furious this makes me feel. Also, disregarding the possibility that I may not be neurotypical.
It makes me wish we would just get nuked.
Well said.
Being of a certain race does make you a certain religion.
As far as teachings go Islam and Christianity are like 80% same. They are not hating the religion they are hating the race and you can tell.
Btw race means more than skin color before anyone tries to justify it using that.
Hate the things that religion stands for but hating the concept is just sort of a waste of time. It's like saying you hate evil, it sounds good but when you think about it it doesn't really mean anything. It's much more useful to hate evil people after all you can action that.
I do hate evil, obviously, and would rather have it eradicated.
I think it's more about how you do it
In this case she's not hating on religion in general but on a specific religion while ignoring the other two major God of Abraham religions (Judaism and Christianity) that broadly share the same beliefs. If I talk shit, its about the whole Judeo-Christo-Islam.
Which evidence?
All evidence, considering it's based on BELIEF, and not the scientific method. Such as a wall killing a 200k+ army, when such an army would have been impossible in ancient times, and such a wall impossibly huge. The sheer bigoted bullshit that makes you a bad person just for believing in it.
ALL irrational beliefs are a plague on humanity, not just religion!
Would you believe something if it were demonstrated through the scientific method?
I don't think that a wall could kill an army, regardless of the size of the wall or the army. This is because walls are inanimate objects. I feel like you're leaving something out of this story.
Religion isn't a belief. It's a social construct. It includes beliefs, and those beliefs may be rational or irrational.
It had something to do with the Ark of the covenant or something. It just does not make sense to me, and the stakes of actually following through with abrahamic religions are dire. We are talking about gambling away your entire material existence, which you only get one of, on something better that probably does not exist. Regardless, I'm not having this battle with every single person again, I will just wait for AI to advance, which will pretty much deconstruct everything we do with ease soon. It just needs significantly larger context window probably.
You don't HAVE TO believe anything proven by the scientific method. That's literally the entire point of the process.
Yes, you are rational, no thanks to religion. Maybe there's a reason I hate on it, as it directly impacts my life and the world around it? Like the current evangelical cult being used to justify utterly oppressing America? And America is trying to spread that oppression to us. Like backstabbing Ukraine by cutting off Starlink.
If it were not making my life so much worse, I would not be hating it with such an intensity.
As for you, I can't possibly imagine what this faith is, or why you would have it. Why choose faith?
That last part is a key issue. I will can it then.
I love your comment, very rational argument that moves the discussion forward into more sophisticated territory. (Hopefully) respectful disagreement incoming.
"Bigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
So technically, bigot could describe anyone who treats members of a group with intolerance. For example, I am bigoted towards Nazis. This example demonstrates that "bigot" does not intrinsically equal "bad". It is probably a good thing to be bigoted towards Nazis. Given this definition, I don't think there's any way to claim these stances aren't bigoted towards religion, but the real question is whether that bigotry is a good thing or not. That sounds obviously wrong, but only because we're so used to hearing "bigot" as a synonym for bad. Given this definition I would proudly say, for instance, that I am bigoted against racists or sexists. And in a similar vein, if someone does a lot of good charity work in their city, and let's say they've even been a factual net positive for their city, but they're also deeply racist and sexist, I think it's fair for me to say "I hate them", even though they've done other good things. If I say "racism and sexism are evil", then I'm not really "ignoring evidence" of this guy being a good benefactor to his city. I'm correctly disentangling an irrelevant aspect (his social benevolence) from the relevant aspect (the intrinsic goodness or badness of being racist+sexist). Yes, there are racists who have done good things, good acts, good science even, etc etc. But that is not necessarily relevant to whether racism itself is good. It is obvious to most people that when the racist guy happens to benefit his city, say with a big charitable donation to the museum (and even all races of people in the city may benefit), that he did a good thing despite his racism and not because of it. This "despiteness" is hard to establish though, and I understand that this line of thinking easily leads to unfalsifiable claims, where every good thing done by a religious person gets attributed to non-religious causes and vice versa for bad things.
But in the case of the racist, it seems clear, doesn't it? All the good acts done by racists aren't really fair to count as evidence for "racism is a good thing". And to your point, all the bad acts done by racists aren't fair to count as evidence for "racism is a bad thing". If a racist cuts me off while driving without using their turn signal, I can't be like "this proves that racism is bad". We need to establish a causal link. My comment is getting long already, but to me it seems pretty clear that most of the good things done by religious people are things they likely would have done otherwise, since both atheists and religious people alike do plenty of good things, and the same sorts of good things. But there's a whole class of bad things (usually genocidal type things, but also human abuses, etc) that seem to almost exclusively exist under religious justifications.
I think the biggest trickiness of this whole topic comes from the fact that it is indeed not so black and white. To clarify my stance, I cannot deny that there are people who did good acts in a way that can only be attributed to religion, and that they would not have done without religion. We have the following qualities: (good person, bad person) and how they're done (independently of religion/lack of religion, because of religion, because of lack of religion), and thus 6 total classes of people to investigate.
Just to quickly clarify an ambiguity here, I guess we could have more classes for "good ONLY because of religion" vs "good because of religion in reality, but hypothetically we expect they would have been good without it". But for the sake of simplicity it seems like we can lump that second type in with the "independently of religion" quality.
Definitely anyone who argues that the class of "Good Person Only Because Of Religion" is empty is being totally insane. There's a hefty amount of people in this category. I don't know all the people you listed, but I'm fine saying for sake of argument that they are all in it - although I imagine you'd agree some of them may have been good people and some things even if religion didn't exist? But I'd like to go in whatever direction you think makes your argument strongest.
Likewise, anyone who argues that the "Bad Person Only Because Of Lack Of Religion" category is empty is also being really biased. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have committed atrocities because "God doesn't exist so I can do whatever I can get away with", etc.
I think what's at stake here is, firstly, the relative sizes of these classes, and secondly, whether their relative size is a historical coincidence or an intrinsic result of something about religiosity.
If the stakes are right, I'm not really sure how to proceed "rigorously". It's really a job for sociological studies, since there are enough humans that we could both list individual examples for a very long time - I'm sure we both agree that all 6 classes of people I described have at least a million members alive even just right now. It seems like the best we can do is make persuasive type arguments.
I can think of a few directions of arguments to make, so forgive me in advance if I'm scatterbrained. I'll just write an idea of one:
Your examples of Good Because Of Religion people are outstanding, "great" people. Such people are not representative of the population as a whole. Perhaps for very outstanding people, religion is more likely to be beneficial. But when we look at how "the masses" (to use an elitist term) use religion to justify things, I usually see it for much more petty things like controlling one's children, as a justification for condemning groups they just don't like, as a justification for violence, etc. The role religion plays in the current American social situation is undoubtedly an example of this, and the same goes for the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and much of the perpetual conflict in the Middle East in general. I am not aware of similar situations in the world right now that are not largely based on religious zealotry. Even from historical concepts, it seems religion is often used as a tool to manufacture mass consent for these things.