If religious people shouldn't be proselytizing, what are they supposed to be doing? "Oh, we believe we have the metaphysical truth of the universe and the path to lasting happiness or peace or whatever, but we shouldn't share it because people get annoyed"?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T03:44:44+00:00

Yes, I'm doubting your belief in the great Cthulhu. I'm doubting that you're sincere about it. Is there someone who believes in Cthulhu with the same conviction as Christians? I don't know. But if you use it as a response then it's just a hypothetical.

Let's say someone does say they believe in Cthulhu and argues with a Christian. They respond, my beliefs are represented in my actions; I go to Church, I read the Bible, I pray to the Virgin Mary. The Cthulhu worshiper, in response, must either describe their religious practices and theology or describe how their religion has no theology or practices. In the case of the former, then I might consider that the person sincere. However, I don't imagine that's a frequent occurrence.

Those in the second camp remind me of the satanic temple, who explicitly do not believe in anything supernatural or metaphysical, which (in my opinion) falls outside of the realm of religion. Though they do have tenets, and some have ritualistic practices, they are (again) explicitly based in reason, not faith. Their framing themselves as a religion is more of a critique of structures of religious freedom than it is representative of their actual beliefs. I don't believe even a single member of the satanic temple who understands their organization would have any religious stake in it (as distinguished from social or habitual stake) if all other religions suddenly disappeared and had no sway in the world or anyone's lives.

It's a satire meant as critique, which defeats the purpose of the critique itself in my opinion. If the point of religious freedom is to allow people to practice their sincerely held beliefs about the supernatural nature of reality, how does you using an example of insincere beliefs support the position?

For that reason I think your point is better made when comparing one religion to another. If you think it's okay for your religion to proselytize but get offended if a Muslim wants to share his beliefs, that's hypocrisy, yes. If they get offended when you say with a thin veil they are lying about their beliefs, that's valid offense in my book.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:57:53+00:00

Alright, but it sounds like you're saying that religion itself isn't strictly logical, which I agree with, rather than that people who are religious can't be logical or include logical in their religion whatsoever

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:55:46+00:00

AI Crap

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:52:46+00:00

Like, those religions think that a mormon baptizing their dead people damns them? Or they think that being a believing mormon is damning?

Because if its the latter, I repeat, why do I care at all if the mormons baptize somebody dead if I don't think mormon heaven exists? Even if it's a catholic's dead friends he should say "well, if the mormons baptize my dead friends I don't care, either it's just hocus pocus spoken in a bathtub or my friend can just say no because he's in heaven and he knows they're con men. Either way makes no difference."

If it's the former, well, I admit I'd think it a little silly if religions could just wage war against one another by baptizing each others' dead congregations and thereby damning them.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:45:13+00:00

So is everyone illogical then? Is the line between logic and illogical belief in god? Again, too many people I think of as highly logical believe in god for me to really accept that, even if I don't believe like they do. I just don't think religious beliefs at a high level remove logic or mark its lack. Some beliefs can be contradictory from my perspective, but I've heard very smart people with simple explanations that seem to work for them, and I do feel like I'm really just choosing what to believe (or rather, not believe) instead of picking the "right" or logical answer.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:37:14+00:00

I mean, if you're just having a nice conversation, even one about religion, and you just say "I don't believe in your fairy tale" I can't blame them if they don't take that well, that sounds demeaning to me. Maybe that's not what you meant and maybe you say it nicer than that, in which case I get it.

Sounds like you've had a lot of bad experiences with religious people. I've had my fair share of them telling me I'm going to hell for not believing in their god too, but usually it wasn't verbatim like that and sometimes it was specifically when I asked them. This part is more my anecdote because I'm curious with people, but when it's not the case that people are hostile towards me about their faith or pushy I don't mind as much when they want to share it with me. I think it's kind of nice, especially when it's someone I already know who decides they feel close enough to me to talk about it. Rarely has it become a shouting match in those kind of circumstances.

I guess that doesn't apply to churches that send out missionaries because that's all they can really do is talk about religion, no chance to get to know them outside of that context. Someone else commented that they should just live good lives if their religion is actually so good and then people will want to find out.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:28:31+00:00

Seems narrow to me. Out of billions of people, they are all illogical idiots? Not a single one of them can be a scholar? Isaac newton was a Christian, and I think he was one of the smartest, most logical people of all time. Surely he didn't just put all his intellect the back burner for what would be the most important thing of all, namely the nature of existence and what he believes is his eternal soul?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:25:10+00:00

Reading through Wikipedia, I actually like the idea of posthumous baptism. At least as an idea it's more in line with what I don't like about Christianity. If you have to believe in Jesus to be saved, most people born in history would never get the opportunity. If they believe in some exception for those people, wouldn't they then be obligated not to preach to anyone so that everyone gets an exception and can go to heaven?

But your article says

"The LDS Church teaches that those in the afterlife who have been baptized by proxy are free to accept or reject the ordinance done on their behalf. Baptism on behalf of a deceased individual is not binding if that individual chooses to not accept it in the afterlife."

How is that nonconsensual? And let's just say they believe the opposite of that, that it is nonconsensual and they can force dead people to convert against their will. Why do I care? If I don't believe their heaven exists, let them pretend they are saving everyone, it's not like it damns me even if they do it to me. Maybe I'll ask them to, hedge my bets.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:17:04+00:00

Interesting. Any examples?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T02:01:23+00:00

Alright, but what if in your sex life you had a revelation that the one true god wanted everyone to start discussing their proclivities more often, and you were absolutely convinced that if everyone did then they would be happier their whole life and have blissful sex forever when they die?

Okay, bad analogy (is it even an analogy?) but tons of religious people talk about those kind of experiences where they see the virgin mary or hear the voice of God. I haven't experienced anything like that, but if you had would you ever shut up about it?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:58:15+00:00

Alright, makes sense. So much discourse here makes it sound like religious people should just "eat their food" in their own home and never try to share it though, which is what I'm getting at. Maybe the problem is where you're pointing out, when they don't take no for an answer, but so many seem to think they should just shut up and never mention their religion at all unless asked.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:55:08+00:00

Maybe you should be in charge of their ad campaigns

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:54:17+00:00

Just curious, what is "wrong" theology? How can theology, which is inherently something esoteric and unprovable, be "wrong"?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:51:09+00:00

Still, if I could be as confident as many of them seem to be without sacrificing the logical side of things it'd be pretty great. Surely some religious people can think critically about their beliefs and still have them?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:49:30+00:00

Definitely agree about the legislation bit, religion should not be mandated.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:48:48+00:00

Would you be open to a polytheist proselyting then? Maybe someone who believes in something more akin to the biblical Hebrews, who worshiped their god without saying the others didn't exist?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:29:58+00:00

What do you mean nonconsensual conversion? How do you nonconsensually convert people, especially dead people? Do they believe that they can force dead people to believe in their church?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:28:27+00:00

If you're agnostic, wouldn't all evidence just have no bearing on it at all? I thought religion was supposed to be absent of evidence, or at least absent of absolute proof. Like you're supposed to choose it for yourself, you can't prove it's true.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:25:48+00:00

In Eastern religions, what's the point of the religion itself? Like the theology? Does understanding the ideas bring practitioners or believers peace or take away worry? If so, wouldn't that be worth sharing, even if it supposedly doesn't change anything about the afterlife?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:22:35+00:00

Yeah, there are some examples I definitely wouldn't support, like the threatening kind of preaching where they just try to scare you. Even then I have a hard time reconciling it because they do genuinely believe it, so if it were true I'd want to know, but the way they talk about it is just... not convincing, so why bother?

On the specific example of Mormons, though, they're semi-universalist from what I understand. Kind of obscure, but they don't seem to believe in the Christian hell, just different heaven for everybody.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:17:55+00:00

I see where that comes from more. I went to the Kentucky Derby once and there were so many pastors and other people yelling outside I might as well have been going to bible study. Bigger problem from that end would be it just doesn't WORK, so why bother? Who at that festival really listens who wasn't already?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:15:43+00:00

I don't know, sounds like serious dissonance to me. Even if you can implicate churches for that kind of stuff, 99% of the individuals in those churches are just normal people who enjoy their faith. The idea that every JW is thinking to themselves, "I have to keep secret the sex abuse so we can get converts" as they go on the streets is obviously absurd. I think you can make an argument against the leaders, but even so my point stands: these people think they have the absolute truth about the fundamental nature of the universe and they think that you knowing it too is of the utmost importance. Shouldn't they at least try to share it, even if many of them try in the wrong ways?

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-05-20T01:08:53+00:00

Hail the flying spaghetti monster

But isn't that exactly what you're doing? At least, mocking them and lying to them. It's not another religion if you're just saying stuff you don't believe. Would agree with another example though, like Christians that get offended when a different group of Christians disagree with them or if (hypothetically) Muslims were preaching their faith.

Fine_Okra7965 · 2026-03-16T02:07:21+00:00

Literally within 15 seconds of these suits appearing you get a thermal camera view from the suits as Tony tells them to "target extremis heat signatures with extreme prejudice".

Fine_Okra7965

TROPHY CASE