Trying to save a person by pulling them out of the cave of ignorance isn't the same thing as trying to convince them that the boogyman wants them to stay in the dark. This is an enormous false equivalency.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

A religious person has the exact same argument...

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I'm aware. The difference is in that one of our beliefs is founded in the observable world and the other delusion. One holds up to scrutiny and the other does not.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The difference is in that one of our beliefs is founded in the observable world and the other delusion. One holds up to scrutiny and the other does not.

Scientific scrutiny shows there are health benefits to belonging to a religious organization. The only thing that "holds up to scrutiny" is "I'm right and you're wrong" which, again, the religious person also believes.

So instead of having "rules for thee but not for me", maybe everyone should not be trying to force their beliefs on others.

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

Assuming we've read the same study, that study also showed the exact same benefits you're describing could be achieved with regular yoga or meditation; it seems to me the real benefit is getting out of your own head and devoting yourself to something other than your internal monologue for awhile.

But beyond that, any health benefits are entirely an aside to whether or not the philosophy itself holds up to scrutiny, which no religion I've encountered does.

Finally, I don't believe in rules for thee, not me. They are welcome to present their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas as well. I believe in the power of veracity; I am not challenged by false ideals. I'm not anti-proselytizing, i believe in proselytizing the proselytizers.