You mean about organized religion? Observation and study of its tenets, advocates, and adherents. The general lack of verifiable information; the endless and shameless appeal to- and manipulation of emotions; the requirement for maintaining a state of ignorance about the world, the religion itself, and the history of both; the hypocrites in charge; the conflicting versions of "truth" based on literally nothing; behavior of (including actual conflict) of related sects of "loving" adherents; the vast number of whack-job sects built with the same methods/foundations; a complete lack of discussion of the religion/church/temple's purposes (that are usually murky at best and hypocritical always); and the observed mental state of screaming idiocy of the "true believers". That's probably the top bits over my morning coffee.
How do you know that what is true for ‘you’ is, in fact, true?
A pointless question from earlier discussions. Shall we now debate definitions of "true", "you", and "is" for another go-around on the ontological express?