35
submitted 11 months ago by ruford1976@lemmy.world to c/atheism@lemmy.world
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JSocial@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 11 months ago

Already is.

[-] 01011@monero.town 27 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Any religion that looks to spread is going to use "us vs them" hatred and eventually violence to get their message across.

[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago
[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

Uh, is this a rhetorical question?

[-] DLSantini@lemmy.ml 16 points 11 months ago

I mean, we have them, and they are. Sooo....

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

cough conservatism cough

[-] Government_Worker666@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

It should be allowed to exist. But we should still condemn actions taken by it's followers that have negative impacts on society

[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

but allowing hate to be preached increases hate.

so why would you allow it?

[-] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago

Because disallowing it would be worse. This has been a hot topic of debate for centuries. Check out the book On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.

[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

worked out (atleast practically) for nazism in germany though.

[-] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago

Nazism used force and violence.

[-] Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

And Christianity never did?

[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

so lets say if this religion of hate uses and commands use of force and violence would you then consider banning it and it's practice?

[-] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago

I think anything is fine as long as they’re not hurting anyone. So if their hate is confined to themselves idc.

[-] 01011@monero.town 7 points 11 months ago

What if their hate is confined to their children, is that fine too?

[-] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

Fair enough. I don’t believe in children being indoctrinated into any belief personally, but obviously that’s a lot harder to police.

[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago
[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

but confined hate eventually spreads once it gains a significant following. so why allow it in the first place?

[-] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 11 months ago

How do you disallow it? Preventing people from practicing a religion would require a system so draconian that the drawbacks would far outweigh any possible benefit.

[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

By citing authentic sources from their scriptures and other data in court then use that to justify passing the law to ban the books and places of worship. before that group grows in significant number. The remaining that try to defy the law get fined or at the most severe punishment get sent to rehabilitation centers. (but not like chinese way where they use physical and mental abuse)

[-] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago

I'm a Satanist, so I'm 100% not going to support something like this, as I know that my religion would be the first on the chopping block. We already have to fight in court for our rights; this would just make it even worse.

[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

i don't think you should worry, because satanism does not preach hate or intolerance for the tolerant.

i am talking about religions that don't obey tolerance for the tolerant principle.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Pretty much every religion has been persecuted that way somewhere in history …. Unless that’s your point

Also, just like any segment of society, every religion will be mostly moderate but with its share of zealots

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago
[-] ruford1976@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Religions are irrationally unjustified. and irrationally unjustified hate is a danger to democracy and other people.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 10 points 11 months ago

There is a religion of hate: American Protestant

[-] 01011@monero.town 4 points 11 months ago

It's far from the only one.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I think all religions are ridiculous. These “Evangelicals” in particular are just the most outwardly hateful people lately.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Is that more hate than American catholic? Where I am from everyone is Protestant or not christian at all.

That might be because we fought a few wars about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

[-] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 11 months ago

Who would determine which religions are hateful and which aren't? How would this be enforced?

[-] keropoktasen@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

In order to preserve tolerance, we must be intolerant to the intolerant. Give plaforms to the hateful religion, and the next thing they'll do is to play victim whenever they're being criticized for being intolerant.

[-] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

So no change from business as usual.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

We did just have an interesting experiment in free speech over the last few years, and it’s still not clear where it ends up.

In the US there’s a carveout where online providers are not liable for what their users say, as long as the platform is free and open. However as the current craziness started breaking out, they did start moderating more, preventing at least some false info and at least some calls to endanger public safety. However, are they still not liable, now that they actively participate in what is allowed on their systems? Where should the line be drawn between false and endangering vs free speech, in what people use social media for? When it was just the village idiot spewing hate and violence, we could mostly ignore them, but what about when they have global reach, connect with other village idiots, actually instigate violence?

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

Depends on why people call it that, I suppose.

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
35 points (100.0% liked)

Atheism

3970 readers
76 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS