The way you phrased that is kind of confusing. I'm fine with religious people, assuming they don't use their religion as an excuse to hate or promote violence. For example, I think many anti religious people think of all Christians as believing in a type of Christianity similar or the same as what the Westboro Baptist church preached. In reality, many Christian denominations are accepting of lgbtq+ people as well as any race or ethnicity. Even the catholic church took a more progressive stance on gay people a few years back.

Oh yeah stews and sauces are perfect for the freezer!

I struggle with the idea that being part of a religion means you support the negatives without acknowledging the positives. For example, the catholic church has a horrible track record with child abuse. Sentiments I hear accuse catholics of loving and supporting pedophiles. But the catholic church also funds thousands of hospitals, clinics, food banks, orphanages and schools. They were also one of the few institutions setting up and running programs for needy people historically. Can someone hate aspects of the institution while supporting others and still be considered moral? Surely if you were to poll catholics, almost none would condone acts of child abuse. But, they would all support helping the needy. Is it reasonable to hold all members accountable for the horrible acts of a few? Maybe, maybe not, I really don't know.

That's an excellent point and not something I or the majority of commenter have taken into consideration. I'm really curious to know if any of the major detractors in these comments have more good will to nontheistic religions. Considering the numbers of comments that reference people being stupid for believing in a fake being.

Yeah that's pretty much what I've gathered from this thread and conversations I've had. Both sides see themselves as morally and intellectually superior. I don't see much willing cohesion being possible on the extreme sides of either. Luckily the majority of people seem to fall in the middle.

I appreciate the comment but don't worry about my feelings. I know how divisive a topic this is and I recognize the platform I'm asking on will have a pretty specific slant one way. That's all fine by me and down arrows on the internet won't effect my mental state whatsoever. I know/knew how strongly most feel on this and in many cases justifiably. I was/am curious about how far people think is acceptable. I obsess over understanding how "things" work, usually that starts and stops with physical devices/machines. However, I've been working more and more on trying to understand people and how they work, outside of my personal social circle. The prevailing opinion from this thread as well as in person conversations is pretty simple. Those who have a disdain for the religious view themselves as being morally and intellectually superior to the religious. Its an ironic paradox because the equally far other side of the spectrum seems to have the exact same belief about the non-religious. Although, particularly radical religious people are known to genocide, unlike any proposed thoughts stated here. I know the vast majority of people fall into camps somewhere between those two extremes. Sometimes its just interesting to see where the ends are.

My stance is anyone using any belief system to excuse hate is wrong.

Yeah freezing works well for me when I make meat sauces. But I don't usually freeze whole muscle meat that way.

Yeah, second autopsy wasn't released and the statement he made is completely false as of current information available.

Again, you're spreading misinformation. The second autopsy hasn't been released yet and even members of the victims family have come out to apologize for pushing that false narrative. I'm linking a reputable article below that came out hours ago stating all the facts on that specific case. You want an outcome thats easier to accept but doesn't currently have any evidence backing it.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/10/08/trey-reed-blunt-force-trauma/

The first story you linked, false, one of the several outlits that stated blunt force trauma was involved. You're actively assisting the the spreading of misinformation because you want a specific outcome. The second autopsy information hasn't been released yet. Its almost like the people want this to be a hate crime because it would be easier to cope with. Do you have any idea how rarely the family or friends see suicide coming? It's almost never an open and shut case where the family just accepts it. You know why? Because it's fucking horrifically difficult to rationalize that someone you love so much would just give up and disapear.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/10/08/trey-reed-blunt-force-trauma/

No not at all, that's not what I'm saying. It's just that there is no evidence to support anything other than suicide. He had no injuries, had an active warrant out for his arrest, had a hospital band on and he was living in emergency housing. It doesn't sound like things were going well for him, a suicide seems so much more likely than a massive conspiracy and cover up. Just looking at the case pragmatically based on the facts available.