Important context: This was an instance of a crowd crush caused by poor crowd control.

edit: action has now been taken against the offending comment :)

(also some of you guys in the comments here have been yoinked by mods too… just be nice? this post was not an invitation to test out your boundaries)

by opening this spoiler you acknowledge that brigading and harrassment are against the rules

link to post in question: https://lemmy.world/comment/10965360

  • cybermass@lemmy.ca
    4·
    6 months ago

    Is expressing atheist beliefs inherently anti-religious?

    Seems like a bad cope to me

  • Themadbeagle@lemm.ee
    4·
    6 months ago

    Something that always gets me is when people lump in anti-religion with these others. Reglion in any country with freedom of religion is a choice, these other things are not. Someone doesn’t choose to be a particular ethnic group. Someone doesn’t choose to be disabled. People don’t choose to be gay or have gender dysphoria People do choose to believe in things that I think are ridiculous and saying that I cannot call that out is just religious people saying you can’t call them out. If you can tell me I am burning in hell because I don’t believe in your pie man in the sky then I can tell you that you are stupid for believing in a pie man in the sky and comment on absurd actions that are caused by those beliefs.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      telling someone they are going to burn in hell for their religion/atheism would also be anti-religious and should be treated as such :)

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      1·
      6 months ago

      Yeah nah.

      You don’t tell them they’re stupid for faith. You point out that the bullshit they’re spouting is explicitly stated by their pie man in the sky to be the real express road straight to hell. Much more fun.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        Like for instance every conservative Christian politician who was piously sworn in on the Bible, despite Jesus himself saying not to swear by anything and calling the practice demonic. By their own stated belief system they are inaugurating their public office with a satanic ritual.

        This isn’t some obscure passage either, it’s in the Sermon on the Mount, one of the most famous scenes in the entire Bible. Anyone who swears on the Bible in any capacity clearly doesn’t take it seriously enough to know anything about what it says.

        And the alternative given to swearing oaths is just like… idk, maybe be honest in general, guys?

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      0·
      6 months ago

      People do choose to believe in things that I think are ridiculous and saying that I cannot call that out is just religious people saying you can’t call them out.

      And what value does your calling them out add to the discussion? Does it lead to an interesting nuanced conversation? Or is it immediately just people insulting each other while saying nothing other than “you’re wrong”?

      If it never leads to useful or interesting discussion and only leads to flame wars and arguments then it should be banned.

      • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
        2·
        6 months ago

        Calling out irrational religious belief helps remove that pollution from the zeitgeist. It helps take damaging, incorrect beliefs out of important decision-making processes.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        1·
        6 months ago

        To the extent of “what does calling out anyone for anything lead to an interesting nuanced discussion” so should we ban calling people out?

        Ultimately it’s ambiguous and we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere, but it’s reasonable for people to disagree where to draw that line.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    2·
    6 months ago

    Damn, this post left out some really crucial context. I assumed the comment was left in response to someone martyring themselves, probably after having killed others in the name of their sky fairy. And in that context I’d have backed them 100% in what they were saying about it.

    But yeah, your reply there said it better than anyone could. The comment was completely out of place and inappropriate.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        r/atheism and its consequences have been disastrous to the traditional practice of being a decent human being online

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            1·
            6 months ago

            Riiiiiiiight it’s atheists that are the problem. Not just shitty people who happen to be atheist…

            90% of religious people have a similar reaction when people complain about shitty people who happen to be religious.

            Turns out you find shitty people in every group. Who knew?

            • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
              0·
              6 months ago

              Problem is atheists are complaining about the people who run the religion, there’s no “head of the atheism”

                • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
                  0·
                  6 months ago

                  They’re not complaining either. They’re mocking. You’re talked about complaining about bad people when atheists say these are bad Christians. They’re talking about the heads of churches usually or heads of political parties. You know the people with influence and power.

                  When you talk about bad atheists you talk about randommorons on the internet who are mocking people who don’t deserve it

            • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
              0·
              6 months ago

              Claiming that /r/atheism has any significant impact on the internet culture as a whole is just the silliest thing to claim without evidence or explanation of any sort. It doesn’t even say what he’s claiming they did to the internet’s culture just an implication that it was bad.

              Pretty empty table pounding statement

              • alyth@lemmy.world
                1·
                6 months ago

                This statement hardly merits the same level of proof as a scientific publication. The original post is an example of the obnoxious behavior you find on r/atheism.
                They feel superior to and smarter than religious people. In this extreme case, the poster expresses feeling superior to people who died in a stampede that took place at a religious event.
                Internet atheists who think they are superior to believers / Believers who think they are superior to atheists are two sides of the same coin.

          • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
            0·
            6 months ago

            With emphasis, no, it’s shitty people who happen to be atheist who are the problem. :) Just to clarify, because I would never make that first statement.

            “the silliest thing to claim without evidence or explanation of any sort”

            You are right, I left a lot implied because my sentiment is a fairly common one. But fair to point out—my apologies. Here is a citation showing that I am far from the first person to hold this opinion on r/atheism.

            Note again that I don’t hold any prejudice against any belief system; I only hold that r/atheism in particular historically fostered a culture of toxicity which makes anti-religious prejudice and personal attacks more common compared to offline spaces.

    • moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      No such rules in this one

      Though neither specifically mention religion, here are the rules for c/196 and lemmy.blahaj.zone that may cover this case:

      196 rules:

      lemmy.blahaj.zone’s guidelines:

      lemmy.blahaj.zone’s TOS:

      In addition, lemmy.blahaj.zone’s TOS states that they must follow the laws of Australia, which may have legislation regarding this issue:

      Edit: replaced references from lemmy.world’s TOS, I got the instance wrong, my bad! - Also replaced non-image links with archive.org links for posterity (image links have been archived, but they have not been replaced for embedding reasons)

      initial version of the comment

      No such rules in this one

      Though neither specifically mention religion, here are the rules for c/196 and lemmy.world that may cover this case:

      196 rules:

      lemmy.world TOS:

      In addition, lemmy.world’s TOS states that they must follow the laws of the below three countries, which may have laws regarding this issue:

      • minibyte@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        6 months ago

        I read that and don’t see how it’s relevant in this case. I’m simply telling the truth. Invest your tithe into a retirement account and call it a day.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          You cannot be telling the truth because not all gods have the same rules. Also no common gods demand castration or incapacitation.

  • Tregetour@lemdro.idEnglish
    1·
    6 months ago

    If the mod team on this instance is going to be that prescriptive around how religion is mentioned, then they’re better off just blanket-banning any mention of it altogether, like on Whirlpool.

    If you’re a <insert faith>, and in the natural course of discussion people start criticizing ideas that inform <insert faith>'s beliefs and ethics, that’s not a personal attack. It’s not ‘bigotry’ on the basis that you disagree. It’s not ‘trolling’ purely because it made you upset.

    I’m going to separately post the famous Charlie Hebdo cover in this thread, the one published after Muslim extremists murdered their people over cartoons. If this instance is so straitjacketed by Australia’s ridiculous lawmaking in this area that it cannot tolerate such a post, then it’s not a forum for adults.

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      2·
      6 months ago

      how the fuck is this an appropriate comment to make in response to someone getting yanked over explicitly saying a specific religion was “made up”.

      This is not a situation dealing with a critique of “Ideas that inform” this was straight up the statement “Your faith is made up bullshit and people died stupidly because of this made up bullshit”

      • Tregetour@lemdro.idEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        ‘Anti-religious comment’ accurately describes my scenario. Anyone who dislikes the hypothetical critique can simply hit the report button and it will get wiped if Rule 4 is read at face value.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          1·
          6 months ago

          Anyone who dislikes the hypothetical critique can simply hit the report button and it will get wiped if Rule 4 is read at face value.

          Oh, so you want to throw your terrible take out there for everyone, but you don’t want to actually defend it or have people openly disagree with you?

    • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      …is so straitjacketed by Australia’s ridiculous lawmaking in this area…

      Seriously? Tell me you’re American without telling me you’re American.

  • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
    1·
    6 months ago

    Flying Squid told me I had psychosis because I disagreed with their views on religion. They’re an asshole.

      • tacosplease@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 months ago

        You all may have other issues with this person, but saying you’re going to show embarrassing baby pictures to boyfriends/girlfriends has been standard parenting behavior for as long as there have been photos. Nothing about that makes flying squid a pedo. Stop trying to make fetch happen.

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Oh ew that’s some borderline pedo shit. “Here’s the person you’re fucking as a baby. Hahaha you’re sexually attracted to a baby. I created child pornography just to make you uncomfortable because you’re a normal, non-pedophilic person”

        • x4740N@lemm.ee
          0·
          6 months ago

          Yeah I reported it and this is the lemmy.world response I recieved back as an email

          • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
            2·
            6 months ago

            You seem to don’t know what CSAM is.

            This was a Joke. Your parents showing your significant other embarrassing Pictures of you, is like the standard things Parents do.

  • ted@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    6 months ago

    Asserting that god exists/doesn’t exist isn’t anti-atheist/anti-religious, hate against (a)theists is.

      • ted@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        6 months ago

        I’m not saying he isn’t a dick in this thread, but a theist may just as easily concern troll and say, “I just want nonbelievers not to go to hell” and that feels equivalent to me.

        No one is being swayed by either of these arguments either way.

        The user in question is borderline block material anyway based on the rest of their engagement, and they get uuuuuultra defensive when called out.

  • shani66@ani.social
    0·
    6 months ago

    Kind of off topic, but man it bothers me to see what r/atheism has done to religious discussions. Christianity isn’t religion, it is a singular religion amongst a sea of far less stupid and destructive religions. It’s always so obvious when someone is just talking about their Christian trauma instead of, say, sikhism or something.

    • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      1·
      6 months ago

      It’s even worse than that, because Christianity isn’t even a singular religion, it’s a set of related religions, some of which are incredibly problematic and others the worst they have going for them is they “are technically a religion”

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      every religion has a potential to become what christianity and islam is now. If you tell people to willfully ignore facts and prefer in their place something they wish to be true, and at the same time tell them what to wish for, you have a cult of very gullible people. Religion is not a framework of ethics as religious people like to say, but instead it’s a framework of stupidity.