this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
287 points (99.7% liked)

World News

57250 readers
1328 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 46 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

💭 To consider antireligion instead of atheism
“The harm of religion is historically evident whereas the presence or absence of gods is not. Ultimately, the continued existence of religion is predicated on the indoctrination of children and suppression of rational thought. Therefore I am against religion but not necessarily against the idea of gods. For all we know gods are computer scientists and we are in their video game.” ―https://www.arscyni.cc/file/antireligion.html

[…] Not only is religion vague, it is dishonest. Homosexuality for instance. While conversing with a Muslim former colleague A, I noticed that even though the religious say they supposedly want tolerance and acceptance for all, do they actually believe it?

Q: “Do you have a problem with homosexuality?”

A: “Look. They can do whatever they want, but it's abnormal you see?”

Q: “In the strict definition of the word abnormal I agree, i.e., heterosexuality is a lot more prevalent than homosexuality, making the latter rare—“abnormal”. But I don't consider it wrong. Do you? Do you consider it a sin even though it harms no one?”

Long silence…

A: “Yes, I consider it a sin.”

Q: “Okay then.”

Christopher Hitchens was right, religion does poison everything. Even though colleague A said people are free to do whatever they please, following it up with “homosexuality is a sin” arguably exposes his feigned tolerance. […]

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not gonna defend religion or anything, but this

Even though colleague A said people are free to do whatever they please, following it up with “homosexuality is a sin” arguably exposes his feigned tolerance. […]

is a non-sequitur argument. Or at least it has an unspoken premise, of what it means for something to be a sin.

People are usually free to commit sins, and other religious people tolerate their sinning. As long as they're the socially accepted kind of sins in that religious community, like drinking alcohol, hitting your children, coveting your neighbours wife, you name it. Hypocrisy is an integral element of any religious community I know.

But the hypocrisy here is not, that homesexuality is called a sin. It is, that it is usually regarded as a graver sin than all the others that are happily tolerated.

[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

is a non-sequitur argument.

I think I have to disagree, but I understand where you're coming from, hence the "arguably". Believing something is a sin indeed doesn't equal taking someone's freedom to do so. However, his revulsion was uttered with such conviction and certain facial expressions that it signaled if he had free rein, he would not tolerate homosexuality at all, i.e., would prohibit it.

[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am against religion and the idea of gods, as well as every other superstition.

I wish everyone would quit making shit up and focus on reality.

[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

and these realities are not superstituous? i mean there are plenty non-religious ideologies around and at least where i live they have much more impact.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People can do what they like. Doesn't mean other people have to be okay with it though.

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't that what tolerance is about? The live and let live thing? So you kinda have to be okay with other people doing what they like.

Doesn't mean you have to do the same though.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I don't like people smoking crack, but so long as no one is forcing them to, I respect their right to smoke crack.

I hope that helps clarify.

[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

freedom of religion is a requirement for freedom from religion.

[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

freedom of religion is a requirement for freedom from religion.

“freedom of ~~religion~~ brainwashing is a requirement for freedom from ~~religion~~ brainwashing.”

A spurious but innocuous sounding argument.

[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 points 3 hours ago

nah, for your judgement you had to replace terms in the sentence.

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it is not. Freedom to pick a bullet caliber to shoot your neighbour is not a requirement to NOT shoot your neighbours

[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 points 3 hours ago

i guess that represents a logical thought when you socialized in the US?