this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
118 points (96.8% liked)

Atheism

4049 readers
614 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a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.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
[email protected]
118
U.N. votes to criminalise the desecration ‘holy books’ in a move slammed as imposing ‘blasphemy laws by stealth’ (the-angry-atheist.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

For those looking for corroboration from a more obviously neutral source: here you go

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

We need to start asserting something like Bibliocism, wherein all books are holy, and burning any of them should be condemned. There is no reason that my kid's early reader "Pat and Meg" should be treated with one iota less reverence than "The Quran."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Twenty-eight countries voted in favour, 12 voted against, and seven countries abstained.

Unholy shit, it actually passed? I hoped the title was clickbait.

"The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the Holy Koran or any other religious book," he said.

"They lack political, legal and moral courage to condemn this act [...]"

No?? It's just not right. Also makes no sense. You can have as many books as you like and do whatever you want with them, as everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the Holy Koran or any other religious book," he said.

In point of fact: The opposition emanates from the fact that it’s a fucking book. I’m opposed to book burning as a general principle, but putting specific books that are supposedly written by someone’s imaginary friend into a special category where it’s illegal to burn them is entirely idiotic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I’m opposed to book burning as a general principle

I think the details can make a huge difference here. Bad book burnings are meant to eradicate a book from existence, at least in a certain area. They mean to deprive people from accessing these books. This may include stealing books from people to burn them.

Harmless book burnings are nothing like that. They involve a person burning what they own (without stealing), with no attempts or hopes to reduce the number of books in circulation, and no goal to deny access.

The first is an actual threat to intellectual self determination. The other harms no one but the owner, who burns their own property.

Religious people would probably still be offended if you destroyed a copy of their scripture which you produced yourself.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Unholy shit, it actually passed? I hoped the title was clickbait.

It still is clickbait, no criminalization will happen because of this, they only publicly condemned it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This isn't corroboration. It's a refutation. Turns out the UN didn't (and can't) criminalize anything.