[err_badprocrast]

OK, easy example. Top item right now on r/atheism (only sample taken, you couldn't pay me to visit that subreddit):

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_...

A few comments down (above the fold on even a tiny monitor) we have this exchange:

Poster talking about his Holocaust-surviving grandfather (32 upvotes):

"My grandfather became a believer, but he didn't go all orthodox. He just believed. His reasoning was that if it weren't for god - he would have died many times during the war."

The reply, with 100 upvotes:

"Explanations like that are precisely what makes me hate religion. When people tell themselves these things, they betray an inner conviction that they are somehow better and more special than the countless men women and children who died at the hands of the Nazis. Makes me sick when people say things like that."

Link to comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_...

[kbenson]

While I don't necessarily subscribe to the same reasoning, I think I can suss out the reasoning that leads to this comment.

If you take faith because God kept you alive during the war as a foundation, a few conclusions can be drawn.

1) God did not want you to die in the war. Why else would surviving be proof of God?

2) God either wanted other people to die in the war, or having no preference either way for them at that point, let them die in the war.

3) God therefore has a preference for you over those that died, even if it's only to fulfill a future purpose.

I personally prefer not to make assumptions about what someone was thinking (but what they could have been thinking is another matter), but doing so at this level seems more a matter of poor assumptions and rigor to me than hate. In any case, a simple explanation of what is wrong with their reasoning along with the accusation of hate is warranted.

Keep in mind, the poster may truthfully be offended by these types of remarks, just as you ostensibly are by their response.

If you castigate them for their actions without even attempting to understand their reasoning, that makes you guilty of exactly the same thing you accuse them of in this instance.

[err_badprocrast]

I'd like to clarify that I am not personally offended by the quoted comment. I'm an atheist and know nobody who was affected in this way by the Holocaust/WW2.

I also think it's in very bad taste to speculate on why someone chose specific coping mechanisms to live with themselves after being one of the few to survive a horrific ordeal.

My primary complaint is not that someone said something like this, but that it was acceptable enough to everyone else in the community that it ended up one of the very first posts in the discussion.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond more fully; I didn't realize this would be so controversial.

[mindcrime]

So what's your point exactly? You could argue that that comment is insensitive, maybe even caustic... you could argue that the person who posted it is a bit of an ass probably. But how does any of that support the idea that /r/atheism is a "hate group"?

[err_badprocrast]

I agree "hate group" is stronger wording than would be appropriate (at any rate I don't want to quibble over a definition of that term) but I personally dislike intolerance - and I avoid forums[1] where it is considered upvote-worthy rhetoric.

There are insensitive and caustic comments everywhere - but when they are promoted through upvotes they discourage participation from affected individuals, breeding an environment where people only feel welcome if they subscribe to the dominant opinions. This results in a hollow echo chamber, which is not a satisfactory equilibrium for any forum trying to encourage healthy discussion.

1. Pre-internet definition of forum.

[mindcrime]

Fair enough. I also generally dislike intolerance, but I do have my areas where I find it hard to be tolerant. As an atheist, I have very little use for religion, religious dogma or teachings, etc., and I think that religion is actively harmful to society. So in that regard, I'm probably not so far removed from the guy you quoted above. But... I have no problem being tolerant of religious people in that I don't find much need to go around trying to convince everybody who isn't an atheist that they are an idiot, or doing the inverse of what I have having done to me - excessive proselytizing. I'm not out to convince Christians or Hindus or Muslims, etc. to disavow their faith. But when I come across situations (public education, for example) where religious beliefs start affecting things that I believe belong outside the bounds of religion, then I start to get a bit prickly about the whole thing as well.

I guess that was just a long-winded way of saying "it's complicated".

The other thing I'll add is this: I do visit /r/atheism, albeit infrequently. And you're probably right that it's not a particularly nice place to visit for people who are actively religious. That doesn't bother me only because I go in with the assumption that they aren't going to be there, aren't interested in being there, and that the few who do come in and stick around are the kind of people who can look past the stylistic stuff and still engage in a conversation which is - hopefully - enlightening for both sides.

I guess that was a long-winded way of saying "it's all about expectations".

Nonetheless, I can understand why you might shy away from /r/atheism. That place has it's own character and it's not for everybody. But what forum is?

[arcatek]

/r/atheism is lightly moderated by purpose.

If you want the quality content, try this : http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/search?q=flair%3Aquality&...

[jiggy2011]

Circlejerk is probably a better term.

[hackinthebochs]

Is that supposed to be evidence of hate group? I don't see it.

[lowboy]

That's one comment that you've cherry picked. If that's all it takes to make a site/section a hate group, then YouTube is a hate group.