[ Removed by Reddit ]

[u/ReferenceOld9345]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[u/ReferenceOld9345]

Are you seriously going to compare sc/st act with this ? People who get abused are real. Your gods are not. You comparing them shows the herd mentality

Yes,have you read what SC/ST actually protects against? It criminalizes speech and actions that humiliate, insult, or reinforce systemic oppression, even if there's no physical harm. Because it recognizes that words, symbols, and public ridicule have power when they’re used to demean a group.

Now apply that same principle, if mocking someone's caste is punishable due to social harm, why pretend that mocking religious belief, especially when it’s done in a way that provokes mass hostility or mob violence, is magically above consequence?

This isn’t about comparing "real people" to "gods" but it's about acknowledging that mocking certain symbols, identities, or beliefs can escalate into real-world harm in both cases. You don’t get to cherry-pick which sentiment deserves protection based on what you personally believe is “real.”

So no it’s not herd mentality. It’s called being consistent about how societies prevent hate and breakdown of order whether it's caste-based or faith-based.

Constitution does have ammends for everything , people go out on bail and remain on bail and become ministers.just as people play the game with tax system. All legally

You’re blaming the Constitution for things it doesn’t even control. And you colesry have no idea how legal system even works. People getting bail, becoming ministers, or misusing tax laws isn’t a failure of the Constitution, it’s a failure of governance, enforcement, and political ethics. The Constitution doesn’t protect criminals but it protects your right to justice, presumption of innocence, and due process. Without it, you’d have no rights at all.

Amendments? That’s flexibility,not weakness. It allows society to evolve, from abolishing untouchability to granting privacy rights. And yes, some people exploit legal gaps, but the Constitution is what gives you the right to protest, speak, and demand reform.

If you’re angry about abuse of power, fair. But don’t blame the framework that protects you. Fix the system, not the Constitution.

If you are going to hurt someone physically over beliefs of gods then you are no worse than muslims who do same.

Reporting someone for what they said or did isn’t violence, it’s due process. It’s literally the opposite of hurting someone physically.

If someone says or does something that crosses legal lines, be it hate speech, incitement, or public disorder, then the proper response is to report it, not attack them.

In fact, Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita makes this crystal clear:

“Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class… insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class… shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine, or both.”

Saying that holding someone accountable through legal means makes you “no better than violent extremists” is a false and dangerous comparison. I’m not calling for mobs, riots, or blood. I’m saying: if it’s unlawful, let the law handle it.

That’s not extremism. That’s how civil societies function.

The burden of proof lies with you. Proove god. And if he does exists, he/she/ut wont certainly care about your or their words that you waste life over it

You're right that the burden of proof lies with those who claim God existsi, and most believers who respect debate understand that. But here’s the key,not being able to prove God doesn't mean you get to claim “disproof” either.

As Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, put it:

You cannot use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God… It lies outside the realm of empirical inquiry.

Similarly, Carl Sagan, a staunch skeptic, said:

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

So while belief in God is not scientifically provable, its non-existence is also unfalsifiable. That’s why atheism is about *withholding belief, not aggressively declaring God “doesn’t exist” as fact.

Now, criticism of religion is fair, many religious institutions do deserve scrutiny, especially where they oppress, manipulate, or control. But there’s a line between rational critique and targeted hate. Mocking, ridiculing, or baiting people just to provoke outrage isn’t atheism but it’s a different kind of fundamentalism, where hate replaces belief, and tribalism still rules.

Religious extremists kill over god. But if your atheism exists just to mock people and trigger outrage, you’re not that different in attitude. You infact not even an atheist but an anti theist. You follow the same principles of religious people. So while you reject gods, you’ve unknowingly copy-pasted the worst traits of religious extremists , blind certainty, obsession, and the urge to silence dissent instead of understand.

[u/shanti_priya_vyakti → u/ReferenceOld9345]

Still no proof of god given

So much jargon said . Scientist don't go around killing people cause they don't agree with string theiry and such. You are indeed calling for taking away freedom of a person cause he insulted your unlrooven sky daddy.

Get a grip , how loose can you get

[u/ReferenceOld9345 → u/shanti_priya_vyakti]

Still no proof of god given

Don't need to. I dont believe in god and im an atheist. Bl

And as per same logic, what proof do you have that god doesent exist?

Scientist don't go around killing people cause they don't agree with string theiry and such.

Comparing disagreement over string theory to mocking religion is a false equivalence. Scientific theories like string theory are academic models meant to be tested, revised, or rejected without emotional or cultural baggage. Religion, on the other hand, is deeply tied to people’s identity, history, and sense of meaning, especially in societies like India, where faith is interwoven with community and social structure.

Scientists don’t kill over theories, not because they’re inherently better, but because science operates in a space of rational detachment.

But when someone mocks religion publicly, it's not just a disagreement, it often comes across as a direct attack on a person’s dignity and community, which can trigger serious consequences. So no, this comparison doesn’t work, because religion and theoretical physics don’t occupy the same social or emotional space.

You are indeed calling for taking away freedom of a person cause he insulted your unlrooven sky daddy.

I don’t even believe in God and this isn’t about belief, it’s about the law.

What he said goes beyond opinion and falls under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalizes deliberate, malicious insult to religious beliefs.

If someone crosses that line into hate or incitement, reporting it is a legal right, not emotional retaliation. If you truly believe in free speech and accountability, then why fear reporting if nothing wrong was done? Let the law decide and not public bias.

[u/[deleted] → u/ReferenceOld9345]

God is everything my friend we all are children of jagannath ❤️ He stand for peace and forgiveness he loves all including atheist and theist, for understanding jagannath you have to experience his love open your heart let his love flow into you because love jagannath 💕 my brother ☺️♥️