For god worshipers: is it okay to call atheists killers?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm going to try a different tactic Andy.

Has anyone ever heard of an atheist accusing someone of being a bigot relative to atheism?*

*Apart from in this forum.

You mean, have I heard of an atheist saying that someone is bigoted against atheists?

No... but that doesn't mean that such a case doesn't occur in the RL...

If action X is rare (or we don't frequently encounter it), then does this mean that action X doesn't exist?

[jonesthecurl]

I hate you guys.

Just cos I got black socks on. I'm not gay though. Or a woman.
You're a tenebrosohosophobe.

[thegreekdog]

I hate you guys.

Just cos I got black socks on. I'm not gay though. Or a woman.
You're a tenebrosohosophobe.

You should use that in the next routine. You're welcome.

[pimpdave]

Yes, TGD, a particular god worshiping organization has been persecuting atheists for a long time, especially since the Age of Enlightenment. Or when they took over Greece and persecuted the people who followed Aristotle's ideas about evolution that pre-date Darwin.

[Woodruff]

I'm going to try a different tactic Andy.

Has anyone ever heard of an atheist accusing someone of being a bigot relative to atheism?*

*Apart from in this forum.

Accusing someone? Yes. Was it particularly justified? No, not in my opinion.

So are homosexuals a race or a religion?

[Woodruff]

I hate you guys.

Just cos I got black socks on. I'm not gay though. Or a woman.
You're a tenebrosohosophobe.

You should use that in the next routine. You're welcome.

I don't think he can say it. It looks like a hell of a tongue twister.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to try a different tactic Andy.

Has anyone ever heard of an atheist accusing someone of being a bigot relative to atheism?*

*Apart from in this forum.

Accusing someone? Yes. Was it particularly justified? No, not in my opinion.

So are homosexuals a race or a religion?

Seriously... hate you guys.

[waauw]

Seriously... hate you guys.

[jonesthecurl]

I'm going to try a different tactic Andy.

Has anyone ever heard of an atheist accusing someone of being a bigot relative to atheism?*

*Apart from in this forum.

Accusing someone? Yes. Was it particularly justified? No, not in my opinion.

So are homosexuals a race or a religion?

Seriously... hate you guys.

tenebrosohosophobe.
And most gays can run faster than me, so it's a race.

[stahrgazer]

Oh my fucking...

Look assholes, in the technical dictionary definition of "bigot," you are all correct. In the way the term is used in everyday parlance and in the law, IT IS NOT FUCKING BIGOTED TO HATE PEOPLE THAT WEAR BLACK SOCKS!

Based on your temper as displayed by your inappropriate cursing, you are being intolerant of people that think it's bigotry to hate people that wear black socks.

It's a different opinion than yours.

By the dictionary definition, bigotry means someone is intolerant of any different...opinion.

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Thus, because you are displaying intolerance, you are displaying bigotry about folks who believe that it is bigoted to hate people that wear black socks.

Back to the OP. Just because some religious person may call an atheist a killer does not mean he or she is being bigoted. A religious person may well believe that an atheist is, by religious practices, "a killer." Disagreement or alternate beliefs isn't the same as intolerance - although I would agree that "intolerance" is caused by differing beliefs, just having the different beliefs is NOT the same as intolerance.

For example, I have no problem with "gays" - but I disagree that "gays" should have "marriage" called "marriage." I'm not intolerant of their social and legal issues, and I don't mind them having, "social unions" that give them all the same rights, I just believe that the institution called "marriage" should be reserved to heterosexual couples to respect the origins of their religious beliefs. (Separation of church and state was never meant to mean the state should overrun all religious practices, beliefs, and definitions.)

Many - not all, but many - homosexuals I've met are bigoted about my belief, utterly intolerant that I do believe there should remain a difference in language for the unions of hetero vs. homo sexual couples. If what they want is truly the legal and social recognition of their choice of relationship, "social union," should be enough. For many, that's not enough; for many, they are so intolerant of different religious beliefs that they want to tear down the religious definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. That intolerance by homosexuals is bigotry.

[Woodruff]

I'm going to try a different tactic Andy.

Has anyone ever heard of an atheist accusing someone of being a bigot relative to atheism?*

*Apart from in this forum.

Accusing someone? Yes. Was it particularly justified? No, not in my opinion.

So are homosexuals a race or a religion?

Seriously... hate you guys.

I'm confused by your response, to be honest. Are you asserting that homosexuals have not had legitimately bigoted actions taken against them?

[Dukasaur]

Oh my fucking...

Look assholes, in the technical dictionary definition of "bigot," you are all correct. In the way the term is used in everyday parlance and in the law, IT IS NOT FUCKING BIGOTED TO HATE PEOPLE THAT WEAR BLACK SOCKS!

What about the gays? Women?

Do gays wear black socks?

At least one legendary gay man is known for wearing white socks, so there might be something to that idea:

[ From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/dont-be-squa ... -ants.html ] Music for a future age Don't be square be there All good clean fun Whatever that means
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople Get off your knees And hear the insect prayer
Dirk wears white socks Dirk wears white socks Dirk wears white socks
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople
You may not like it now but you will You may not like it now but you will The future will not stand still
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople
You may not like it now but you will You may not like it now but you will The future will not stand still
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople
You may not like it now but you will You may not like it now but you will The future will not stand still
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople
You may not like it now but you will
Music for a future age Don't be square be there All good clean fun Whatever that means
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople Get off your knees And hear the insect prayer
Dirk wears white socks Dirk wears white socks Dirk wears white socks
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople
You may not like it now but you will You may not like it now but you will The future will not stand still
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople
You may not like it now but you will You may not like it now but you will The future will not stand still
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople
You may not like it now but you will You may not like it now but you will The future will not stand still
Antmusic for sexpeople Sexmusic for antpeople
You may not like it now but you will

Read more: ADAM AND THE ANTS - DON'T BE SQUARE (BE THERE) LYRICS

[Dukasaur]

So I see my thread, which was completely equal to any other thread asking atheists things was locked.

And why WAS that thread locked? Tee Gee never really said why. I didn't really notice anything that warranted locking...what did I overlook?

They're making every effort to be nice to PD and not let him hang himself. Locking the thread was a favour to him, because he really is going in a bigoted direction, pretending that the covering up of internal crimes is something unique to Catholics, when in fact it's something that happens in every organisation, religious or secular. Catholics cover up crimes committed by other Catholics, yes. Muslims cover up crimes committed by other Muslims. Cops cover up crimes committed by other cops. IRS agents cover up crimes committed by other IRS agents. Used appliance salesmen cover up crimes committed by other used appliance salesman.

One of the first things you will be taught in grade one of primary school (usually with a bloody nose or two) is not to be a rat, not to go to the teacher with your problems but to resolve them within your peer group. That lesson will be reinforced many times in life.

"We don't wash our dirty linen in public" is the mantra that families live by.

When you're at your first job and you see a coworker fired for speaking the truth to a workplace safety inspector, you learn. "We stand shoulder to shoulder. If there's a problem in our plant, come and see me and I'll fix it. Say nothing to the government stooges." It's a lesson that will be taught to you over and over and over again -- at school, in your home, at work, in your social clubs.

Interesting parallel in this very forum: Snowden.

"Don't be a rat" "Don't wash our dirty linen in public." "Stand shoulder-to-shoulder." These are lessons that all groups teach. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it a uniquely Catholic problem? Absolutely not, and PD suggesting that it is brings him into waters that are dangerously close to bigotry charges.

[john9blue]

i think the fact that andy isn't in a position to protect dave anymore is part of the reason why that thread was locked.

[Woodruff]

So I see my thread, which was completely equal to any other thread asking atheists things was locked.

And why WAS that thread locked? Tee Gee never really said why. I didn't really notice anything that warranted locking...what did I overlook?

They're making every effort to be nice to PD and not let him hang himself. Locking the thread was a favour to him, because he really is going in a bigoted direction, pretending that the covering up of internal crimes is something unique to Catholics, when in fact it's something that happens in every organisation, religious or secular. Catholics cover up crimes committed by other Catholics, yes. Muslims cover up crimes committed by other Muslims. Cops cover up crimes committed by other cops. IRS agents cover up crimes committed by other IRS agents. Used appliance salesmen cover up crimes committed by other used appliance salesman.

One of the first things you will be taught in grade one of primary school (usually with a bloody nose or two) is not to be a rat, not to go to the teacher with your problems but to resolve them within your peer group. That lesson will be reinforced many times in life.

"We don't wash our dirty linen in public" is the mantra that families live by.

When you're at your first job and you see a coworker fired for speaking the truth to a workplace safety inspector, you learn. "We stand shoulder to shoulder. If there's a problem in our plant, come and see me and I'll fix it. Say nothing to the government stooges." It's a lesson that will be taught to you over and over and over again -- at school, in your home, at work, in your social clubs.

Interesting parallel in this very forum: Snowden.

"Don't be a rat" "Don't wash our dirty linen in public." "Stand shoulder-to-shoulder." These are lessons that all groups teach. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it a uniquely Catholic problem? Absolutely not, and PD suggesting that it is brings him into waters that are dangerously close to bigotry charges.

It just seems to me that when a thread is locked, there should be a definitive statement with the lock explaining WHY it was locked. Your explanation here is a good one...but it wasn't provided with the lock, and it should be. Locking without explanation is, to me, bullshit, even if the explanation should be obvious.

[crispybits]

So I see my thread, which was completely equal to any other thread asking atheists things was locked.

And why WAS that thread locked? Tee Gee never really said why. I didn't really notice anything that warranted locking...what did I overlook?

They're making every effort to be nice to PD and not let him hang himself. Locking the thread was a favour to him, because he really is going in a bigoted direction, pretending that the covering up of internal crimes is something unique to Catholics, when in fact it's something that happens in every organisation, religious or secular. Catholics cover up crimes committed by other Catholics, yes. Muslims cover up crimes committed by other Muslims. Cops cover up crimes committed by other cops. IRS agents cover up crimes committed by other IRS agents. Used appliance salesmen cover up crimes committed by other used appliance salesman.

One of the first things you will be taught in grade one of primary school (usually with a bloody nose or two) is not to be a rat, not to go to the teacher with your problems but to resolve them within your peer group. That lesson will be reinforced many times in life.

"We don't wash our dirty linen in public" is the mantra that families live by.

When you're at your first job and you see a coworker fired for speaking the truth to a workplace safety inspector, you learn. "We stand shoulder to shoulder. If there's a problem in our plant, come and see me and I'll fix it. Say nothing to the government stooges." It's a lesson that will be taught to you over and over and over again -- at school, in your home, at work, in your social clubs.

Interesting parallel in this very forum: Snowden.

"Don't be a rat" "Don't wash our dirty linen in public." "Stand shoulder-to-shoulder." These are lessons that all groups teach. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it a uniquely Catholic problem? Absolutely not, and PD suggesting that it is brings him into waters that are dangerously close to bigotry charges.

Maybe I missed a post or three, but I haven't seen PD claim anywhere that the cover-up is a uniquely catholic church practice.

It's not bigoted to have an organisation that you feel is due more criticism than others for a particular wrong-doing as long as you're not saying it's fine if someone else does it. Especially when that organisation holds itself up as the moral compass for the entire world. People expect corporations to act in self-interest, people expect churches to act according to their religious principles, therefore there is more scandal when a religious organisation acts immorally and in self-interest than there is when a corporation acts by the same principles, and that greater reaction isn't bigotry, it's just a natural effect when you add hypocrisy on top of immorality.

[BigBallinStalin]

I never understood why people would voluntarily contribute money to an organization which attempted to cover-up such a scandal.

Reasons for doing so:

1. Not all of my donation goes to the Catholic Church. Some goes to my local church!
2. After this, the Church needs help to get through it, so we should donate.
3. ????
4. PROFIT

[john9blue]

probably because they, like me, think the catholic church does more good than harm.

[BigBallinStalin]

probably because they, like me, think the catholic church does more good than harm.

I wonder how the victims and their families and friends run that cost-benefit analysis.

Do you find utilitarianism to be extremely subjective?

[Woodruff]

probably because they, like me, think the catholic church does more good than harm.

I wonder how the victims and their families and friends run that cost-benefit analysis.

Obviously, any victim is going to take a harder view of those they were victimized by than "everyone else"...that's only natural, and I don't think it's fair to make that comparison, really.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to try a different tactic Andy.

Has anyone ever heard of an atheist accusing someone of being a bigot relative to atheism?*

*Apart from in this forum.

Accusing someone? Yes. Was it particularly justified? No, not in my opinion.

So are homosexuals a race or a religion?

Seriously... hate you guys.

I'm confused by your response, to be honest. Are you asserting that homosexuals have not had legitimately bigoted actions taken against them?

Of course not.

Look... my point (which I made poorly) was that atheists are not the subject of bigotry as that term is defined in legal and cultural parlance. From a definitional perspective (i.e. dictionary definition) anyone can be the subject of bigotry. From a legal perspective, there are certain classes of people that can be the subject of bigotry. A partial list would include, bigotry by race, sexual orientation, gender, physical or mental handicap, and religion. If, for example, I hate everyone who wears black socks (or I hate atheists), am I exhibiting bigotry? By the definition of that term yes. By the legal definition of that term, no (unless a state or the federal government passes a law or a judge creates common law).

Hope that helps.

i think the fact that andy isn't in a position to protect dave anymore is part of the reason why that thread was locked.

That is seriously funny. I mean, I smirked, but I smirked hard. You know andy did a good job as a moderator when john9blue thinks andy is protecting pimpdave and pimpdave always thought that andy was being unfair to him.

[thegreekdog]

I never understood why people would voluntarily contribute money to an organization which attempted to cover-up such a scandal.

Reasons for doing so:

1. Not all of my donation goes to the Catholic Church. Some goes to my local church!
2. After this, the Church needs help to get through it, so we should donate.
3. ????
4. PROFIT

I thought we covered this in another thread on various fronts (the reasons for donating, the hypocrisy of criticizers, changing from within, not actually covering up despite sensationalized journalism like pimpdave's "documentary"). Do we want to rehash that here? Rather, do you want to rehash that here? Because I don't.

[BigBallinStalin]

I never understood why people would voluntarily contribute money to an organization which attempted to cover-up such a scandal.

Reasons for doing so:

1. Not all of my donation goes to the Catholic Church. Some goes to my local church!
2. After this, the Church needs help to get through it, so we should donate.
3. ????
4. PROFIT

I thought we covered this in another thread on various fronts (the reasons for donating, the hypocrisy of criticizers, changing from within, not actually covering up despite sensationalized journalism like pimpdave's "documentary"). Do we want to rehash that here? Rather, do you want to rehash that here? Because I don't.

We went over it, and please note that I'm not trying to rustle your jimmies--unlike pimpRustladave. IIRC #1, #2, and #john9blue's benefits > costs was more or less your reasoning. I still find it appalling that people would support such an organization though. If the Church sacked the upper management and implemented some fundamental reforms, then maybe they could change for the better, and if so, then I wouldn't be as appalled. However, the Church didn't and do not seem to be doing so, so it makes even less sense to continue supporting them.

I'm not

[BigBallinStalin]

probably because they, like me, think the catholic church does more good than harm.

I wonder how the victims and their families and friends run that cost-benefit analysis.

Obviously, any victim is going to take a harder view of those they were victimized by than "everyone else"...that's only natural, and I don't think it's fair to make that comparison, really.

I'm only jostling john about his utilitarianism.

[thegreekdog]

I never understood why people would voluntarily contribute money to an organization which attempted to cover-up such a scandal.

Reasons for doing so:

1. Not all of my donation goes to the Catholic Church. Some goes to my local church!
2. After this, the Church needs help to get through it, so we should donate.
3. ????
4. PROFIT

I thought we covered this in another thread on various fronts (the reasons for donating, the hypocrisy of criticizers, changing from within, not actually covering up despite sensationalized journalism like pimpdave's "documentary"). Do we want to rehash that here? Rather, do you want to rehash that here? Because I don't.

We went over it, and please note that I'm not trying to rustle your jimmies--unlike pimpRustladave. IIRC #1, #2, and #john9blue's benefits > costs was more or less your reasoning. I still find it appalling that people would support such an organization though. If the Church sacked the upper management and implemented some fundamental reforms, then maybe they could change for the better, and if so, then I wouldn't be as appalled. However, the Church didn't and do not seem to be doing so, so it makes even less sense to continue supporting them.

I'm not

It's difficult to argue about spiritual benefit with someone who doesn't believe. I suppose that's a cop-out.

Essentially, the benefit I receive from the Church plus the benefit the Church provides to others plus the ability to change the Church (without losing the first benefit) outweighs the perceived widespread abuses of Church employees and the various alleged cover-ups. I'm sure you will note, but note the use of the words "perceived" before "widespread abuses" and "alleged" before the word "cover-ups." I find it absolutely hypocritical that the same critiques aren't made against U.S. public school teachers and unions where the abuses are more widespread and the cover-ups are more blatant. I suppose the difference between the two is the amount of media attention one receives over the other and the role of the Church as self-appointed moral compass.

I think that was my argument (i.e. not exactly john9blue's, but incorporating his argument).

I'm not sure whose jimmies pimpdave is trying to rustle. I like to think it's not me, that there is some other Catholic person here he's trying to annoy. If someone can prove that there is no one else and that these threads are directed at me, I may have to rethink my further involvement with pimpdave.