"Not the right time" rears it's ugly head again.

[Brian37]

I want everyone to understand right now, there is a HUGE difference between commenting on a pubic event in a social media setting, and being in person with those affected by a tragedy. 

NO, don't make comments at a funeral or make it a debate in person. That would be a dick move. But one has every right to comment on public news events. 

But just now on twitter I made a comment about the logic of prayer on an NFL player being murdered over a fender bender. What happened to him was horrible and nobody should dispute that. Nobody deserves to die over something that petty. But again, this also goes for terrorist attacks and natural disasters as well, not one individual. 

But just like the NRA when there is a mass shooting, they use that excuse, "now is not the time". I wasn't saying the family were horrible people, nor was I saying he deserved it. I wasn't addressing him, just the logic behind the idea that prayer works.

And there is a double standard when atheists have loved ones die, even in person we are STILL expected to keep our mouths shut. No and I am tired of that bullshit. If theists get to make statements in mass media about public events, so do skeptics. It is certainly reasonable in face to face personal settings to leave debate out of it, but mass media is not a private in person event. 

Even when I die, I don't want anyone to sensor others in a public setting, debate them sure, but I will be dead so it will not matter to me what people say about me. It would only be reasonable in a private setting such as a wake for those who survive me, but outside that, people will say what they want no matter. People will say I am burning in hell, people will say I deserve it. Others who do believe who might be empathetic, still that is fine too. The only place I would expect a refrain is face to face, but that is the only reasonable thing. 


The conversation about any and all religions still needs to be had, and since death is part of life, that also should not be taboo when it comes to national and global news.

[abaris]

And there is a double standard when atheists have loved ones die, even in person we are STILL expected to keep our mouths shut. No and I am tired of that bullshit. If theists get to make statements in mass media about public events, so do skeptics. It is certainly reasonable in face to face personal settings to leave debate out of it, but mass media is not a private in person event. 

Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by that. When my mother lay on her death, I sent her a priest because she would have wanted it, and I couldn't say if it reaches her in her coma. Not because it was important for me, but because I knew the importance for her. Definetely not the right time to make an atheist statement. Same at her funeral where her friends and extended family took comfort in the priest being there. You said it yourself, such a thing would have been a dick move.

Also you didn't say what you posted. But in any case, this obviously was a public figure. I didn't know him, nor what he stood for, since the NFL is alien to us here across the pond. I never understood people mourning a public figure's demise anyway, since they are nothing to us, other than some fun or admiration being taken out of our lives. We didn't know them personally, haven't been friends with them, or were in other ways related to them. They are fair game, so to speak. If certain rules are being observed, since they too had family and friends. Trying to make a statement at the moment of their demise can be in bad taste. Not saying, it was, but it can.

[Brian37]

And there is a double standard when atheists have loved ones die, even in person we are STILL expected to keep our mouths shut. No and I am tired of that bullshit. If theists get to make statements in mass media about public events, so do skeptics. It is certainly reasonable in face to face personal settings to leave debate out of it, but mass media is not a private in person event. 

Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by that. When my mother lay on her death, I sent her a priest because she would have wanted it, and I couldn't say if it reaches her in her coma. Not because it was important for me, but because I knew the importance for her. Definetely not the right time to make an atheist statement. Same at her funeral where her friends and extended family took comfort in the priest being there. You said it yourself, such a thing would have been a dick move.

Also you didn't say what you posted. But in any case, this obviously was a public figure. I didn't know him, nor what he stood for, since the NFL is alien to us here across the pond. I never understood people mourning a public figure's demise anyway, since they are nothing to us, other than some fun or admiration being taken out of our lives. We didn't know them personally, haven't been friends with them, or were in other ways related to them. They are fair game, so to speak. If certain rules are being observed, since they too had family and friends. Trying to make a statement at the moment of their demise can be in bad taste. Not saying, it was, but it can.

Of course, that is your mother, and my mother IS Catholic and I will do the same. I am not talking about doing what the dead want, I am talking about outside that when people try to comfort you personally, that IS a double standard, even when you feel like saying "I love my mom, I miss her, but she's nowhere" we are still expected to say nothing, in the private setting.

I get the mourning of celebrity, I've felt bad over the deaths of famous actors and musicians, even a couple of sports stars. I have no problem with mourning itself, entertainment is needed in life too. What I object to is the double standard in even the private setting, they don't want any skepticism even with public figures. But they had no problem raking Hitchens over the coals, and the irony is he wouldn't have cared one bit. 

I am talking about not setting up taboos in national news. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to make truth claims about even natural disasters, child murders, celebrity deaths then others have the right to question the logic behind those claims, even when it comes to death.

One is a personal face to face situation, the other is a public event.

[Brian37]

Think about it, we all slammed Scalia here, but if we were actually waiting in line at the viewing, of course we wouldn't say anything. Again, context of situation.

[Silver]

I state what I want, when I want.

Tact is extremely overrated.

[abaris]

Think about it, we all slammed Scalia here, but if we were actually waiting in line at the viewing, of course we wouldn't say anything. Again, context of situation.

But he was a dick in his own right. Catholicism wasn't at the forefront of the dick factor.

I didn't exactly mourn Margret Thatcher or Nancy Reagan either. The question always is where you voice you criticism and under what circumstances you're voicing it.

[Brian37]

Think about it, we all slammed Scalia here, but if we were actually waiting in line at the viewing, of course we wouldn't say anything. Again, context of situation.

But he was a dick in his own right. Catholicism wasn't at the forefront of the dick factor.

I didn't exactly mourn Margret Thatcher or Nancy Reagan either. The question always is where you voice you criticism and under what circumstances you're voicing it.

I am saying the same thing. I agree, where I stop s when people use "never ever" as blanket solution. Bullshit, when it comes to national and global stories even tragedies, everyone has has a right to comment on it. This NFL player unfortunately died, and yes that sucked, but I wasn't even commenting on the man, but the logic of prayer. No different than when skeptics commented on that stupid cross left at ground zero and all we could think is "Really, leaving behind an advertisement in the form of an object is optimal as compared to what, how about not having it happen at all? I am sure the 3,000 lives are more important than an object.

[AFTT47]

I agree with you 100% in principle, Brian. In practice, I don't know if comments like that are worth it. You're doing it to advance the cause of atheism but if all you accomplish is making people think atheists are pricks, it's counter-productive. I've seen that exact scenario played out dozens of times in various forums and it always goes the way you described. The people always think the atheist is a prick. If you choose to comment in those situations, choose your words VERY carefully. It's not a matter of being right but of having the desired effect. I don't know if it's possible, frankly.

[Brian37]

I agree with you 100% in principle, Brian. In practice, I don't know if comments like that are worth it. You're doing it to advance the cause of atheism but if all you accomplish is making people think atheists are pricks, it's counter-productive. I've seen that exact scenario played out dozens of times in various forums and it always goes the way you described. The people always think the atheist is a prick. If you choose to comment in those situations, choose your words VERY carefully. It's not a matter of being right but of having the desired effect. I don't know if it's possible, frankly.

No sorry, but the only case that can be made is case by case. Even between atheists the public disagreements either way theists need to see, that gets them to treat us as individuals and not sheep. So the reality is we are individuals too so don't say "You make me look bad" you say, "You make yourself look bad".

And in the grand scale that is what humans should do in any case regardless of label, treat each other as individuals.

[Minimalist]

It's never the right time for people who don't want to hear it in the first place.