Chairity wont allow atheist to help.

[Esquilax]

Here's what it says:

This is not only a great group for giving back to the community, but it also makes it easier for like-minded people to meet and socialize. This group is open to all atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc.

Do you seriously take that as meaning Christians are welcome?

I doubt that they would be turned away, because there wouldn't be a reason for them to be. Meanwhile, you're basing your entire claim on an assumption you make based on nothing but the fact that it'll allow you to disagree with atheists on the internet.

And again, there's that telling need of yours to harp on about the wording, rather than the issue.

Again, it seems like a CYA measure to me.

Yep, that's you leading the evidence to the conclusion that you want, because it's more important that you keep your unsupported beliefs safe from interference than to get to the truth. Right now, you're just basing your disagreement on a feeling you have. It's that illusory.

I disagree. Who started it is indeed a valid point. The atheists - and you - are trying to publicly make a really good charity look bad.

Except that's not true. The leader of the charity made the charity look bad by discriminating, and I'm displaying an appropriate level of weary disgust at the pettiness involved. The atheist groups have done nothing to smear the christian charity at all; even looking at the first Friendly Atheist article, the focus is on the atheist charity work, and not the discrimination that spawned it. It's clear, even from the headline; this is just you desperate to see persecution and malicious intent where the actual record shows that none exist.

Hell, the Friendly Atheist only shot back once the christian leader took potshots at the atheists to the media first: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...community/

It takes a special kind of dishonesty to see the precise opposite of what the events actually show.

If you think helping people is more important than differences in belief, you wouldn't do so. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if the negative publicity actually raised donations for the soup kitchen.)

If the soup kitchen thought helping people was more important, they wouldn't discriminate over their help. Meanwhile, the atheists didn't stir shit, they bounced back and got advertising help for their own charity... which does accept christians aboard.

You literally have no leg to stand on here, because this is all in black and white, and all you come back with is feelings, and blatantly false assertions.

They've already given a clue to their motivation.

Can you produce a reason why they shouldn't wear shirts identifying their group- you know, to show their pride at being a part of it- in their work? Would you have this same reaction to any other group doing the same?

I wore a Batman shirt earlier today; does that mean my main motivation there was to proselytize over Batman, or do I just like him?

Actually, yes, I would slight a Christian group for the same thing, and suggest that they should start their own soup kitchen.

So why are you giving the atheists shit about doing exactly that? Actually, you're giving them shit because they're being more inclusive than the christians.

As you would lose. This place is serving 500 meals a day. If you really thought that helping people was what's important, you'd applaud them, and overlook this issue. However, it's apparent that petty beliefs are more important to you, despite your claim to the contrary.

Am I calling for the place to be shut down, or am I deriding this one specific set of behavior?

See, there's this thing adults can do, where they can dislike actions a person or group takes, without being obligated to hate the entire group. Maybe when you grow up, you'll be able to do that too!

Funny that others bring the issue up, but they're not "desperate." I respond, and I'm "desperate."

You respond with blatantly erroneous reasoning, find evidence that contradicts your premise yet still won't let go of it. What else is that, if not desperate?

You've been proven wrong: the only reason you've given for retaining your position is what the contradictory evidence "feels" like. That's desperation.