Chairity wont allow atheist to help.

[John V]

And are you just hell-bent on painting the atheist group as being as big of bigoted assholes like the woman running the soup kitchen? Is it "two wrongs make a right" day? I really doubt that any atheist or humanist group would turn down help from religious groups unless those religious groups were intent upon preaching instead of actually helping.

And how would you determine their intent?

If they asked if they could wear t-shirts that say Jesus Saves to your event, would you be suspicious that their intent was preaching?

---

Your assumption is that "open to atheists," is the same as "christians aren't allowed." Which it isn't. At all.

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?

Right, so you found direct evidence contradicting your position, yet you refuse to abandon your original claim. Standard christian operating procedure, then.

Again, it seems like a CYA measure to me.

The point isn't who started it, but what was done with the attention the story afforded. I thought that was pretty clear in the... exclusive focus I gave to the differences between the two group's approaches. But then... yeah, equivocator.

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. 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.)

And what part of "oh, we'll remove any mention of our group when we work there, so is that okay?" shows that the message was a part of their motivation?

They've already given a clue to their motivation.

It's entirely understandable that they'd want to wear a marker of their group initially, you wouldn't slight a christian group for the same thing, but they sacrificed that immediately just so long as they got to help out anyway... and surprise surprise, John manages to accuse them of exactly the opposite of what that action implies.

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

Again, I'm not starting a dick measuring contest.

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.

But you got on the atheist's back because they'd dared to get some media attention out of it, so I pointed out that that attention was solely directed toward gaining more help for the cause.

Why are you so desperate to find some non-charitable motivation out of this, but only from the people that aren't on your side?

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

[Captain Colostomy]

And are you just hell-bent on painting the atheist group as being as big of bigoted assholes like the woman running the soup kitchen? Is it "two wrongs make a right" day? I really doubt that any atheist or humanist group would turn down help from religious groups unless those religious groups were intent upon preaching instead of actually helping.

And how would you determine their intent?

If they asked if they could wear t-shirts that say Jesus Saves to your event, would you be suspicious that their intent was preaching?

A suspicion. Whoop-dee-do. It's a charity. It's for helping the less fortunate, first and foremost...or is it? If everyone acted on their suspicions, we'd all be aiming guns at each other.

[John V]

A suspicion. Whoop-dee-do. It's a charity. It's for helping the less fortunate, first and foremost...or is it?

Doesn't seem to be for you guys. If it were, you'd applaud the soup kitchen for providing 500 meals every day, rather than focus on it turning away the help of 9 atheists for one day.

[Cyberman]

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?

Why would an unlike-minded person want to join an atheist group set up for the purposes stated?

The atheists - and you - are trying to publicly make a really good charity look bad

I'd say the charity's leader was doing that all by herself.

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.

Funny, that, because that's almost word-for-word what I said about the person in the article.

[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.

[Cato]

This group is open to all atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc.

You were saying?

But that's differrrrrrreeeeennnnnnntttttt!

To make your point you must assume that the definition of humanist excludes believers. I think that's rather silly.

[Esquilax]

Doesn't seem to be for you guys. If it were, you'd applaud the soup kitchen for providing 500 meals every day, rather than focus on it turning away the help of 9 atheists for one day.

Hmm, I didn't realize the thread was called "we hate christian charity!" I thought it was called "charity won't allow atheist to help."

You know, the specific event that's unusual and blatantly discriminatory, while being of interest to atheists?

Essentially, you are now bitching that we're talking about the topic of the thread. Fucking hell...

[Doubting Thomas]

And how would you determine their intent?

If they asked if they could wear t-shirts that say Jesus Saves to your event, would you be suspicious that their intent was preaching?

I might be, but I wouldn't care what they wore as long as they helped. If they just stood around "witnessing" to people instead of feeding them, then I'd ask them to pitch in and help or leave.

[freedomfromforum]

I'm just thinking out loud here. Perhaps the atheist group could simply host their own event while allowing the other group to do their thing. I'm not thinking in terms of segregation, but rather freedom of diversity. Next thought. The atheist and theist groups could co-host an event where no other agenda exists beside feeding the hungry and working together without compulsion.

[John V]

Why would an unlike-minded person want to join an atheist group set up for the purposes stated?

They wouldn't, and that's fine by me. The atheist group should likewise recognize that some theist groups don't want them involved.

I'd say the charity's leader was doing that all by herself.

She wouldn't have needed to say anything to the press if the atheists hadn't put belief above charity and made it a public issue.

Funny, that, because that's almost word-for-word what I said about the person in the article.

It's not strange at all, as hypocrisy is my main point.