Complaint about haunted bread on Late Late Show

Delirium

Da Boss wrote: »

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs,should he disagree fine but show some respect lad. I've my names for atheists too but I've enough respect 4 them not to say any remarks, certainly inappropriate in national tv

you do understand that 'haunted bread' was referring to the bread used during the Eucharist, not Roman Catholics?

nozzferrahhtoo

Delirium wrote: »

you do understand that 'haunted bread' was referring to the bread used during the Eucharist, not Roman Catholics?

It is not clear he does realize that, and I am not sure which is worse. That he does realize it or that he does not. Either has worrying implications.

Certainly when I obtained a large number of these crackers, pre and post latin mumbling services to engender them with haunty-ness, I received a few death threats and odd comments from some theists.

A few of those comments, not just one but a few of them, likened my possession of the crackers to things like "How would you like it if I came and kidnapped your child?".

Which suggests to me that the user above would not be alone in the move of equating actions and comments and labels directed at a piece of bread......... with those directed at real actual people.

kylith

Da Boss wrote: »

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs,should he disagree fine but show some respect lad. I've my names for atheists too but I've enough respect 4 them not to say any remarks, certainly inappropriate in national tv

As per my earlier comment on this thread: you believe we atheists deserve to burn in damnation forever, I believe your magic crackers are silly. Which belief is more offensive?

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

As per my earlier comment on this thread: you believe we atheists deserve to burn in damnation forever, I believe your magic crackers are silly. Which belief is more offensive?

Could it be that a still more offensive belief is your belief that Da Boss believes what you say he believes?

magicbastarder

that's whataboutery though. (edit: that was a reference to kylith's post, not the one immediately above)

it boils down to this - if someone believes that they regularly eat the actual flesh of their actual god as part of a religious ceremony - except that flesh is, to any test which it can be put to, bread; they've gotta expect that people who don't follow their religion will find it laughable.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

Could it be that a still more offensive belief is your belief that Da Boss believes what you say he believes?

I can only assume that a Christian follows Christian teachings, which are that non-Christians go to hell where they have an awful time of it altogether.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Could it be that a still more offensive belief is your belief that Da Boss believes what you say he believes?

Best hold off until the poster confirms, even if it is a central christian belief.

Though it's one which most christians will go to some lengths to avoid confirming as the extreme silliness of the belief becomes a little obvious.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

There could be. Precisely because they go about it quietly, you're less likely to notice them.

Very many Catholics also seem to thoroughly enjoy strong religious humour that was previously banned due to being offensive to Catholics, Father Ted being the best example of this, and of course Life of Brian. The argument that the Rubber Bandits humorously talking about haunted bread is offensive to most Catholics would appear to be specious on this basis. One priest in Kerry taking the hump and a few more hard liners following suit is hardly representative of the views of 'most Catholics'.

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

I can only assume that a Christian follows Christian teachings, which are that non-Christians go to hell where they have an awful time of it altogether.

robindch wrote: »

Best hold off until the poster confirms, even if it is a central christian belief.

Though it's one which most christians will go to some lengths to avoid confirming as the extreme silliness of the belief becomes a little obvious.

It's amusing to see atheists getting all pontifical and issuing infallible pronouncements about what is, and what is not, a "central Christian belief". While this is a belief commonly held by Christians, it's also a belief commonly rejected by Christians. The only way to know whether Da Boss believes this is to ask him, and simply asserting that he believes it without having taken that simple step is, yeah, something he might conceivably find quite offensive.

See, here's the thing. Fr. Whatsisname says that he finds what was said about the eucharist quite offensive, and the general response in this forum has been, well, you just have to suck that up, Father. Fair enough. But if you take that stance, and then immediately go on to impute offensive beliefs to other people so that you can get all offended by the beliefs you have imputed to them - well, Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. If Fr. Whatisname has to suck up the offense he felt watching the Late Late, then you certainly have to suck up the offense that you have manufactured for yourself so that you can gratify your need to be offended.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

If Fr. Whatisname has to suck up the offense he felt watching the Late Late, then you certainly have to suck up the offense that you have manufactured for yourself so that you can gratify your need to be offended.

Its a fair point, but talking for myself here, what is objectionable is what I'd see as a minority of religious hardliners attempting to censor religious humour presented by our national broadcaster without reasonable cause. There is a tendency for some religious posters here, such as Daboss, to attempt to line up all Catholics behind their argument on the basis that they are a Catholic and 78% of the population are also Catholic. This is a clearly fallacious position as the Catholic majority are a varied bunch that have long since stopped lining up in support of the whims of the hierarchy on these types of matters. While it is reasonable for us to say we find something offensive, it is not reasonable to say someone else should similarly find it offensive because we're part of the same club and the source of offense should be censored on that basis.

Peregrinus

While others may have advanced the position you describe, smacl, I don't think Da Boss has.

I agree with you that there's a serious discussion to be had about to what extent society can or should restrict offensive speech. And I probably incline towards the answer that I suspect you incline towards; "it's offensive!" is generally not a sufficient justification for restrictions on free speech.

But, whatever answer someone may offer to the question, I don't think the answer is defensible if it it distinguishes between speech offensive to those people over there, and speech offensive to us or to a group that includes us. Nor do I think it matters greatly whether the group offended is a very large one or a smaller one. If somebody does say "we Catholics are 78% of the population and our feelings should be protected!", I suggest that the fact that they are 78% of the population is irrelevant. But the corrollary of that is that, if it turns out that, actually, only 7.8% of the population is offended, that's also irrelevant.

Da Boss

Some reasonable comments there, some Unreasonable. I put this to all atheists here(there seems to be quiet a few of yee). Yee claimed that us followers of Christ have names that are offensive to atheists ,yet yee atheists ,many whom seem to think they are saints(if I can use that word or is it offensive ),do no wrong. Well yee are the same people who call us faithful brainwashed/dangerous, priests rapists(true for a small minority,true too 4 atheists) and call nuns murders

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

While others may have advanced the position you describe, smacl, I don't think Da Boss has.

I disagree, Da Boss has clearly nominated himself as a spokesperson for all Catholics in the statement below.

Da Boss wrote: »

Those comments were destructive,insulting and ridiculed all us catholic and our beliefs

This is utter nonsense, as the rubber bandits are very popular and doubtless many of their audience are Catholic. For example, Ryan Turbridy is a self proclaimed Catholic yet he found the humour amusing. Da Boss is misrepresenting the opinion of all Catholics, because he is no more aware of that opinion than you or I.

But the corrollary of that is that, if it turns out that, actually, only 7.8% of the population is offended, that's also irrelevant.

That's fair enough, but that is a different argument. Many people find many things offensive for many reasons. However, we need to be very careful about the subset we restrict and why do so. My position is that this should include incitement to hatred here, but not certainly not blasphemy or religious humour.

smacl

Da Boss wrote: »

I put this to all atheists here(there seems to be quiet a few of yee). Yee claimed that us followers of Christ have names that are offensive to atheists ,yet yee atheists ,many whom seem to think they are saints(if I can use that word or is it offensive ),do no wrong. Well yee are the same people who call us faithful brainwashed/dangerous, priests rapists(true for a small minority,true too 4 atheists) and call nuns murders

How about you direct your question to any atheists rather than all atheists as none of us are in a position to state what all atheists might think. Similarly, when referring to specific claims refer to the specific posters that made those claims. Atheists are simply people who don't believe in a god or gods, they don't necessarily have anything in common beyond that.

MrPudding

nuac wrote: »

[/B]

Those guys are extremely intelligent. They could buy and sell most of us, and probably have already done so.

Oh yes, very intelligent. They even know a thing or two about road building.

MrP

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

Yee claimed that us followers of Christ have names that are offensive to atheists

A bit of historical revisionism going on from you there I fear.

I think you will find it was YOU that claimed that YOU personally had names for them that you refuse to share here, despite us being agog to hear them.

And in fact what I claimed, though you appear to have simply ignored the post, was that if you actually come out with what "names" you have for them you will find they are not actually offended at all, but will simply attempt to explore the reasoning behind your choice of "names".

The worry is however that you do not appear to be cognizant of the VAST difference between labeling a BELIEF and labeling a PERSON. A concern I and at least one other user raised which you have not only failed to address, but somewhat exacerbate in this post.

Da Boss wrote: »

many whom seem to think they are saints(if I can use that word or is it offensive)

Not offensive at all no. And certainly not as offensive and lacking in decorum as inventing thoughts on their behalf that no one here has expressed themselves. I have not seen a single person here who "seems to think" any such thing at all. You have whole sale made that up.

Da Boss wrote: »

Well yee are the same people who call us faithful brainwashed/dangerous, priests rapists(true for a small minority,true too 4 atheists) and call nuns murders

Insult is not insult if it is true. And that faith and aspects of faith are potentially harmful or dangerous is entirely true stuff to say. I myself have given examples of this, I can give more if you request it. But suffice to summarise: The more divides from reality a world view becomes, the more potential for real world harm it contains.

As for priests being rapists, I think you will find most people.......... aside from maybe one, perhaps two people suffering from human hyperbole........ already realize that only a certain number of priests are pedophiles. In fact many of the abuses of children by priests were probably not even done by pedophiles. Remember sexually abusing a child does not automatically mean you are a pedophile.

No, what such people MOSTLY have an issue with is not the existence of pedophile or pederast priests, but the impression they have that the crimes of those priests were ignored by, facilitated by, protected by the hierarchy of the church at the time(s).......... or that the victims of such abuses have been silenced, moved, hidden, ignored, victimized, and not paid proper justice or reparations.

Atheists are no less prone to hyperbole than any other group of humans, so of course the occasional ill founded and nonsense generalization about the sexual persuasion of priests will pop up here and there. Such loud mouth should not be used as an "out" to dealing with the more genuine and well founded concerns, worries and fears that the majority of atheists ACTUALLY have on the matter.

realdanbreen

smacl wrote: »

Atheists are simply people who don't believe in a god or gods, they don't necessarily have anything in common beyond that.

Oh I think most atheists have a lot in common.EG they seem to spend almost as much time attending church services, weddings, confirmations, communions, funerals etc as most believers do. They will give the excuse for doing so as not wishing to offend anyone. I don't think strong principles were ever founded on 'not wishing to offend anyone'.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

Oh I think most atheists have a lot in common.EG they seem to spend almost as much time attending church services, weddings, confirmations, communions, funerals etc as most believers do. They will give the excuse for doing so as not wishing to offend anyone. I don't think strong principles were ever founded on 'not wishing to offend anyone'.

I have met, and worked with, a hell of a lot of atheists and I am yet to meet one myself who attended any such service because they did not want to offend.

EVERY atheist *I* (YEMV) have discussed this with goes to such services because the service means something to their friend or their family member, and it means something to them AND that friend and family member to share in such life events that are TO THEM significant.

Interesting that you use the word "excuse" though, which is the implication there is something there they have to justify or excuse. There is not. Being an atheist in no way means you are expected to not go to such facilities or attend such services. So there is nothing to excuse or justify there, outside the realm of your own head that is.

So all I am seeing here is you projecting your own narratives on being an atheist, and what yOU think the "strong principles" they hold are, onto actual atheists who do not share any of them at all.

realdanbreen

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have a point alright, probably none.

smacl

realdanbreen wrote: »

Oh I think most atheists have a lot in common.EG they seem to spend almost as much time attending church services, weddings, confirmations, communions, funerals etc as most believers do.

As you correctly point out above, the desire to avoid going to church where there is any reasonable excuse not to is something common to atheists and religious people alike, or more simply, most of the population of Ireland. It is not something specific to atheists. People clearly just don't like going to church :pac:

Samaris

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have met, and worked with, a hell of a lot of atheists and I am yet to meet one myself who attended any such service because they did not want to offend.

EVERY atheist *I* (YEMV) have discussed this with goes to such services because the service means something to their friend or their family member, and it means something to them AND that friend and family member to share in such life events that are TO THEM significant.

Actually, I have gone to services to not offend/upset my partner's very religious older mother when visiting her. I don't know that this is a crime that deserves the extent of the disapproval of the person you're responding to, but being that I am an individual rather than just "an atheist", I reckon I can make my own decisions in my own circumstances without my decision being representative of or relevant to any other atheists!

When I'm a visitor at someone's house, I will fall in with their customs, including the Rosary and the likes (although I do wish the words didn't get changed so often), because I will only be there a short time and I see no reason to cause kerfuffle and/or make things awkward for my partner.

My own principles remain the same, but I am not so rigid as to demand that my principles get first dibs as a visitor, especially in a relatively unimportant matter (although I don't take Communion as it feels weird to me and disrespectful to the general purpose of it as I am not "qualified" to receive it, seeing I've not been to Confession in years*). Likewise, I'd be fine (and interested, tbh) visiting a mosque or a temple, but I would not take part in specific rituals that only the religious should be partaking in.


*Sure, I know most Catholics receiving it haven't either, but that's none of my concern.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's amusing to see atheists getting all pontifical and issuing infallible pronouncements about what is, and what is not, a "central Christian belief". While this is a belief commonly held by Christians, it's also a belief commonly rejected by Christians. The only way to know whether Da Boss believes this is to ask him, and simply asserting that he believes it without having taken that simple step is, yeah, something he might conceivably find quite offensive.

Hell isn't a central Christian belief anymore? That'll be news to the pope.

Peregrinus wrote: »

See, here's the thing. Fr. Whatsisname says that he finds what was said about the eucharist quite offensive, and the general response in this forum has been, well, you just have to suck that up, Father. Fair enough. But if you take that stance, and then immediately go on to impute offensive beliefs to other people so that you can get all offended by the beliefs you have imputed to them - well, Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. If Fr. Whatisname has to suck up the offense he felt watching the Late Late, then you certainly have to suck up the offense that you have manufactured for yourself so that you can gratify your need to be offended.

Who's offended? I'm not offended. I said it was a more offensive belief than joking about bread.

Personally, threats of hell are like threatening me with Santa not coming, or going to Mordor when I die.

RustyNut

realdanbreen wrote: »

Oh I think most atheists have a lot in common.EG they seem to spend almost as much time attending church services, weddings, confirmations, communions, funerals etc as most believers do. They will give the excuse for doing so as not wishing to offend anyone. I don't think strong principles were ever founded on 'not wishing to offend anyone'.

Would you not attend a major life ceremony of a close friend if it took place in a temple, mosque or synagogue? If you object to non christians attending your church maybe you should see if they will put a sign on the door, NO ATHEISTS MUSLIMS OR JEWS.

nozzferrahhtoo

Samaris wrote: »

Actually, I have gone to services to not offend/upset my partner's very religious older mother when visiting her.

You're certainly a first for me I know in my own position I would simply not go, if I did not want to, and to hell with how much it offends her. In fact when I am in their house at Christmas, the Inlaws do go to Christmas mass, and I simply said "no thank you" every time and never even stopped to ask or notice whether it offended them or not. I do not think it did though, they are not that type to be concerned either way.

But if she was having a particular event or ceremony I WOULD go, not to avoid offending her as my mother inlaw, but because a particular life ceremony........... lets imagine after 50 years of marriage her and my father in law were renewing their vows or some such........ then I would go for no other reason that it is an important ceremony for them personally and I want to be at events that are important to them in that sense.

Hell I even went to the Christening of one of my nieces and took the role of "godfather".

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's amusing to see atheists getting all pontifical and issuing infallible pronouncements about what is, and what is not, a "central Christian belief".

In all fairness Peregrinus, I've said nothing of the kind, infallible or not

Peregrinus wrote: »

See, here's the thing. Fr. Whatsisname says that he finds what was said about the eucharist quite offensive, and the general response in this forum has been, well, you just have to suck that up, Father. Fair enough. But if you take that stance, and then immediately go on to impute offensive beliefs to other people so that you can get all offended by the beliefs you have imputed to them - well, Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle.

You're saying that I'm asking just to be able to huff and puff some high-octane offense? Not really :rolleyes:

What would have been nice is for Da Boss to confirm what exactly his/her beliefs were and what names he/she is referring to when he/she says 'I've my names for atheists too' - A+A is a discussion forum after all. If Da Boss doesn't want to confirm whatever's the relevant meat of the conversation at that point, then, that's his/her own business, but it's not going to make for much of a discussion if one side is asking questions to figure out what somebody's referring to, while the other side - and Da Boss's post from 08:01 this morning seems to be in this vein - is slapping its straw hat on its head, stuffing its cardboard suitcase under its arm and scarpering, a little red-faced.

Samaris

Nah, that's also a perfectly fair way to go about it, just my personal choice as a guest in my fiance's mother's house is to fall in with her customs and wishes. Besides, there's also awkward Irish customs that I tend to fall afoul of anyway, plus the issue that my accent causes problems with communication, so I don't really want to insert another bone of contention where it is not necessary and would only upset her for relatively little gain. Same way my fiance can argue religion with his mother if he likes, I will generally stay out of it in her home. I will also politely eat mashed vegetables, which I generally hate with a fiery passion that goes beyond mere religion!

When in Rome, I'll generally do as the Romans do, even if I don't particularly believe in it -unless- there is a good reason in my own mind not to. Going to Mass won't cause me to spontaneously combust and I feel no risk of being converted back* I make a stand at it being forced on a national level or religious influences that cannot be gainsaid rather than personal choices for specific reasons.

*Actually, if I did feel a risk of being converted back, that would make me more likely to challenge myself by going to Mass rather than a lingering uncertainty and avoiding the "temptation", but again, personal thing.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have met, and worked with, a hell of a lot of atheists and I am yet to meet one myself who attended any such service because they did not want to offend.

Not sure if this is applicable, but but I have attended a couple of religious services which I'd much prefer to have avoided - purely for political reasons.

Last one was for Popette, one of whose major wedding anniversaries passed by not too long ago. In the total absence of interest from anybody else in the extended family, I decided - for no reason beyond that I'm the eldest in the following generation and I knew that her long-suffering hubby would be mightily cheered to see the slightest family support - to attend an SSPX Resistance service at St John's Church at the corner of York Road and Tivoli Road in Dun Laoghaire, and to stay for the marriage renewal vows which Popette had requested after the service.

The priest, a tall, noisy man on the cusp of old age, and with exuberantly awful teeth through which air and saliva sailed effortlessly, forgot that he'd promised to renew the vows and was leaving the church when Popette collared him and returned him to the altar where she and hubby resumed kneeling at the altar rail. Mr Priest dropped back into the vestry to find his book of prayers, returned, then read, at the speed of light, several pages from close to the end of his Latin prayer book, at one point skipping several pages because he didn't "think that these are very relevant". Nobody beyond yours truly understood much of the Latin, some of which he misread. At the end, and liberally doused with his saliva, Popette and hubby stood up and seemed satisfied. Job done, I thought.

Does that count?

realdanbreen

RustyNut wrote: »

Would you not attend a major life ceremony of a close friend if it took place in a temple, mosque or synagogue? If you object to non christians attending your church maybe you should see if they will put a sign on the door, NO ATHEISTS MUSLIMS OR JEWS.

I never mentioned Christians or any other denomination for that matter!

RustyNut

realdanbreen wrote: »

I never mentioned Christians or any other denomination for that matter!

You did mention confirmations and communions. How many non christian religions perform these rituals?

Any answer to the question I asked, would you not attend a major life ceremony of a close friend or family member because it took place in a place of worship that you are not a member of?

realdanbreen

RustyNut wrote: »

You did mention confirmations and communions. How many non christian religions perform these rituals?

Any answer to the question I asked, would you not attend a major life ceremony of a close friend or family member because it took place in a place of worship that you are not a member of?

Of course I would because I believe in a higher power. I would not however attend any religious ceremony if I was a genuine atheist and I would most certainly not be that lily livered that I would attend in order to please parents or parents in law as many have said they do on the A&Aforums.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

realdanbreen wrote: »

Of course I would because I believe in a higher power. I would not however attend any religious ceremony if I was a genuine atheist and I would most certainly not be that lily livered that I would attend in order to please parents or parents in law as many have said they do on the A&Aforums.

I don't see it as lilly livered, I would see it as attending out of respect for family; they want me to be there, so I go. I sit down the back and I don't participate (though I mentally convert the church into a house to pass the time), but I'm there because they're my family and I love them and want to show my support, even if I don't agree with it.

realdanbreen

kylith wrote: »

I don't see it as lilly livered, I would see it as attending out of respect for family; they want me to be there, so I go. I sit down the back and I don't participate (though I mentally convert the church into a house to pass the time), but I'm there because they're my family and I love them and want to show my support, even if I don't agree with it.

Fair enough although you seem to be suggesting that sitting down the back and not participating is somehow showing respect to your family. The bottom line in your case is that you are not an atheist. An Atheist would have no truck with religion or anything to do with religion and those people I do respect.

.......

This post has been deleted.

storker

smacl wrote: »

Very many Catholics also seem to thoroughly enjoy strong religious humour that was previously banned due to being offensive to Catholics, Father Ted being the best example of this, and of course Life of Brian. The argument that the Rubber Bandits humorously talking about haunted bread is offensive to most Catholics would appear to be specious on this basis. One priest in Kerry taking the hump and a few more hard liners following suit is hardly representative of the views of 'most Catholics'.

I remember that even back in the 70s and 80s Dave Allen was quite popular, and he could hardly have been been accused of any great respect for the church, at least not in his material.

realdanbreen

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? Why don't you track down a genuine atheist and ask him/her.
They will tell you that although they haven't any time for religion or the religious they have even less for time for people pleasing wannabe atheists.

.......

This post has been deleted.

RustyNut

realdanbreen wrote: »

Really? Why don't you track down a genuine atheist and ask him/her.
They will tell you that although they haven't any time for religion or the religious they have even less for time for people pleasing wannabe atheists.

That sounds like a fundamentalist atheist rather than a run of the mill atheist that just doesn't believe in gods.

smacl

realdanbreen wrote: »

Really? Why don't you track down a genuine atheist and ask him/her.
They will tell you that although they haven't any time for religion or the religious they have even less for time for people pleasing wannabe atheists.

Or maybe you could just look it up in any dictionary, where you'd find out that an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in a god or gods. No more, no less. And I say that as an atheist. If you think any different, perhaps you could post a reference to your definition in any common dictionary?

kylith

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough although you seem to be suggesting that sitting down the back and not participating is somehow showing respect to your family. The bottom line in your case is that you are not an atheist. An Atheist would have no truck with religion or anything to do with religion and those people I do respect.

Soooo, I should be a dick to my family to satisfy what you think a "real" atheist should do?

I don't believe in any gods, this makes me a real atheist. That's the long and short of it.

storker

realdanbreen wrote: »

Really? Why don't you track down a genuine atheist and ask him/her.
They will tell you that although they haven't any time for religion or the religious they have even less for time for people pleasing wannabe atheists.

I call No True Scotsman Fallacy on this one.

I'm a genuine atheist and you can take it from me that you are talking rubbish. There is no book of rules for atheists. Atheists are free to choose to attend or boycott any event or occasion, or associate with or ignore anyone they like.

robindch

realdanbreen wrote: »

The bottom line in your case is that you are not an atheist. An Atheist would have no truck with religion or anything to do with religion and those people I do respect.

Wasn't there one of the commandments about not bearing false witness against your neighbour? :rolleyes:

Can't remember if the Vatican took it off the books though.

looksee

You see the problem is, realdanbreen, that instead of getting het up by your - what amounts to trolling, I say that as a mod, - we are happy to just let you ramble on making your arguments look more and more silly. You can have any opinion you like of atheists, we don't care much. If it gets more to actual trolling than amounting to it then we might have to step in and remonstrate.

Pherekydes

robindch wrote: »

Wasn't there one of the commandments about not bearing false witness against your neighbour? :rolleyes:

Can't remember if the Vatican took it off the books though.

Is it in the charter? :P

o1s1n

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough although you seem to be suggesting that sitting down the back and not participating is somehow showing respect to your family. The bottom line in your case is that you are not an atheist. An Atheist would have no truck with religion or anything to do with religion and those people I do respect.

You actually have it the wrong way around.

smokingman

I'm still waiting for these names de boss has for me

realdanbreen

storker wrote: »

I call No True Scotsman Fallacy on this one.

I'm a genuine atheist and you can take it from me that you are talking rubbish. There is no book of rules for atheists. Atheists are free to choose to attend or boycott any event or occasion, or associate with or ignore anyone they like.

Absolutely. Atheists are of course free as a breeze to do as they wish unlike the situation in Atheist States like North Korea where those practising religion are persecuted.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

Absolutely. Atheists are of course free as a breeze to do as they wish unlike the situation in Atheist States like North Korea where those practising religion are persecuted.

okay who had Friday @ 8.27am in "Grrr! Atheists!" bingo?