Animals are turning on the godly

[Newtonyd]

It doesn't say that Christians are subhuman.  The emphasized phrases are your clue as to the thrust of the joke.

Words don't need to explicitly say that Christians are subhuman, it can easily imply it. Here, you could easily replace "religious types" with rabbits, deer, mosquitoes, cockroaches, or any other kind of pest. Just because it's comedy doesn't mean it can't cross the line.

"Stale" would be my preferred adjective.  "Sub-par" is probably one we can both agree upon.

Fair enough.

The "man believes God will protect him" part is implicit.  The addition of "zoo" makes no difference at all, given that this god is asserted to be omnipresent.

If you read the article you'd see that the "man believes God will protect him" was completely made up. In fact, nowhere in the entire article does it mention ANYTHING about religion, other than that the man was going to church, on a Thursday. The guy might even be an atheist, for all this article tells us. Most atheists have been in a church at some point or another, and not necessarily to worship. Stretching the truth and making assumptions are both poor choices.

"We"?  "Our"?  And "Image"?  I'm uninterested in image, I'm uninterested in group movements, and I'm certainly uninterested in public relations.  Everything -- yes, everything -- is subject to mockery.  The more self-important it is, the more it needs to be mocked.  Nothing is sacred.

It's fair enough that you're uninterested in image, but not everyone is you. I've been a longtime reader here, and I've sometimes seen posts that I believed toed the line between humor and bigotry. In my opinion, this post stepped over the line. I'm not saying you are bigots, but everyone has prejudices (including me) and, if nobody points them out, society will never be able to improve itself.

Don't need to imagine that.  Go read the blogs about Hitchens's diagnosis of cancer; you'll see that sort of thing all over the place.  What's your point?

Also, I'm pretty sure Asmodeus didn't call anyone a fool, so please quit trying to stretch the rhetoric.

It's true you see this sort of thing said by Christians all the time. That doesn't change what it means when you do the same. Hence why I said that this sort of thing brought people down to their level.

*Edit* Also, the fool bit was just part of a counterexample of the thread, not a direct analogy. It does involve an assumption that Asmodeus thinks of believers as acting foolishly. Given the nature of this thread and his post... this is hardly a stretch. Assumptions aren't preferable, but they're also difficult to live without.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Words don't need to explicitly say that Christians are subhuman, it can easily imply it. Here, you could easily replace "religious types" with rabbits, deer, mosquitoes, cockroaches, or any other kind of pest. Just because it's comedy doesn't mean it can't cross the line.

That, then, is a matter of personal sensitivity.  If you infer "subhumanity" from "christian", I'd say that says more about you than Asmo.

If you read the article you'd see that the "man believes God will protect him" was completely made up. In fact, nowhere in the entire article does it mention ANYTHING about religion, other than that the man was going to church, on a Thursday. The guy might even be an atheist, for all this article tells us. Most atheists have been in a church at some point or another, and not necessarily to worship. Stretching the truth and making assumptions are both poor choices.

Jesus please us.  For one who leans on "implication" and inference, you're studiously avoiding it here.  The guy's going to church on a Thursday.  What's he gonna do, take a crap?  He's obviously not a businessman:  he's walking.  Were he on business, he'd either call, if making arrangements, or he'd be driving a truck, to carry the tools to do the repairs.

It's fair enough that you're uninterested in image, but not everyone is you. I've been a longtime reader here, and I've sometimes seen posts that I believed toed the line between humor and bigotry. In my opinion, this post stepped over the line. I'm not saying you are bigots, but everyone has prejudices (including me) and, if nobody points them out, society will never be able to improve itself.

That's fine and well.  But when you put your opinon out, don't expect it to be sacrosanct simply because you believe you are defending high ground.  Lines should be toed -- nay, kicked.  

It's true you see this sort of thing said by Christians all the time. That doesn't change what it means when you do the same. Hence why I said that this sort of thing brought people down to their level.

Hey, would you link to your protest of those things said about Hitchens?  I'd be interested in reading them.

*Edit* Also, the fool bit was just part of a counterexample of the thread, not a direct analogy. It does involve an assumption that Asmodeus thinks of believers as acting foolishly. Given the nature of this thread and his post... this is hardly a stretch. Assumptions aren't preferable, but they're also difficult to live without.

Live by the sword, die by it.  If I don't like the soup, I don't scoop a bowl.  Perhaps you should consider that course of action.

[The Magic Pudding]

Those religious types multiply at such a rate that hyenas decided to do some population control, eh..? Well, GOOD.   I approve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The population of the world reached
 one billion in 1804,
two billion in 1927,
three billion in 1960,
four billion in 1974,
five billion in 1987,
and six billion in 1999.
It is projected to reach seven billion by late 2011,
and around eight billion by 2025

http://allafrica.com/stories/201004010036.html
(Africa) between 1975 and 2001 the population doubled from 402 to 820 million people.
unless checked the population will double from the present level of around 850 million to 1.7 billion people within the next 30 years.

If I was a hyena reading this I'd be worried.
Churches offering hell to those who use contraception rate high on my measure of poor taste.
There could be a bit of irony in a hyena eating a christian, whose kind threatens their species with extinction.
If the hyena can appreciate gallows humour, I bet he'll have a good laugh.

[Newtonyd]

That, then, is a matter of personal sensitivity.  If you infer "subhumanity" from "christian", I'd say that says more about you than Asmo.

You're clearly trying to avoid my point. I don't infer subhumanity from "Christian", I infer dehumanization from Asmodeus's quote here:

Those religious types multiply at such a rate that hyenas decided to do some population control, eh..? Well, GOOD. :| If you could link me all your arguments against every Christian who has ever had something bad to say about Atheists, I'd be pretend interested in reading them to make a lame point.

Live by the sword, die by it.  If I don't like the soup, I don't scoop a bowl.  Perhaps you should consider that course of action.

If I couldn't make assumptions, I wouldn't be an atheist in the first place. Assumptions should be based on facts and knowledge. What I'm really arguing against here are baseless and unsteady assumptions.

[Asmodean]

If I was a hyena reading this I'd be worried.
Churches offering hell to those who use contraception rate high on my measure of poor taste.
There could be a bit of irony in a hyena eating a christian, whose kind threatens their species with extinction.
If the hyena can appreciate gallows humour, I bet he'll have a good laugh.

Thank you for semi-subtly making that politically incorrect point for me  

I'm opposed to overpopulation and not very politically correct about it... And yet some people call me racist, nazist and any other thing I technically am not. I'm just as against the world being overpopulated by magic puddings as North Koreans or midgets or... whoever

[Thumpalumpacus]

That, then, is a matter of personal sensitivity.  If you infer "subhumanity" from "christian", I'd say that says more about you than Asmo.

You're clearly trying to avoid my point. I don't infer subhumanity from "Christian", I infer dehumanization from Asmodeus's quote here:

Those religious types multiply at such a rate that hyenas decided to do some population control, eh..? Well, GOOD. :| If you could link me all your arguments against every Christian who has ever had something bad to say about Atheists, I'd be pretend interested in reading them to make a lame point.

Typically speaking, I don't waste my time responding to nonsense, though it's obvious that I make the occasional exception.

Duly noted is your eliding my point: selective sanctimony.

If I couldn't make assumptions, I wouldn't be an atheist in the first place. Assumptions should be based on facts and knowledge. What I'm really arguing against here are baseless and unsteady assumptions.

Yes, because this is a serious argument favoring the consumption of humans by wildlife.  Got it.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

If I was a hyena reading this I'd be worried.
Churches offering hell to those who use contraception rate high on my measure of poor taste.
There could be a bit of irony in a hyena eating a christian, whose kind threatens their species with extinction.
If the hyena can appreciate gallows humour, I bet he'll have a good laugh.

Thank you for semi-subtly making that politically incorrect point for me  

I'm opposed to overpopulation and not very politically correct about it... And yet some people call me racist, nazist and any other thing I technically am not. I'm just as against the world being overpopulated by magic puddings as North Koreans or midgets or... whoever

Well, it's obvious you're plumping for wild-life-based population control.

[Newtonyd]

I'm pretty sure that's called a joke.  There's no need for you to be so pointedly humorless.

See this bit? This is you being obtuse. I know it's a joke, I'm saying that it's a joke that's stepped over the line.

Impossible?  Not at all.  That is certainly a possibility, and that was what his joke turned on.  

Impossible was the wrong word. What I mean is, this joke was made in a way that shows prejudice and stereotyping.

Yes, your sense of humor is, um, different.  I get it.  The inference (there's that word again) that you are salf-righteous is based on your willingness to interrupt what was obviously a little kidding with hand-wringing admonitions.  

I'm sorry if I'm raining on your fun-time parade, but some things, to me, are more important than shenanigans. Especially lame shenanigans. I realize mockery is important to you, and I know the world would be a sadder place without parody and satire. I also believe the world would be a happier place without stereotyping and prejudice. That people would infer or joke that this dead man brought his death on himself with his wild beliefs, when there is no evidence for it, is serious to me.

Typically speaking, I don't waste my time responding to nonsense, though it's obvious that I make the occasional exception.

Duly noted is your eliding my point: selective sanctimony.

So you're saying you don't waste your time responding to nonsense, yet you criticize me for not responding to the nonsense over Hitchens?  roflol

I didn't elude your point, I answered it directly. Then I said why it didn't matter.

Yes, because this is a serious argument favoring the consumption of humans by wildlife.  Got it.  

It really, really doesn't need to be. Try sitting down and listening to someone tell a few racist or sexist jokes. Even if they don't really mean harm, they keep unconscious or conscious prejudices alive.

[Thumpalumpacus]

See this bit? This is you being obtuse. I know it's a joke, I'm saying that it's a joke that's stepped over the line.

Apparently you missed the part where I wrote that I believed lines should be tested.  

Impossible was the wrong word. What I mean is, this joke was made in a way that shows prejudice and stereotyping.

To those predisposed to see through that prism, sure.

I'm sorry if I'm raining on your fun-time parade, but some things, to me, are more important than shenanigans. Especially lame shenanigans. I realize mockery is important to you, and I know the world would be a sadder place without parody and satire. I also believe the world would be a happier place without stereotyping and prejudice. That people would infer or joke that this dead man brought his death on himself with his wild beliefs, when there is no evidence for it, is serious to me.

Where was it inferred that his religion brought about his demise?  The joke was that his almighty did nothing to protect him.  You really didn't get it, did you?  Oh, lordy.

Typically speaking, I don't waste my time responding to nonsense, though it's obvious that I make the occasional exception.

Duly noted is your eliding my point: selective sanctimony.

So you're saying you don't waste your time responding to nonsense, yet you criticize me for not responding to the nonsense over Hitchens?  roflol  I didn't elude your point, I answered it directly. Then I said why it didn't matter.

You said why you thought it didn't matter.  Big difference.  My point in making that comment is to point out that, with the many injustices in this world, you have chosen to spend how much time on this, and that your choice speaks for yourself whether you like it or not.

It really, really doesn't need to be. Try sitting down and listening to someone tell a few racist or sexist jokes. Even if they don't really mean harm, they keep unconscious or conscious prejudices alive.

The joke here was on God, not the believer.

eta:  Love how you try to associate Christians with persecuted minorities.  Neat trick, that.

[Newtonyd]

Apparently you missed the part where I wrote that I believed lines should be tested.  

Sure they should, but I differ on the methods. Agree to disagree here.

To those predisposed to see through that prism, sure.

I'm hardly 'predisposed' simply because I take a look at things from different viewpoints.

Where was it inferred that his religion brought about his demise?  The joke was that his almighty did nothing to protect him.  You really didn't get it, did you?  Oh, lordy.

Funny you should ask that, since... you know, it was you who did that. Right here:

The "man believes God will protect him" part is implicit. The addition of "zoo" makes no difference at all, given that this god is asserted to be omnipresent.

Oh, lordy.  :|[/quote]

Heh, there's another one that just went flying past your head.  I invite you to reread that for the underlying message.  No, I won't parse it for you.

[/quote]

Very well, since you can't be bothered.

Nope, haven't made any. If you could link me all your arguments against every Christian who has ever had something bad to say about Atheists, I'd be pretend interested in reading them to make a lame point.

Typically speaking, I don't waste my time responding to nonsense, though it's obvious that I make the occasional exception.

Duly noted is your eliding my point: selective sanctimony.

Bold, italics, and underline all correspond to each other. I didn't let anything 'fly by', I decided not to respond to your offhanded remark that says "your argument sucks because I say so". Do I have to give a nod to your every sleight of rhetoric? Now, if you could please give reason to your double standard as listed above...

And please don't say that you were talking about my argument exclusively when referring to it as 'nonsense', you wouldn't have quoted that line in your response if you were.

You said why you thought it didn't matter.  Big difference.  My point in making that comment is to point out that, with the many injustices in this world, you have chosen to spend how much time on this, and that your choice speaks for yourself whether you like it or not.

The pot calls the kettle black, you are spending just as much time on this as me. The reason I'm here arguing this is because I'm an atheist myself and I don't like to see bad off-color jokes giving us a bad name (which you don't care about, I know). Stuff like this damages whatever message we might have, especially when religious people come here, possibly looking to change their stripes, and see this kind of stuff and change their minds.

The joke here was on God, not the believer.

eta:  Love how you try to associate Christians with persecuted minorities.  Neat trick, that.

I've quoted Asmodeus so many times, I would have thought you'd get my point. The joke was very obviously on the believers. The 'godly' in the very title of the thread says that clearly.

Also, you don't have to be the minority to be the butt of a racist or sexist joke. It may be less onerous to do this to a majority, and easier to get away with, but it doesn't change what it is. Trying to hide your own prejudices by accusing me of the same thing doesn't change what you've done.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The pot calls the kettle black, you are spending just as much time on this as me.

The difference is that I make no pretense of sanctimony.  But hey, whatever helps you sleep.

Stuff like this damages whatever message we might have, especially when religious people come here, possibly looking to change their stripes, and see this kind of stuff and change their minds.

It doesn't change the message at all.  Atheism has no message, other than "there is no god," and you'll need to explain to a rube like me how this joke changes that message.