Gee Val, his handle is Yoyo. So if I use his handle which he chose, then I am mocking him??? Weird. You are presuming a lot. Is calling you Val offensive because I have been doing that consistently. It's a Southern rural phenomena and generally one of respect and affection. How odd to take offense where none was intended.
Hobbsyoyo's username is
hobbsyoyo. Not "Yoyo" or "yoyo." Considering that he dropped a "like" on the post where I criticized you for referring to him in that disrespectful way, I can only assume that he would probably prefer not to be called "yoyo" or "Yoyo."
I don't mind if friends call me by a nickname. But given the tone of your posts in this thread, I would prefer that you don't address me as "Val." The name most people use here for me is "Valka." From now on, please address me by that name.
In the US, it's well known based on multiple studies that atheists don't volunteer or donate to charities in any way comparable manner as spiritual folks. The nonsensical claim was made that conservatives are killing children when in fact, no group has done more for children in America through donations and volunteering.
Then explain the numerous times when charitable organizations such as the American Cancer Society have refused donations from atheists. Explain to me why it's "moral" for them to say, "We don't want your money because we don't want to look like we approve of you, as it would offend our other donors."
The Canadian Cancer Society has also rejected donations from people/groups they don't approve of because they're afraid that doing so would "offend" their other donors.
As a result of this, I'm happy to donate to the local food bank, the public library, I help run a local online group that matches up people who have stuff to give away with people who need said stuff (it's a giving-back kind of thing, since I received a few things from people on that site that I needed and couldn't afford), when I was active in the Society for Creative Anachronism our group donated food to the local women's shelter and youth shelter... and when it comes to monetary donations, I put mine toward organizations where they don't care what the donor's religion is (or if they even have a religion).
Some private nonreligious foundation will give money. The standard atheist? Not so much.
There are as many kinds of atheists as there are atheists. We don't come off an assembly line, and it's offensive that you expressed it as though we do.
How many atheists do you know? It's probably more than you think. After all, there's nothing about us that stands out so you can tell at a glance (unless the person is wearing a t-shirt that gives an indication of such). I've been berated for "living an atheist lifestyle," which is really confusing. Granted, I don't go to church services unless it's unavoidable and I'm slowly working my way through the various YT videos featuring Richard Dawkins and Laurence Krauss (there's a bizarre argument I got into on one of the pages there, in which a woman from New Orleans kept insisting that "Canada has an abortion clinic on every street corner" and she kept insisting that she was right, I'm wrong - even though I live here and she visited Toronto once (and was impressed that the Chinese restaurant she went to had real Chinese people serving because it made everything so "authentic").
Other than that, I eat, sleep, take care of my cat, read, write, do crafts, compose filk music, and have an online life that is quite varied (everything from gaming to writing to videos to news sites to discussion forums, including a couple that are about Roman history and learning Latin). I own several bibles (yes, I've read the Old Testament and part of the New Testament).
Meanwhile I personally disagree with abortion, but have discussed feminist history, contraception, theology in support of free will, political compromise....
Uh-huh... discussion is a good thing. We do a lot of that on this site.
It's not like I am your standard rabid nonsensical intransigent pro-life member. What in the world do people expect here? Not to ever even hear a whisper of dissent from liberal thought?
What people expect here is some attempt at civility in a Red Diamond thread. Your refusal to respect people's proper usernames is not civil.
As for the "standard rabid nonsensical intransigent pro-life member", we had one of those on CFC several years ago. He's not here anymore, because he just couldn't seem to follow the forum rules and posted a lot of offensive, hateful stuff such as "all women who have abortions should be executed." He didn't give a damn what their reasons were - his opinion was a blanket condemnation. He did change his mind on that slightly, after I explained that some abortions happen because continuing the pregnancy would kill both the woman and the fetus.
Having heard this for decades (at least three), this is the standard for not capitalizing "atheist". Take it up with your peers and intellectuals. It was rude at one time to capitalize "atheist" or atheism.
http://www.humanreligions.info/atheism.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-atheism-shouldnt-be-capitalized-249806
It is frequently asked in university courses as making a mistake results in lowering a grade.
https://amylbishop.com/2011/08/17/ap-style-tips-for-religion-content/
There are at least three studies on the peculiarly low donations and volunteer hours by atheists. I am discussing studies by nonprofits themselves.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-people-more-likely-give-charity-study/
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973
https://www.hoover.org/research/religious-faith-and-charitable-giving
Dealing with Margaret Sanger and her buddies is so noxious, it would give me nightmares. I'll deal with that tomorrow.
The Washington Times article says:
Not surprisingly, religiously affiliated households are much more likely than nonreligious households to donate to religious institutions defined in the report as congregations, denominations, missionary societies and religious media.
The article talks some more later about how nonreligious households don't donate as much to religious institutions.
This seems to confuse religious institutions. Why won't those immoral atheists give them money?
Well, it could be because some of those religious institutions/members display appalling bigotry toward atheists, and keep pushing for mandatory prayer in public schools. They keep pushing to have their unscientific beliefs included in science classes, the courts, laws regarding public health (ie. access to contraception, abortions, doctor-assisted dying), and so on. For some reason I just don't feel like giving money to someone who tells me I have no morals because I don't believe in any god(s).
The point being here is that dialogue on abortion means a measure of diplomacy or else it is just angry ranting that accomplishes nothing. That is why I followed the convention of not capitalizing atheist. My natural inclination is to capitalize it. I would do that for Nihilism for example to distinguish a belief system.
You will not offend me if you don't capitalize the word "atheist." I never do unless it comes at the beginning of a sentence or is a heading of some kind. I do appreciate that you spell it correctly; a lot of people don't.
Until we get to the heinous Margaret Sanger...
Yeah, it's really heinous of her to explain human reproductive biology to women at a time when the male doctors pretty much told their female patients to shut up and just have babies, or that anything that went wrong was "God's will."
