let's make fun of atheists
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#68 May 9, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion incorporated into law in the respected United Kingdom?
The Lords Spiritual
26 bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords. Known as the Lords Spiritual, they read prayers at the start of each daily meeting and play a full and active role in the life and work of the Upper House.
This section provides information about their historic and present role, and details of the current occupants of the Bishops' Benches.
The continuing place of Anglican bishops in the Lords reflects our enduring constitutional arrangement, with an established Church of England and its Supreme Governor as Monarch and Head of State.
Although there are 44 dioceses in the present-day Church of England, the Bishopric of Manchester Act of 1847 limited the number of places for Lords Spiritual to 26. In the Upper House today the 26 Lords Spiritual constitute around 3.5% of its membersh.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester are ex-officio members of the House of Lords. The remaining 21 places on the Bishops' Bench are not determined by diocese, but are occupied by those English diocesan bishops that have served the longest.
When bishops retire from their see (compulsory at 70), their membership of the House also ceases. Occasionally some have become life peers, and this is usually the case for former archbishops.
Yes, undemocratic and archaic isn't it? And when people complain they are 'intolerant' or 'aggressive secularists' or some such nonsense. If we don't complain we are considered complicit.

It won't change under this reactionary government and perhaps not in this generation but I would be pleased if the House of Lords and the Monarchy were abolished in my lifetime - as long as no empowered President & elected upper house. We don't want a US system and checks and balances to the point of political paralysis. That would frying pan to fire.
JMHO
Lincoln

United States

#69 May 9, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, undemocratic and archaic isn't it? And when people complain they are 'intolerant' or 'aggressive secularists' or some such nonsense. If we don't complain we are considered complicit.
It won't change under this reactionary government and perhaps not in this generation but I would be pleased if the House of Lords and the Monarchy were abolished in my lifetime - as long as no empowered President & elected upper house. We don't want a US system and checks and balances to the point of political paralysis. That would frying pan to fire.
JMHO
The Monarchy most likely pays in tourism?
Would most likely vote labour if returned to the UK.
Both countries seem in control of a few rich.
In the UK corporations are Not persons; they Are the the US.:-(
Checks and balances sounds good but has not worked for a generation or more.
Peace
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#70 May 9, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
The Monarchy most likely pays in tourism?
Would most likely vote labour if returned to the UK.
Both countries seem in control of a few rich.
In the UK corporations are Not persons; they Are the the US.:-(
Checks and balances sounds good but has not worked for a generation or more.
Peace
Kind of.

I think British Tories are closer to US Democrats than to US Republicans. US Reps seem far right of anything British they seem to see 'liberal' as a dirty word. I remember when Tories and Labour alike prided themselves on their liberalism,(small l) and I hope they still do.

Labour policy still seems based on the idea of spending as a way out of a debt crisis. I don't think the problem is austerity versus economic expansion. It is important to recognise that current debt levels (private, public and governmental) are unsustainable and a severe drag on economic activiity. Labour don't see that.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#71 May 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you concentrate on your cult's own beliefs instead of trying to tell us what we believe in or don"t?
Atheism is a lack of belief, it will never be anything else.
If you want to squeeze athiests in your hallucination's box, to fit your mental illness that is your problem, not the problem of atheists.
The fact is that you are a liar lying about both god and atheists.
If you disagree, present some evidence...LMAO
I wouldn't say atheism is a religion, but I would say it's a faith.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#72 May 9, 2013
Prophet of peace wrote:
Atheists have faith that there is no God. It's a religion.
I see we have ANOTHER SOCK-PUPPET.

<laughing>

And this NEW SOCK, is just as brain-damaged as the previous sock was.

What else is new?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#73 May 9, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't say atheism is a religion, but I would say it's a faith.
It can't be faith because it isn't a belief without evidence, it is a belief because a belief without evidence.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#74 May 9, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't say atheism is a religion, but I would say it's a faith.
And YOU are brain-damaged, so what YOU say is pretty much a lie.

This is a given.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#77 May 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
ATHEISM IS A RELIGION as deemed by the courts.
John Calvert, a lawyer and intelligent design proponent declared:
The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that ATHEISM IS A RELIGION.
Actually it's no more a religion than believing there are no fairies is a religion. One may even have beliefs pertaining to theism but that does not automatically constitute a set of religious doctrines based on that belief, just as believing there's no fairies doesn't make you a member of the No Fairy Religion. Atheism is a concept that can be treated like a religion in legal terms in order to ensure the freedom of and freedom from religion as guaranteed by the Constitution.
KJV wrote:
Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.[15]
By those same legal terms, atheism cannot be promoted in public schools over any religious beliefs - in that you are quite correct. But where you and your idiot buddy and fellow liar for Jesus gets it wrong is by claiming "materialistic" science has anything at all to do with atheism. The reason being is that NOTHING in science makes any theological claims either way. And science is not pre-disposed to *philosophical* naturalism just to make atheists happy and fundies grumpy. Science is pre-disposed to **methodological** naturalism. And that's because none of you fundies have ever been able to make Goddidit with magic work in a scientific context.

Gravity. No Gods mentioned. Weather prediction. No Gods mentioned. Chemistry. No Gods mentioned. This is because Goddidit is utterly useless as an "explanation".

Oh, and if you'd like to contest to the contrary in court then I IMPLORE you to do so. You would lose.

Again.

Just like the last time.

And the time before that.

And the time before that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79 May 9, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]
Gentlemen:
The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
Perry Marshall
After more than 500 messages on the board, the atheist position is forced to insist, against decades of well-established scientific literature and every convention in the field of biology, that DNA “isn’t really a code.” And yet things like pebbles and snowflakes somehow are.
A number of people on the atheist side have called them on this, but even the moderator continues to insist that I’m foolish for taking all those biology books literally. How very interesting that the atheist position cannot accept one of the most fundamental definitions in modern science, once the implications become clear: If DNA is a code, then we have every reason to believe that it is designed.[/QUOTE]

Except you have no idea what that "code" is. If you're referring to A,C,G and T, then they are merely symbols representing the chemistry in DNA. EXACTLY the same code is used for H2O. Humans invented that code and we have over 60 years of biological medical history to back up that fact. What's more, IF DNA was "designed" what you need to do is propose a viable mechanism and evidence of it. Something no fundie has ever been able to do.

By the way, your pal Perry is an apologist and computer geek. Clueless about biology. Oh, he also accepts common ancestry, something which is a big no-no for you reality-denying YEC's.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#84 May 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull--- I've been told that numerous times by atheist.
That is correct: all newborns are without knowledge or faith of god or gods.

Therefore? By definition? They are atheists.

You have to TEACH religion to children-- and this damages their brains, too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#85 May 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
faith\ˈfāth\
noun
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
synonyms see belief
Other forms: plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>
Origin: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide.
First use: 13th century
Synonyms: devotion, piety, religion
Yup RELIGION.
Nup-- not.

There is no getting around this: you have religious brain damage.

So severe, you cannot learn anything.

Pathetic.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#86 May 9, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Is it my sock?
[/QUOTE]

Doubtful. Not hate-filled enough to be YOU.
KJV

United States

#87 May 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Nup-- not.

There is no getting around this: you have religious brain damage.

So severe, you cannot learn anything.

Pathetic.
Attack the dictionary bobby I didn't write it.
KJV

United States

#88 May 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Is it my sock?
"

Doubtful. Not hate-filled enough to be YOU.
I'll work on it just for you bobby.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#89 May 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Attack the dictionary bobby I didn't write it.
Brain damage. There is no getting around this: you have religious brain damage.

So severe, you cannot learn anything.

Pathetic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#90 May 9, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Ed what was there before time existed?[/QUOTE]

Poly has already explained why your question is senseless on the other thread and you still don't get it.
Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

#92 May 9, 2013
Before is a time word.

[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Ed what was there before time existed?[/QUOTE]

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#93 May 9, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull--- I've been told that numerous times by atheist.
Actually, I stand corrected because of another poster, who can actually explain things instead of simply saying "bull."

Though being born without any beliefs doesn't mean that later being indoctrinated is impossible. It's entirely possible and probable.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#94 May 9, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
See what mean? Lol
You've lost 97.7% of your flock!
LOL
[/QUOTE]

Because you've brainwashed them when they were susceptible to it and indoctrinated them while they were still naive and believed in the Easter Bunny.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#95 May 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Brain damage. There is no getting around this: you have religious brain damage.
So severe, you cannot learn anything.
Pathetic.
He also left out (like his ilk often do) the part of the definition in which it says that faith is belief without evidence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 45 min karl44 10,946
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,665
John 3:16 3 hr Shizle 80
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr Aura Mytha 244,949
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr dirtclod 20,623
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 22 hr NightSerf 18
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Fri thetruth 42
More from around the web