In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51437 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#34180 Aug 6, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
Nixon's fate was sealed because of his staunch anti-communist history.
His fate was sealed when he broke the law in 1948 (which he acknowledged).

It took 25 years of breaking laws to catch up with him.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#34181 Aug 6, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Oreo Cookie"?
That's a tinge racist.
"Feed the rich"? They got you with that class envy crap, huh?
You got half the people in this nation living off the wealthier half by government force, Cletcher. What do you want? 60% on the dole? 80%?
How has voting as a block for democrats for 50 years served minorities? Have you looked at their poverty and unemployment rates? Is it working out? Blacks were better-off under Jim Crow than today by electing democrats.
"We might think of dollars as being "certificates of performance." The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn, the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That's the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him. Contrast that moral standard to Congress' standing offer, "Vote for me and I'll take what your fellow man produces and give it to you." -- Walter Williams (black guy)
First, I asked you to say your piece without quoting others.

Second, no, no racism. I don't like self-loathers is all.

And nobody "got me" with anything. That's an insult. I do my own thinking and deciding.

And I'm not interested in answering loaded, leading questions. You know me better than that.
Make your statements if you wish, express your views, that I don't mind.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#34182 Aug 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Man to vampires. Read that somewhere. Seems appropiate.
:p

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#34183 Aug 6, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Did you think my claim was irrational?.
You are a liar.

Joe McCarthy would be proud of you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#34184 Aug 6, 2012
HTS wrote:
You keep reveriting back to religion. I'm trying to stick to science.
You keep calling science religion.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#34185 Aug 6, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
We all expect the human genome to evolve into something else if it doesn't go extinct catastrophically first. Not surprisingly, your upbeat Christian psyche embraces a third suggestion - that man will simply continue to suffer further degradation as his genome just rots away
HTS wrote:
IANS, you're completely dodging the question. I'm not talking about catastrophic extinction, I'm talking about genetic entropy which is observable and contradicts the very premise of Dawinism. Instead of answering the question, you attack Christianity. Is it possible for you to engage in a scientific discussion without incessantly interjecting religion?
I'm not interested in theists' views on science. I already know . you just don't see it.

I'm interested in the damage religion does to people. I think it has damaged you.

I also know that religion is an interest of yours. And I know that it is your religion that motivates your opinions on science. Yet you resist discussing it.

I have indulged you. You resist me. You wish to control the dialog. I don't wish to be controlled.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34186 Aug 6, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Cold War was over by 1980.
It warmed up when that senile old twad gave his evil empire speech.
Nobody said anything about the cold war.

The U.S.S.R. wasn't over in 1980.

After Reagan/Bush, it was over.

The liberal media said the old Hollywood cowboy would start a war with the Soviets. Instead, he dismantled them without a shot.

Pershing missiles in Europe, SDI. He did them in.

Brought Jimmy Carter's hostages home just by being inaugurated.

Then created a 20 year boom in the economy.

Yep, quite an old senile twad.

You, though,- you are a fucking moron, Son.

You should never opine on politics or history. You are a lefty, and I will humiliate a lefty like you just for the fun of it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34187 Aug 6, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. The propaganda just appears one week in venues like Topix. First, one poster uses a phrase you haven't seen before, and by week's end, two more. That's how you know that something new is rattling through the echo chamber.
And of course, the poster doesn't know why. Most of this propaganda is probably for them. I doubt that the Christians generating this drivel expect it to convince you or me. But the Christians need reassurance. Here's something I posted to one about 18 months ago. See if this sounds right to you :
"Dude - the material is written for you, not us. It's authors are no so inexperienced as to send you out there armed with blanks, or to not know that their arguments are ineffective. They already know their crap never works - on rationalists. So who is it written for? You.
"But you're already a beleiver, right? Why do you need propaganda? Because the ranks believers are falling fast from the ranks and becoming nonbelievers. And it is due in large part to the triumphs of science embarrassing your clergy time and again. This material is to assuage YOUR doubts, not mine.
"So, why don't they tell you? Why should they? First, it makes the arguments less believable to you, their intended target, if you are told that the reason they are rejected is that they are not convincing or logically sound. And second, your handlers know that you'll never notice the evidence or reason any of this out. Like a good little magical-thinking, faith-based thinker, you will never question any of what you have been told or question the idea that your arguments fail because of Satan.
"Why is it that your apologetics only work on people that want to believe them, yet nobody in your camp seems concerned or surprised by this obvious fact?"
Nobody has even made the claim he stated and you agreed with.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#34188 Aug 6, 2012
During my readings of the Bible, the genealogies were so boring that they made my head spin and my eyes water. I soldiered through the--I'd promised myself I wouldn't skip anything--but I didn't really take them in. Others have been more rigorous, methodically cross-referencing the supposedly precise records, and found discrepancies:

"The chronologies of Kings and Chronicles are inconsistent (compare CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT). The genealogies in Gen 46; Nu 26; 1 Ch 2:7 show considerable variations."

"We have two distinct genealogies of Jesus (Mt 1:1-16; Lk 3:23 ff; compare GENEALOGY). "

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/D/DISCREPAN...

So the genealogies in the Bible are not flawless, and there is no reason to suppose that extra-biblical ones are any better than the ones many of us have struggled with while investigating our own family histories. How may of us have found ancestors who seemed, figuratively anyway, to be their own grandpas?

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#34189 Aug 6, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
His fate was sealed when he broke the law in 1948 (which he acknowledged).
It took 25 years of breaking laws to catch up with him.
Pales in comparison to Obama - his entire rise and fall took less than four years. Obviously, it defines his adherents more than him. lol
HTS

Mandan, ND

#34190 Aug 6, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I'm not interested in theists' views on science. I already know . you just don't see it.
I'm interested in the damage religion does to people. I think it has damaged you.
I also know that religion is an interest of yours. And I know that it is your religion that motivates your opinions on science. Yet you resist discussing it.
I have indulged you. You resist me. You wish to control the dialog. I don't wish to be controlled.
Why do you continually dodge the question of genetic entropy? You've essentially stated that you will broadly dismiss any of my views or any research papers that I've read because you disagree with my religion, without wen knowing what it is.
I don't want to get into a religious debate because I know that you won't be convinced. If I told you that I had a deeply spiritual experience you would ridicule it and say I was delusional or dishonest. I wouldn't resist discussing it of I felt that you were open minded and respectful of my views. You seem to be convinced that God does not exist without even listening.
I don't claim to have all of the answers. Reality, as I'm sure you are aware, is not always as it logically seems. When I read Originnof Species, my respect for Darwin grew, He was extremely knowledgable, observant and insightful. He wa definitely an original thinker. Early in his book, he acknowledged that the mechanisms of inheritance were essentially unknown. I don't think he would have ever proposed the theory of evolution has he understood DNA and the concept of coded information. He was too intellectually honest. I think that a lot of the evidence he presented made logical,sense. However, it was a serious error for him to assume that the changes that he described involving selective breeding, Galapagos finches, etc., could be extended to his larger claims. He assumed that mechanisms of inheritance must exist for his theory to be valid. He made repeats references to Lamarckism, and indicated that instinctive behavior must be acquired through habits of parents. He relied on these false assumptions to prop up his theory. He showed great respect for those who disagreed, acknowledging frequently that their concerns were serious problems.
There is no more evidence today for evolution than there was in 1859. There is less evidence. Molecular sequencing data is validating what everyone in 1859 knew... That homologies and imperfections exist. The fossil record included archaeopteryx in 1859, and Darwin still acknowledged the fossil evidence as a serums weakness to his theory.
I think genetic entropy is one of the greatest evidences against the possibility of gradualistic evolution. Although it has been widely stated that evolution is too slow for man to observe, it has been observed that the human genome is doing the opposite of what evolution claims, and that fact is undeniable.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34191 Aug 6, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you ask me to clarify this? Is this the quote you paraphrased and declined to provide when I asked before? I've already forgotten the whole riff. Start over, this time with my quote and what you think it means, and I'll explain based on that.
But I happen to think it's a little self -evident: "Either way, no truth comes from religious faith. The only method we know of for determining truths about the universe is science."
You don't know what I mean by that?
<quoted text>
If I believe what is a truth? There are true things. Some may not be provable. There is a formal statement of that idea in mathematics called Gödel's incompleteness theorems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_i... .
And what is a scientific explanation? One involving observation? Did you mean a rational or naturalistic explanation?
Are you serious? I assume when talking about the search for answers as mankind is always searching I wouldn't have to explain to you that no I'm not talking about how to male the best chili.

It is very simple. Does science have an explanation for everything even if man doesn't uncover it? And if not, other than science where else would the answer come from? You either list something or the answer is you don't know. If science can't explain everything.

If you cant give a straight answer it is your tactics that have become tiresome and beyond the pale. I'm not asking complicated questions imo. If this still goes nowhere then I will either see if I can find your original post which I feel very confident in my memory but won't attribute it to you again without proof or will just drop it. Thought we would have been done with this already

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34192 Aug 6, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame Buck.
Really lame.
Sure, Dean was White House Counsel. And he realized what he was involved in. And his conscience prevailed.
Unlike your heroes.
I smell hypocrisy Buck. Despite your convenient claim of lack of recollection--a familiar trait of your fellow Republicans under these circumstances.
And you know that hypocrisy is something I do not like.
At all.
Nor did you answer my questions.
You're in charge of the questions, Counselor. I'm in charge of my answers.

My lack of recollection was not "convenient", Asshole. But thanks to you, I have refreshed it.

I knew I was right. I know Len Colodny, who wrote "Silent Coup".

"Silent Coup" is a 1992 book written by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin in which they contend that former Nixon White House counsel John Dean orchestrated the 1972 Watergate burglary at Democratic National Committee headquarters to protect his future wife, Maureen Biner, by removing information linking her to a call-girl ring that worked for the DNC."

Liddy confirms this allegation.

"Watergate Prosecutors and the Senate Watergate Committee were aware of discrepancies between Dean’s testimony and the facts as established by numerous other witnesses. For example, Dean told prosecutors that Attorney General John Mitchell had recruited California lawyer Herb Kalmbach to raise hush money for the Watergate burglars when it was Dean himself who recruited Kalmbach without Mitchell’s knowledge. Just to be clear, Dean obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, falsely implicated Attorney General John Mitchell, and lied to both prosecutors and the Senate Committee in the Watergate affair."

Dean lied to save his ass and sink his friends.

Some hero you got there, Cletch.

http://therumpus.net/2009/02/notes-from-the-d...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34193 Aug 6, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame Buck.
Really lame.
Sure, Dean was White House Counsel. And he realized what he was involved in. And his conscience prevailed.
Unlike your heroes.
I smell hypocrisy Buck. Despite your convenient claim of lack of recollection--a familiar trait of your fellow Republicans under these circumstances.
And you know that hypocrisy is something I do not like.
At all.
Nor did you answer my questions.
From The Washington Post Rat Patrol

"John Dean came off as a frightened opportunist during the Watergate fiasco. He seemed driven only by personal ambition and seemed to care little for principles.

He seemed eager to spill his guts (a commodity in obvious short supply) to save his skin. A book (Silent Coup) written by two former McGovern staffers presented a strong case that the break-in was more about sex than politics. A call-girl operation was being run by a flaky attorney in the DNC offices and one of the girls formerly in the stable was then the ladylove of John Dean. Other girls still in the stable gave the lass the nickname of ‘Cloutâ€

The less talkative of the Watergate bunch went to prison and Dean went on to being an author of sorts. He got a ghostwriter and claimed authorship of a work that he admitted neither writing or reading (before it went to print). This ‘authoritative’ work became the basis for the Nixon movie concocted by Oliver Stone, a man known for faux documentaries.

Publications of Silent Coup seemed to have raised the ire of the two lovebirds and Dean did what sleazy lawyers do best: he sued the authors. G. Gordon Liddy came up with a stream of derogatory comments re Dean (the mildest of which alleged that he was a rat) in order to goad Dean into filing suit against him. Dean fell into the trap since Liddy could cross-examine Dean and the laws regarding perjury would apply. Dean had enough sense to quit before he got in too deep. He did try to get a third party to sue Liddy but this scheme went nowhere.

Dean is now formally in bed with the left and testified in favor of censuring President Bush. Once a rat, always a rat."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34194 Aug 6, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame Buck.
Really lame.
Sure, Dean was White House Counsel. And he realized what he was involved in. And his conscience prevailed.
Unlike your heroes.
I smell hypocrisy Buck. Despite your convenient claim of lack of recollection--a familiar trait of your fellow Republicans under these circumstances.
And you know that hypocrisy is something I do not like.
At all.
Nor did you answer my questions.
G. Gordon Liddy's recounting of being in a room alone with John Dean after Dean ratted:

"What happened, actually, was that in October of 1974, Federal marshals escorted me to the offices of Watergate special prosecutor James Neal for an interview and told me to wait in Neal's office, as he was expected shortly. I went in and shut the door behind me and, lo and behold, there was Dean sitting behind the desk. He looked up and I could have sworn he was about to wet himself. His eyes darted all around the room, but I was between him and the door and I could see that he was absolutely terror-stricken. My first thought was that here was the ideal opportunity to kill the bastard. I saw a pencil on the desk and all it would take was a quick thrust through the underside of his jaw, up through the soft palate and deep inside the brain. And simultaneously, I wondered if this were a setup, if someone had arranged for me to be alone with Dean, anticipating exactly such a denouement. But then, on more somber reflection, I ruled that out. Nixon had been out of office for two months, I had received no instructions from my old superiors and, in any case, his killing could only damage the chances of Mitchell, Mardian and others in their forthcoming trials. No, revenge might be a dish best supped cold, but this was positively stale. The whole thing had just been a weird, stupid error. So I exchanged a few inconsequential remarks with Dean, he stammered a reply and I stepped aside so he could gather his papers and scurry out the door. I think he aged considerably in those three of four minutes."

Dean actually recommended Liddy be hired to replace Jack Caulfield, a decision he surely regrets to this very day. When the Watergate story first broke, GGL announced to Dean that if the Nixon administration wanted to kill him, to just say which street corner to stand on. Dean was not the only person GGL wondered if he should kill, either- he thought about taking out a hit on E. Howard Hunt in prison as well, but didn't receive the order to do so then, either. We can't imagine why not.

However, when asked if he ever killed anyone, Liddy said "The big "S" you see up here is not for simple. There's no statute of limitations on that kind of activity."

Dean and Liddy's rift continues to this day, showing up not only in lawsuits but in op-ed pieces in the NYT. When the flap over the aside in Renata Adler's Gone: The Last Days of the New Yorker, that Judge Sirica had mafia connections, arose (no evidence linking to this has ever shown up, and it seems implausible to most), John Dean wrote a piece which stated there was only one man who hated Sirica enough, and was either crazy or dishonest enough to do so: G. Gordon Liddy. However, should the two ever meet again, our money's on Liddy.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#34195 Aug 6, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're in charge of the questions, Counselor. I'm in charge of my answers.
My lack of recollection was not "convenient", Asshole. But thanks to you, I have refreshed it.
I knew I was right. I know Len Colodny, who wrote "Silent Coup".
"Silent Coup" is a 1992 book written by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin in which they contend that former Nixon White House counsel John Dean orchestrated the 1972 Watergate burglary at Democratic National Committee headquarters to protect his future wife, Maureen Biner, by removing information linking her to a call-girl ring that worked for the DNC."
Liddy confirms this allegation.
"Watergate Prosecutors and the Senate Watergate Committee were aware of discrepancies between Dean’s testimony and the facts as established by numerous other witnesses. For example, Dean told prosecutors that Attorney General John Mitchell had recruited California lawyer Herb Kalmbach to raise hush money for the Watergate burglars when it was Dean himself who recruited Kalmbach without Mitchell’s knowledge. Just to be clear, Dean obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, falsely implicated Attorney General John Mitchell, and lied to both prosecutors and the Senate Committee in the Watergate affair."
Dean lied to save his ass and sink his friends.
Some hero you got there, Cletch.
http://therumpus.net/2009/02/notes-from-the-d...
Hey Buck.

How many times do I have to tell you i won't consider your selective quotes? You say you're in charge of your answers, but you are not. You don't give answers--you wrap yourself in others' skirts. And that's weak. Especially when you kiss up to self-serving cowards who want to rewrite history and throw blame with no scruples. And lousy ones at that.

You want to learn? Why not read John Dean's books themselves (the books, don't troll for quotes, anybody can do that): Conservatives without Conscience, Worse than Watergate, Blind Ambition. I'd start with Blind Ambition. Dean castigates himself plenty.

And by the way, to rely on Liddy's words is to sink to the very bottom of the barrel. That is worse than lame or weak, it's shameful. Yeah, he fits your hero image, the guy who won't talk, won't turn on his homies. Stonewall forever, regardless of the consequences. He'd turn on his own mother if it came to that. Oh wow. How manly. You can have it.

I ain't yielding no quarter. It's a matter of right and wrong.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#34196 Aug 6, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
From The Washington Post Rat Patrol
"John Dean came off as a frightened opportunist during the Watergate fiasco. He seemed driven only by personal ambition and seemed to care little for principles.
He seemed eager to spill his guts (a commodity in obvious short supply) to save his skin. A book (Silent Coup) written by two former McGovern staffers presented a strong case that the break-in was more about sex than politics. A call-girl operation was being run by a flaky attorney in the DNC offices and one of the girls formerly in the stable was then the ladylove of John Dean. Other girls still in the stable gave the lass the nickname of ‘Cloutâ€
The less talkative of the Watergate bunch went to prison and Dean went on to being an author of sorts. He got a ghostwriter and claimed authorship of a work that he admitted neither writing or reading (before it went to print). This ‘authoritative’ work became the basis for the Nixon movie concocted by Oliver Stone, a man known for faux documentaries.
Publications of Silent Coup seemed to have raised the ire of the two lovebirds and Dean did what sleazy lawyers do best: he sued the authors. G. Gordon Liddy came up with a stream of derogatory comments re Dean (the mildest of which alleged that he was a rat) in order to goad Dean into filing suit against him. Dean fell into the trap since Liddy could cross-examine Dean and the laws regarding perjury would apply. Dean had enough sense to quit before he got in too deep. He did try to get a third party to sue Liddy but this scheme went nowhere.
Dean is now formally in bed with the left and testified in favor of censuring President Bush. Once a rat, always a rat."
See Buck.

See Buck hide.

See Buck hide behind a skirt.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#34197 Aug 6, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
G. Gordon Liddy's recounting of being in a room alone with John Dean after Dean ratted:
"What happened, actually, was that in October of 1974, Federal marshals escorted me to the offices of Watergate special prosecutor James Neal for an interview and told me to wait in Neal's office, as he was expected shortly. I went in and shut the door behind me and, lo and behold, there was Dean sitting behind the desk. He looked up and I could have sworn he was about to wet himself. His eyes darted all around the room, but I was between him and the door and I could see that he was absolutely terror-stricken. My first thought was that here was the ideal opportunity to kill the bastard. I saw a pencil on the desk and all it would take was a quick thrust through the underside of his jaw, up through the soft palate and deep inside the brain. And simultaneously, I wondered if this were a setup, if someone had arranged for me to be alone with Dean, anticipating exactly such a denouement. But then, on more somber reflection, I ruled that out. Nixon had been out of office for two months, I had received no instructions from my old superiors and, in any case, his killing could only damage the chances of Mitchell, Mardian and others in their forthcoming trials. No, revenge might be a dish best supped cold, but this was positively stale. The whole thing had just been a weird, stupid error. So I exchanged a few inconsequential remarks with Dean, he stammered a reply and I stepped aside so he could gather his papers and scurry out the door. I think he aged considerably in those three of four minutes."
Dean actually recommended Liddy be hired to replace Jack Caulfield, a decision he surely regrets to this very day. When the Watergate story first broke, GGL announced to Dean that if the Nixon administration wanted to kill him, to just say which street corner to stand on. Dean was not the only person GGL wondered if he should kill, either- he thought about taking out a hit on E. Howard Hunt in prison as well, but didn't receive the order to do so then, either. We can't imagine why not.
However, when asked if he ever killed anyone, Liddy said "The big "S" you see up here is not for simple. There's no statute of limitations on that kind of activity."
Dean and Liddy's rift continues to this day, showing up not only in lawsuits but in op-ed pieces in the NYT. When the flap over the aside in Renata Adler's Gone: The Last Days of the New Yorker, that Judge Sirica had mafia connections, arose (no evidence linking to this has ever shown up, and it seems implausible to most), John Dean wrote a piece which stated there was only one man who hated Sirica enough, and was either crazy or dishonest enough to do so: G. Gordon Liddy. However, should the two ever meet again, our money's on Liddy.
See Buck get under a skirt.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34198 Aug 6, 2012
Edit IANS

To clarify I'm asking in your opinion. In your opinion is there a scientific explanation for everything even if man doesn't find it? Right now we have an explanation for chile. We don't for abiogenesis for example. But regardless of what the subject is do you feel science has an explanation even if man doesn't uncover it? And if you don't think that, what else other than science in your opinion might be capable of providing one? Because it stands to reason everything can be explained, it just comes down to whether man will find the answer and do you think there is anywhere else we should look besides science?

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#34199 Aug 6, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
During my readings of the Bible, the genealogies were so boring that they made my head spin and my eyes water.
I am sure you find Wheel of Fortune befuddling.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 min Rosa_Winkel 16,414
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 28 min Reason Personified 65
A Universe from Nothing? 2 hr IB DaMann 100
News Atheism Destroyed with One Scientific Question 3 hr IB DaMann 7
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 256,125
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr IB DaMann 40,836
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Eagle 12 20,625
More from around the web