In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 47849 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#34172 Aug 6, 2012
RHill wrote:
You gotta admit that entering all this "junk DNA" vrs "fully functional DNA" as evidence for ID ... the average godbot ain't coming up with it and it's "echoing" down the chain of command to the foot soldiers. Is that not the gist of what you were saying?
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?"

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#34173 Aug 6, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
Why are you still promoting that Ehrman vid? It’s a blatant ad for one of his books, it’s sketchy and in some places downright wrong and contradictory to evidential fact
Ehrman is on your side. Yes Ehrman writes books and they sell. He makes money. Besides being a PH.D. with thirty or so years experience. He actually writes books people read and discuss.
On further investigation I find that Bart Ehrman is a ‘former’ christian
Are you suspicious of ''former christians''? With allies like you, who needs enemies?
Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth was criticized by both atheists and fundamentalist Christians alike for it’s ignorance of known facts;.
Criticized yes. What known facts?
He is a hero in Moslim circles for his anti christian rhetoric.
Hero? A dubious honor? Muslems read too? Buy his books?
Yeah go shoot yourself in the foot.
Are you writing symbolicially?
The wiki pages are as I expected. Not only written with a distinctly christian bias
Wiki Christian bias? LOL!!!
but even the wording is taken out of context as is the christian way.
Wiki, secret Christian site. Who'd a thunk?
A one book source does not constitute a history. Much of what is written in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus has alternate and independently documented sources.
There are footnotes. What is it with you? You are deep in denial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J... is worse in that it tries to prove the gospel texts (already known to be carefully selected by committee) are historical proof.
Wiki is evil!

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#34174 Aug 6, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Jews have kept immaculate, detailed genealogical records of all births since long before Jesus was born.
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah" ;
It's how they track their Messiah's "coming" and rights to "the Homecoming". The rabbis know Jesus existed; they just don't recognize him as their prophesied Messiah.
Exactly.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34175 Aug 6, 2012
karl44 wrote:
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
The onus isn't on me to re-post responses you chose to ignore. Nor do I have the interest in doing so. And the context did not change the message in the least so characterizing them as snippets is no argument at all. His statemente unfounded, unsubstantiated, bigoted, racist, fear-mongering, inflammatory, insensitive, and hateful. They speak for themselves.
So what if the Google sites did it for me? Did you expect me to link you to a private blog where I recorded the statements myself? The site I provided not only had the quotes but the source. It appears you have quite the imagination when looking to rationalize what I can only imagine is your unbeaten debate streak that exists solely in recesses of your own mind. However it tastes better going down, that I won the argument or Google did, rest assured you lost it.
It would be hard to imagine anyone's pride could blind them to this degree. I suspect this may simply be a test to see if I will waste more time on this. Regardless of your motives, it is still a waste of my time so unless you go back and respond to the posts and provide an argument worth responding to, this is where my involvement in this particular debate ends.
<quoted text>
he is an egocentric ass, but not wrong in his analysis of your tactics.
Karl you sly dog that almost sounded like you said I was right about something. Now of course it was only to use against another believer and you had to day "not wrong" instead of right but I still didnt think I'd see the day. Knowing how hard that must have been on ya I won't even return any insults:)

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#34176 Aug 6, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My memory is not clear on it, but it seems to me Dean had some involvement himself, or made false statements about his involvement. Then he turned and ratted.
There was some kind of court case with Dean and G. Gordon Liddy. Can't recall the details. G. Gordon says he's a rat and a liar. I suspect, as usual, the G-man is right.
The judge (Cirica?) put G. Gordon in a tough D.C. jail with some bad dudes to sweat him and make him talk. Went back in a few weeks, the G-man was running the place.
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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#34177 Aug 6, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
Nope. Poor NotBots have problems with conventional definitions in English. US involvement Vietnam was winding down by the end of his first term & ended in 1973.
"Winding down"? The Vietnamese war ended in 1975. Nixon's presidency ended the year before. This picture was taken April 29, 1975: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saigon-hube...

I've been there. We did a cruise of the South China Sea, and Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon, was one of the ports.

And I have a great anecdote about that involving a retired colonel that I met on another cruise a few years later. This blowhard had bored us through more than one meal with regaling us with his stories about his two tours in 'Nam - Charlie this, in-the-bush that - you probably know.

Eventually, I got fed up with it, so I told him about MY two tours in 'Nam that came during a 24 hour port call on that previous cruise through the South China Sea.

We pulled into Ho Chi Minh City around noon one day, and pulled up anchor the following noon. That gave us the afternoon of the first day to tour rural Vietnam and visit farms and the like, and then, the following morning, to see the city, including the famous American embassy. Those were my two tours of 'Nam : a country tour in the afternoon, and city tour the next morning.

When I told him that, that guy became so enraged that he started sputtering. He turned purplish-red, a big vein came up on his forehead, he began quivering, and then perspiring. He looked like he had aspirated a jalapeño into his trachea.

Poor fella.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34178 Aug 6, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP.
He resigned because HE knew he would be impeached. The "conscious" of the GOP party had absolutely NOTHING to do with Nixon resigning.
ZERO.
He resigned because his handful of GOP supporters told him that there was not a thing they could do to keep him out of jail should the impeachment proceed and other charges pressed.
And the "conscious" of the GOP spoke loudly when Ford pardon him.
Why do you do this to yourself?

This is a famous sequence of events. Going to jail never came up. The inability to tolerate the lies did come up:

"Sen. Barry Goldwater, Ariz., the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was a respected conservative leader in a Senate whose Republican ranks were less conservative than now. On Aug. 6, 1974, at the regular Senate Republican Conference lunch, Goldwater fumed:'There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has been one too many. Nixon should get his ass out of the White House -- today!"

"Goldwater called William Timmons, a White House aide, to set up a meeting. He told Timmons he wanted to tell the president that many GOP senators wanted him to resign."

"Nixon agreed to see Goldwater on the following day. But he insisted that the top GOP congressional leaders accompany him. So Goldwater arrived with Sen. Hugh Scott, Pa., the minority leader, while Scott's House counterpart, Rep. John Rhodes, Ariz., came separately."

The democrats, with Clinton, decided, unlike Goldwater, they could take however many lies they needed to take.

And not just lies - felony perjury.

They also decided they could take a president who was a rapist. They saw the files with evidence indicating Clinton forcibly raped Juanita Broderick when he was Arkansas Attorney General.

"No problem", they said. He's the big dog. Slick Willie.

Again, why do you challenge me like this? You know I will just kick your ass.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#34179 Aug 6, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
Do show us all where I condoned it.
Condoned what?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#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

Long 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

Location hidden

#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

Williston, 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

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
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 8 min Thinking 2,357
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 17 min Thinking 12,826
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 25 min Thinking 23
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr NoahLikesPi 247,600
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 3 hr NoahLikesPi 41
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr macumazahn 20,900
Proof of God for the Atheist 15 hr Amused 130
More from around the web