In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,713

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.

Full Story
Lincoln

United States

#45904 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, I tend to research things before I assert them. ;) It's a habit.
At the bottom of the wiki page is an evaluation :-)

Rate this page

What's this?

Trustworthy

Objective

Complete

Well-written

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45905 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Many universities and professors will disagree with you.
No, they don't.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45906 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What's this? Oh look, more sources that agree:
Who wrote the Wiki source, Chubs?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45907 Jan 6, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
The bombing of London might have been intentional.
Might have been done by Martians.

But it was against Hitler's orders and against Hitler's philosophy-- the English are rather quick to cave and if it was handled in a different way, they certainly would have APPEASED Hitler.

And we are back to the INTENTIONAL bombing was started by the UK.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45908 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you don't like that the wikipedia moderators are strict about citations, and thus remove a lot of your idiotic assertions .
They don't remove them all and still waiting for the name of the author of your source...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45909 Jan 6, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd have to drive quite a ways to get to a "university library" and not real sure I'd be welcome there upon arrival.
You should take a shower.

Every day, Booby.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45910 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>

Interesting that you would not do your research
You used Wiki as a primary source.

Throwing stones, Chubby?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45911 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Lincoln, you may enjoy living in the Stone Age, but most intelligent people eventually move into the modern era. Note that I said intelligent.
Intelligent people do not use Wiki as a primary source and they certainly don't pretend it is reliable.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45912 Jan 6, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that we have a monarchy
Ah, so we can return to the question I asked you months ago and you were unable to answer:

Is the United King_dom a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45913 Jan 6, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we should not need a Parliament. But, a Parliament exists. Why?
Who cares?

Putting aside (again): the United KING_dom Parliament has more APPOINTED members than elected.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45914 Jan 6, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that we have a monarchy has little reflection on how our government actually operates.
Do let me know what language it is you operate.

In the English language, the United King_dom is indeed a monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45915 Jan 6, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
All your talk of our monarchy, and the Queen sits in her palace grooming corgis
I don't care if she is operating a vibrator: she is the head of the United Kingdom.

And the UK is a monarchy.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#45916 Jan 6, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
At the bottom of the wiki page is an evaluation :-)
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
The only way to gather the most accurate information, one requires multiple sources .... LOTS of multiple sources. That is wikipedia's strength. A rating system like that is typically akin to popularity polls, to stroke the vanity of contributors and thus encourage more to contribute, thus increasing the pool of resources and citations ... ultimately resulting in more accurate information.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#45917 Jan 6, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent people do not use Wiki as a primary source and they certainly don't pretend it is reliable.
Aw, you're so enamored with me, how cute, the old man with the big honker in love with the bag of old bones that I am.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#45918 Jan 6, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do let me know what language it is you operate.
In the English language, the United King_dom is indeed a monarchy.
Oh? So Queens, New York, is ruled by a matriarchy? Too cool.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45919 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way to gather the most accurate information, one requires multiple sources .... LOTS of multiple sources. That is wikipedia's strength.
Garbage in, garbage out.

One needs only ONE source if it's reputable.

And that wouldn't be Wiki.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45920 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw, you're so enamored with me, how cute
Stick to your D cell batteries, Chubby.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#45921 Jan 6, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You should take a shower.
Every day, Booby.
Ha ha.
Lincoln

United States

#45922 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way to gather the most accurate information, one requires multiple sources .... LOTS of multiple sources. That is wikipedia's strength. A rating system like that is typically akin to popularity polls, to stroke the vanity of contributors and thus encourage more to contribute, thus increasing the pool of resources and citations ... ultimately resulting in more accurate information.
Wikipedia acknowledges that it should not be used as a primary source for research.[3]

Librarian Philip Bradley stated in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that "the main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."[4] Robert McHenry similarly noted that readers of Wikipedia cannot know who has written the article they are reading – it may or may not have been written by an expert.[5]

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#45923 Jan 7, 2013
Sweden = Democracy

Democracy

"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

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 vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min Denisova 16,532
Is Religion Childish? 40 min Thinking 129
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 40 min ChristineM 235,544
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 47 min ChristineM 6,031
The Consequences of Atheism 3 hr Thinking 690
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 hr Thinking 4,717
.com | Why is Atheism on the Rise - Final Response 19 hr QUITTNER Feb 26 2015 2
More from around the web