In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 47711 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45926 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Any country that issues tax free status to religions that it determines to have more validity than any other religion has separation of church and state issues.
And of course: if it has an official state church (or a national church), then it more.
The monarchy of the United King_dom has issues.
Unlike US churches religions British churches and religions DO NOT have tax free status.

I have shown you the relevant HMRC documents and still you rant on about what YOU consider to be how things are, not how things ACTUALLY are. It’s pathetic.

No argument there, however not the irrelevant issues you make up and rant about

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45927 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
500,000 as estimated.
Götz Bergander: Dresden im Luftkrieg, Flechsig, Würzburg 1998, ISBN 3-88189-239-7, p. 217
barefoot2626 wrote:
Another:
Dresden Holocaust: Slaughter
Of 500,000 German Civilians
www.canadianfreespeech.com
2-16-7
That is the maximum estimate of an unqualified third party seeking sensationalism and termed “the wilder fringes of speculation” by academics

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/d...
Calculations of the death-toll from the Anglo-American bombing of Dresden in February 1945 have varied widely, but never ceased to be dramatic. Figures suggested have ranged from 35,000 through 100,000, and even up to half a million at.

Now, more than 60 years later, it seems we must lower our estimates. After four years’ work, an impressive commission of German historians this week filed its report on this issue, and it seems that even the lowest figure so far accepted may be an overestimate. Drawing on archival sources, many never previously consulted, on burial records and scientific findings -- including street-by-street archaeological investigations -- plus hundreds of eye-witness reports, the “Dresden Commission of Historians for the Ascertainment of the Number of Victims of the Air Raids on the City of Dresden on 13/14 February 1945” has provisionally estimated the likely death-toll at around 18,000 and definitely no more than 25,000.

And there are the political distortions. The Nazis were the first to exaggerate the number of victims for propaganda purposes, and the communists were liable to push the numbers up during the post-war period, in order to discredit the Anglo-Americans, who had been the Soviets’ allies until 1945 but were now their Cold War enemies. Finally, neo-Nazis in modern Germany conjure up dizzyingly high figures running into the hundreds of thousands, while at the same time playing down or denying the World War II mass murder of the Jews and the Roma and Sinti, hoping thereby to convince their fellow-citizens that the Allied bombing of Germany was an even worse “holocaust” than the actual one.
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

#45928 Jan 7, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia and thus not a substitute to a visit to a university library.
Wikipedia does not claim to be a source for historical documentation.
If you scroll down to the references of a page, say, Adolf Hitler's, you will find numerous sources of which many can be found in university libraries. I would know because I regularly visited my university library in the five years that I studied there.

Wikipedia has put Encarta out of business. Encarta. Why do you think Wikipedia is unreliable if it is regularly moderated and been able to put a major encyclopedia program out of business?
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

#45929 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares?
Putting aside (again): the United KING_dom Parliament has more APPOINTED members than elected.
People who live in reality. We can explain why Parliament exists, you can't. Why? Because doing so refutes your argument.

Parliament exists because they make the laws. They have the power.

Queen pets corgis, Cameron and Clegg run the country. Facts are facts, little boy.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45930 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How nice.
Let me know when you can find an estimate where no one was killed by the Allied bombing of this city that had no strategic importance whatsoever.
Why are you so bloodystupid?

The death toll brought about by the JOINT British, US bombing of Dresden was horrendous whether it be the lower estimates, the speculative higher estimates, the wildly inflated work of sensation seekers or the facts.

Whatever the death toll people died and you are trying to score debating points out of those deaths you sick moron.

---
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west and do let me know when you can find anything I have ever said that denies the US's part of the bombing of Dresden and other nonstrategic bombings of cities in Europe and Japan.
The US was of course heavily involved in WWII except when the English NotBots deny that the US came in and saved their bacon... at which point they insist the US played a secondary role.
And the only thing I have to disprove what they say are the facts.
No you never said anything about the US involvent in those mass killings you deliberately omitted to mention it which is why I did.

Eventually, yes you came to help, thank you AGAIN
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stick to what you know, Skanque: drippydicks and generic Vagisil.
There you go again you butt breathed cuckold to a black man. Does you wife insist that you clean them both up when they have finished screwing in your marital bed?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a long way to go to fall to your levels, Skanque.
PS: The Scottish referendum is in 2014.
So you are not willing to wait for the result, you are quite happy to ply your judgement more than 3 years before the result. Well done you moronic dipstcik
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know of no others whose so fascinated by the oozing penis.
Must have left a bad taste in your mouth, eh, Skangue?
Well, chins up...
Why would I be fascinated with your drippydick? All I suggest is you get yourself to the STI clinic for treatment, if you are not willing to accept that sound advice then it’s entirely up to you? Honey, it won’t get better just by playing with it.

When you stop with the nasty then I will, until then you have made your bed so lie in it.
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

#45931 Jan 7, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
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]
Just admit it, Lincoln: you don't like Wikipedia because their articles largely contradict your beliefs, and as such, you decide to reply to arguments using Wikipedia by shooting the messenger instead of addressing the content of the page.

You could not care less about academic quality, so fess up.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45932 Jan 7, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
amusing but not correct .
you roam topix rather than a high school classroom.
Amusing AND correct

I assume your home schooling did not include 20th century history
Lincoln

United States

#45933 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Just admit it, Lincoln: you don't like Wikipedia because their articles largely contradict your beliefs, and as such, you decide to reply to arguments using Wikipedia by shooting the messenger instead of addressing the content of the page.
You could not care less about academic quality, so fess up.
Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged.
The most prominent cases reported by mainstream media involved biographies of living people.

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#45934 Jan 7, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged.
The most prominent cases reported by mainstream media involved biographies of living people.
I think the argument with Lincoln is getting off track. Let's assume his beliefs are correct. Let's say that Hitler, Stalin, etc were all atheists. So what? Plenty of people who are NOT atheists commit horrible crimes, including mass murder.(Jim Jones, Timothy McVeigh, the Crusaders, members of Al-Queda, etc.)

So Lincoln's basic argument, that atheism is a cause of criminal immorality, and his implied argument that religious faith prevents such immorality, are plainly false.

As I have mentioned before, I myself am an atheist. Unlike the believer's I mentioned above (Jim Jones, Timothy McVeigh, the Crusaders, members of Al-Queda, etc.), I have never murdered anyone, and I have never committed an act of violence or criminality against anyone. So how does that fit in with your fear and loathing of atheism?
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

#45935 Jan 7, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged.
The most prominent cases reported by mainstream media involved biographies of living people.
Do you think this is a problem unique only to Wikipedia? All texts, studies and journals face the same problem of publishing wrong information whether intentionally or not. What makes Wikipedia so effective, however, is that it can be rectified very quickly and updated. Contrast that with written text that cannot be edited or updated on the spot, but only through latest editions.

I am certainly not saying that Wikipedia is the only, or the authoritative, source for all things academia, but it is certainly evident that you are doing everything you can to disqualify it as a source based on nothing but the fact that Wikipedia, as with all reliable materials, contradicts your religious beliefs. And yes, I am going there, because your whole "these historical figures were atheists!" line is old, repetitive, and a common silly argument used by Christian fundamentalists on these forums.

Just fess up already and admit that Wikipedia is not reliable because it is not the bible.
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

#45936 Jan 7, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the argument with Lincoln is getting off track. Let's assume his beliefs are correct. Let's say that Hitler, Stalin, etc were all atheists. So what? Plenty of people who are NOT atheists commit horrible crimes, including mass murder.(Jim Jones, Timothy McVeigh, the Crusaders, members of Al-Queda, etc.)
So Lincoln's basic argument, that atheism is a cause of criminal immorality, and his implied argument that religious faith prevents such immorality, are plainly false.
As I have mentioned before, I myself am an atheist. Unlike the believer's I mentioned above (Jim Jones, Timothy McVeigh, the Crusaders, members of Al-Queda, etc.), I have never murdered anyone, and I have never committed an act of violence or criminality against anyone. So how does that fit in with your fear and loathing of atheism?
By Lincoln's argument his figures were all male. Therefore, men cause misery and devastation and thus we must leave all important roles and decisions to women.

Can you imagine a female pope?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45937 Jan 7, 2013
Mikko wrote:
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."
'Monarchy definition, a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.'

What's the official name of Sweden?

Do stop spamming the thread, Meatball.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45938 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike US churches religions British churches and religions DO NOT have tax free status.
You are a liar- not only do UK churches (religions) enjoy tax benefits, they have "official" statuses, i.e., the Church of England (the official STATE church) is recognized while the Church of Scientology is not.

There is on "recognition" of churches or religions in the US.

Do you want to get tax free status for your Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster? A meeting house for your Association for fellow NotBots?

(quote)
When a local congregation practices the Lord’s Supper, who should participate?



Although other variations and definitions of the terms exist, the two main answers to that question are:



(1) Open communion: membership in that particular local congregation is not necessary. Anyone who examines themselves and knows that they are in Christ may participate.



(2) Closed communion: whether someone is a professing Christian or not, communion is restricted to actual members of that congregation.



These are fantastic areas for vigorous Biblical and theological debate and reflection. What at first may seem to be a “majoring on minors,” the discussion quickly opens into core concerns: the nature of the Gospel, regenerate church membership, church discipline, the marks of the church, etc.



In the end, whether a congregation holds to “open communion” or “closed communion,” the vital concern is for local congregations and pastors to search and study the Scriptures and ground their church practice on the authority of the Scripture.



But what if the government weighs in on this discussion?



Last week in the UK, a parliamentary select committee met to hear evidence that a Plymouth Brethren group may be denied charity status by the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission is the government agency that “registers and regulates charities in England and Wales” Although not an exact parallel, this would be similar to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States deciding that a church or denomination no longer qualified for 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.



So, what did this particular Plymouth Brethren group do to endanger their charity status? They practice closed communion:



“The right of churches to decide for themselves who may attend Holy Communion is being challenged by the Charity Commission. The Commission has refused to register a Plymouth Brethren group because its Holy Communion services are for members only. This would have a huge impact on the group’s tax relief and would also have other implications.”



Of course, the larger issue is about much more than Communion practices. The Commission would be setting a precedent that religious groups do not have an intrinsic characteristic of existing for the benefit of the public.



As reported in The Telegraph the Charity Commission argued that “there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England.”



If this decision by the Commission stands, the effect would be chilling. We will track this story and report on future developments.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45939 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
By Lincoln's argument his figures were all male. Therefore, men cause misery and devastation and thus we must leave all important roles and decisions to women.
Can you imagine a female pope?
It has happened before, Pope Joan died while giving birth

Hence ever since a new pope is carried high above their heads and his cardinals must take a little peek and recite the words

“Testiculus habet, et bene pendentes”

Loose translation

He has testicles and they hang well
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#45940 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
....Can you imagine a female pope?
A sort of 'immaculate conception'?
:-)

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45941 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I have shown you the relevant HMRC documents
Do you want to continue to deny (some) churches enjoy tax benefits in the UK?

Do you want to work through your lies forward or backward?

Or jump into the middle of the pile?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45943 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is the maximum estimate
Ah, so there was an estimate of 500,000K and you lied when you said otherwise.

PS: It is real hard to make esitmates from bomb photos and easly estimates from UK/USA "intelligence" put the death toll at 25,000.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45944 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar- not only do UK churches (religions) enjoy tax benefits, they have "official" statuses, i.e., the Church of England (the official STATE church) is recognized while the Church of Scientology is not.
There is on "recognition" of churches or religions in the US.
Do you want to get tax free status for your Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster? A meeting house for your Association for fellow NotBots?
(quote)
When a local congregation practices the Lord’s Supper, who should participate?
Although other variations and definitions of the terms exist, the two main answers to that question are:
(1) Open communion: membership in that particular local congregation is not necessary. Anyone who examines themselves and knows that they are in Christ may participate.
(2) Closed communion: whether someone is a professing Christian or not, communion is restricted to actual members of that congregation.
These are fantastic areas for vigorous Biblical and theological debate and reflection. What at first may seem to be a “majoring on minors,” the discussion quickly opens into core concerns: the nature of the Gospel, regenerate church membership, church discipline, the marks of the church, etc.
In the end, whether a congregation holds to “open communion” or “closed communion,” the vital concern is for local congregations and pastors to search and study the Scriptures and ground their church practice on the authority of the Scripture.
But what if the government weighs in on this discussion?
Last week in the UK, a parliamentary select committee met to hear evidence that a Plymouth Brethren group may be denied charity status by the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission is the government agency that “registers and regulates charities in England and Wales” Although not an exact parallel, this would be similar to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States deciding that a church or denomination no longer qualified for 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.
So, what did this particular Plymouth Brethren group do to endanger their charity status? They practice closed communion:
“The right of churches to decide for themselves who may attend Holy Communion is being challenged by the Charity Commission. The Commission has refused to register a Plymouth Brethren group because its Holy Communion services are for members only. This would have a huge impact on the group’s tax relief and would also have other implications.”
Of course, the larger issue is about much more than Communion practices. The Commission would be setting a precedent that religious groups do not have an intrinsic characteristic of existing for the benefit of the public.
As reported in The Telegraph the Charity Commission argued that “there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England.”
If this decision by the Commission stands, the effect would be chilling. We will track this story and report on future developments.
Honey, how may times, I do not lie. I have shown you the official HMRC relevant data, you seem to ignore that. Never mind.

Whatever the church makes no difference to its tax status. Unless of course you can show me official HMRC documentation to prove me wrong

US churches are tax exempt whether they are recognised or not

Not interested in the rest of your hypothetical clap trap

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45945 Jan 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Why do you think Wikipedia is unreliable if it is regularly moderated and been able to put a major encyclopedia program out of business?
Cite the name of the author of the Wikipedia source.

“One of the dangers of Wikipedia is that students are maybe not critical enough of what is there,” Goldner said.”One-stop shopping makes for a lazy historian, and I think history students need to strengthen their research skills.”

Some students agree with what Goldner has to say about Wikipedia and believe that the site should be used as more of a reference with hobbies, and not as a reference for school.

“I’ll use it to get a general idea of what I’m researching, but I won’t use it as a source,” said Marlon Henriquez, a CTVA senior at CSUN.

And 22 percent of students said they rarely use Wikipedia, if at all, according to the PIL study.

Art major Chyenne DeWitt falls under this category and shares Henriquez’s belief in not using the website as a scholarly source.

“I’ve been on there and checked things and have found many inaccuracies,” DeWitt said.

Wikipedia is aware of the possible inaccuracies found on its articles, warning users from the start that not all entries are of encyclopedic quality and the articles may contain false or debatable information.

These inaccuracies are why most documents on Wikipedia are never considered complete, and they are continually edited and improved on over time. With this, Wikipedia generally sees results in an upward trend of quality and a growing consensus over neutral representation of information.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#45946 Jan 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want to continue to deny (some) churches enjoy tax benefits in the UK?
Do you want to work through your lies forward or backward?
Or jump into the middle of the pile?
Show me evidence other than gift aid status that has already been explained to you and is available to all registered charities
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, so there was an estimate of 500,000K and you lied when you said otherwise.
PS: It is real hard to make esitmates from bomb photos and easly estimates from UK/USA "intelligence" put the death toll at 25,000.
Cherry picking again. I said and I quote
That is the maximum estimate of an unqualified third party seeking sensationalism and termed “the wilder fringes of speculation” by academics

Yes real hard, however there were around 750,000 inhabitants and after 4 years of research all but 25,000 have been accounted for as specified in my link that you choose to ignore. Well done for being you typical ignorant self.

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 25 min Aura Mytha 239,358
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 46 min karl44 19,063
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 57 min NoahLovesU 7,469
John 3:16 1 hr Son of man 1
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 3 hr Insults Are Easier 123
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 8 hr thetruth 7,497
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 8 hr thetruth 2,202
More from around the web