In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51425 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.

SupaAFC

Stirling, UK

#46016 Jan 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw man.
I know: you can't get around the long list of facts I have presented.
Poor baby...
I can keep calling myself "Supreme Emperor of the World" and it is still not going to affect reality, Barefoot. Likewise, calling a post you cannot refute a strawman, without even explaining how it qualifies as such, is desperate.

But then, if my argument was framed dishonestly, I guess that is your best option.

306 years and counting since Royal Assent was last refused, manchild.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#46017 Jan 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who appoints the prime minister?
We, the Illuminati, do.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#46018 Jan 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
King_dom of Sweden
Stop scamming, meatball.
Flagged!
Democracy
Stop scamming, douche.
Flagged

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#46019 Jan 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's nice that all English dictionaries back me up, SuperFAG.
why do you call him a cigarette ?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#46020 Jan 8, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
why do you call him a cigarette ?
Not just any cigarette, but a super cigarette ...

... now I need a smoke.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#46022 Jan 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
mon·ar·chy
[mon-er-kee]
noun, plural mon·ar·chies.
1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.
Stop spamming the thread, Meatball.
Flagged
*sigh*

Key phrase: "Supreme power".

In Sweden, as in Great Britain, the supreme power rests with the electorate.

You are again confusing cosmetic monarchy with absolute monarchy.
Lincoln

United States

#46023 Jan 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*
Key phrase: "Supreme power".
In Sweden, as in Great Britain, the supreme power rests with the electorate.
You are again confusing cosmetic monarchy with absolute monarchy.
Yes !

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#46024 Jan 8, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes !
Barfy's just a noisemaker.

Apparently he thinks that someone has claimed that the Sun rises in the West.

Or something like that.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46025 Jan 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*
Key phrase: "Supreme power".
*sigh*

I know: your English is not so good, eh?

Let's see it again...
"a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch."

Key phrase: "supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch".

Here's the word you have been skipping over in the last fifty or so times I have posted the definition:

"
nom·i·nal
[nom-uh-nl]
adjective
1. being such in name only; so-called; putative: a nominal treaty; the nominal head of the country. "

I think all the words have been defined, except maybe 'the' and maybe 'a' and 'an'.

So what it means is "supreme power" (of the government) resides ACTUALLY the monarch (let's say tyrant) OR nominally...

Do you need to study the word "nominally"?

Maybe it was the conjunction "OR"?

As far as the UK goes: the power vested in the monarch is *hardly* nominal and I have listed the powers many times only to have you NotBots roll around on the ground and kick your feet like five year olds.

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter if you get one thousand people to agree that you are all right and I am the only one here that insists that the UK (and Sweden) is a monarchy...

I'm right and you, my dears, are wrong.

~stomp stomp stomp~

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46026 Jan 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Barfy's just a noisemaker.
What a shame he is also right.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46027 Jan 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
Apparently he thinks that someone has claimed that the Sun rises in the West.
Apparently you have a lifetime supply of straw man's.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46028 Jan 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
...cosmetic ...
"Lacking depth or significance; superficial"

nominal: meagerly, scantily; barely, hardly, just, marginally, minimally, scarcely...

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#46029 Jan 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wipe your chin, Skanque... you are dripping...
So you have nothing truthful or of value to add then you drippydick cuckold…
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Every one here knows who has had the real life experience, eh, Skanque?
So you have nothing truthful or of value to add then you drippydick cuckold…
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
~stomp stomp stomp~
The UK gives tax breaks to (religions and ) churches.
Worst: it defines which it (the state) considers "real" churches.
And of course ass I have pointed out before: the UK has a state church.
HMRC allows ALL charities to claim gift aid. You don’t need to be a godbot to claim gift aid, juts a registered charity. If a chuch is not registered as a charity then they cannot claim gift aid. Other than gift aid UK churches pay tax on income just as any other business (except some US businesses such as google and starbucks of course who seem to think they are exempt)

However in the US churches are tax exempt which costs the US treasury around $71,000,000,000 a year – right or wrong?

Before answering read this
http://digitaljournal.com/article/326916
and this
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/...
and this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/...
and this
http://www.crown.org/library/viewarticle.aspx...
if of course you have the balls to answer

And as several people have agreed with you, yes the UK does have a state church, Your point is what?? Other than you showing that your view of the impact that state church has on daily life is (like much of you thinking) impaired
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing.
I did not ask what you rest on your chin when you are sucking your wifes lover clean. Bollocks has no relevance here.

Honey, Although most modern (catholic) scholars dismiss the story as legend there is a reason why a new pope is inspected for those orbs you rest on your chin before he can take office.

“In AD 854, Lotharii 14, Joanna, a woman, succeeded Leo, and reigned two years, five months, and four days.” Martinus Scotus, monk at Abbey of St. Martin in Cologne during the 11th century

In the 11th and 12th centuries there were several other references to the event

The denials did not begin until the 13th century and funnily enough those with the loudest voices tended to be closely connected to the catholic church in Rome, popes, cardinals etc.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone here knows what you have had in your mouth, Skanque, what exactly it is that you have had banging against the back of your throat.
In the real world, Skanque.
And they know exactly why you have had such a great view of drippyingdicks.
So you have nothing truthful or of value to add then you drippydick cuckold…
Lincoln

United States

#46030 Jan 9, 2013
Using a dictionary to argue Monarchy is amusing.

Last nail in Wiki

In November 2004, McHenry wrote an article for Tech Central Station (later renamed TCS Daily) in which he criticized Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In essence, McHenry's main criticism was that Wikipedia was operating on what he believed was a false premise; that allowing anyone to edit articles, whether or not they were knowledgeable, would lead to evolution of article quality. Belief in the ability of Wikipedia to succeed, he argued, required a faith that "some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive". A secondary criticism was that editors were being self-indulgent, because they spent time on minor alterations while leaving important factual inaccuracies in place, and thus were disregarding the needs of the readers.[20] In a later article about Wikipedia, following the Seigenthaler incident, McHenry restated his earlier objections, and added a criticism that the Wikipedia organisation had been unable to respond adequately to the event.[21]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46031 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have nothing truthful or of value to add then you drippydick cuckold…
I understand: drippydicks have left a bad taste in your mouth, Skanque.

Of those in this forum, you have the vast experience (in real life) of the oral end of this argument.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46032 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
So you have nothing truthful or of value to add then you drippydick cuckold…
Try Scope.

It might take the taste of the other stuff you gargle out of the mouth.

Of course... I'd defer to your real life experience, eh?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46033 Jan 9, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Using a dictionary to argue Monarchy is amusing.
Argue?

There is no argument.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46034 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
HMRC allows ALL charities to claim gift aid.
The UK does not classify the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and the Church's application for charity status in England and Wales was rejected in 1999.

We don't orchestrate such nonsense in the USA.

Try Scope, Skanque

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46035 Jan 9, 2013
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
I did not ask what you rest on your chin
[/QUOTE]

Skanque: we know what you have had in your mouth, in real life.

Does he keep breaking his promise that he won't and he does?

There, there... there there... try some Scope.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46036 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
The denials
No Pope Joan.

Go back to a bigfoot pope, more believable.

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 Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 23 min Passion of the Ma... 1,684
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 28 min Larry Magne 521
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 35 min Rondo 52,385
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 50 min Ian McFarland 11,462
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Eagle 12 22,192
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 24,919
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 4 hr Kaarlo 231
More from around the web