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
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46202 Jan 14, 2013
They just can't get their sh!t together, can they?
That's why they've 38,000 sects.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Please tell me why you did not point out barfy butt face’s original claim in post
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Quote
Stalin embarrassed all that atheism offered and then he started killing millions of people.
Endquote
Oh I get it now, that was from the christian point of view and therefore too good to comment on – right?
So it’s fine by you that a guy who was raised as a christian and tipped for the priesthood caused embarrassment to atheists but not when that same gut who was raised in christian tradition causes embarrassment to christians
I guess it’s just the same as modern day christian sloping there shoulders and denying the facts that Hitler was christian
I.E. christians are willing to lie and even deny historical fact for their god and that is typical christian thinking

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46203 Jan 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, you started the name calling, you don’t like the heat…
Not hardly, Skanque, so why not swallow, and wipe off you chin.

As we know, in real life, you do so well and so often.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46204 Jan 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I don’t ever remember seeing anyone claiming that the UK was not a monarchy.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !

I guess that heavy dose of male DNA you swallow softens the brain cells.

Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?

Ask Packy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46205 Jan 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Cause of the global financial crisis of 2007?
~stomp stomp stomp~

You see the UK banks latest fines? 2.6 billion.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46206 Jan 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
My argument here was that the first “fully working” enigma was captured from the U110
You are a liar.

It started with you insisting the Americans didn't capture an enigma- which I disproved- and you being confused about the U505 being captured by Americans- which I proved- while you insisting I was "confused" by a movie that I had never seen with you being confused about it being a FICTIONAL movie rather than a documentary... with you insisting the first enigma machine was from the U110- which I disproved- with you then insisting it was the first "working" enigma, which of course is still nonsense.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46207 Jan 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
1937, the year you showed your figures for WAS NOT the start of WW2.
And these 400+ US ships did not fall off the universe and the 400+ did not include the 50 ships the UK would give to the UK and the UK did not surpass the number of ships in the US Navy or you would have posted a link to actual numbers.

Funny how that never happened.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46208 Jan 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
You guess drippydick, nothing more.
In real life, Skanque... you know what they taste like.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46209 Jan 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
They just can't get their sh!t together, can they?
That's why they've 38,000 sects.
So what?

There have been tens of billions of Christians, only a NotBot would insist everyone must prescribe to the exact same thing.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46210 Jan 14, 2013
Let's say many billions...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46211 Jan 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Oh I get it now, that was from the christian point of view and therefore too good to comment on – right?
You don't speak well for yourself, yet you continue to insist you speak for (among others) Christians.

"Christians say".....

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

One Christian does not speak for anyone except for him/herself.

Just as atheists would be horrified if you insisted you speak for them.

What Christian have in common is they believe that Jesus the Christ (praise be upon him) was the son of God.

Anything outside of that is pretty much up to interpretation.

Swallow... you are dripping again.
Lincoln

United States

#46212 Jan 14, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Please tell me why you did not point out barfy butt face’s original claim in post
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Quote
Stalin embarrassed all that atheism offered and then he started killing millions of people.
Endquote
Oh I get it now, that was from the christian point of view and therefore too good to comment on – right?
So it’s fine by you that a guy who was raised as a christian and tipped for the priesthood caused embarrassment to atheists but not when that same gut who was raised in christian tradition causes embarrassment to christians
I guess it’s just the same as modern day christian sloping there shoulders and denying the facts that Hitler was christian
I.E. Christians are willing to lie and even deny historical fact for their God and that is typical Christian thinking
You seem confused.
Stalin in power was an Atheist.
Lenin was also an Atheist in power, both kill millions.
SupaAFC

Leeds, UK

#46213 Jan 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The fallacy of the Dumb Azz.
Either the United KING_dom IS a monarchy or it is NOT a monarchy.
There is no middle. It is either *A* or it is *B*. there is no B-; there is no B+ and certainly there is no C.
A person is pregnant or a person is not pregnant.
There is no middle ground, there is no range of choices.
So we know there is yet something else you know nothing about.
And therein lies the black-or-white logic of Barefoot.

Nobody is denying that the UK has a monarchy, or that the Queen is the head of state. What we are disputing is your blatant lie that our government, our political system, is exclusively a monarchy.

Because your ridiculous logic states that there are no shades of grey (there are, you simply choose to ignore them), you pay no attention to Britain's historical development and how, over time, power has shifted from the monarchies, to Parliament, to the people.

It has got to the stage that of the few powers the monarchy retains today, they use only in ceremonial circumstances.

That includes appointing the Prime Minister;

That includes dissolving Parliament;

That includes giving assent to bills.

And so on. In fact, our country's system is such an example of democracy, that guess what? Your own government is based on ours. Two chambers, one executive.

Since you will cut this post into tidbits to try and salvage what is a lost argument, answer this question:

What must a political system consist of in order to be considered democratic?

By all means, tell us.
SupaAFC

Leeds, UK

#46214 Jan 14, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem confused.
Stalin in power was an Atheist.
Lenin was also an Atheist in power, both kill millions.
They were also both men. Both killed millions.

Solution? All-female governments.
SupaAFC

Leeds, UK

#46215 Jan 14, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
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]
Stop pretending, Lincoln. We know that your problem with Wiki, and any source that contradicts your beliefs, is the fact that it is not a book from the bible.

The bible is authoritative, anything that contradicts it is false.

We get the idea; stop pretending.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46216 Jan 14, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
And therein lies the black-or-white logic of Barefoot.
I guess we forget whining and crying about the two-sided coin.

There are sometimes (often) black and white and yes or no responses, no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

Heads or tails, SuperFAG?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46217 Jan 14, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Nobody is denying that the UK has a monarchy, or that the Queen is the head of state.
Funny.

How many times have I asked you if the United KING_dom was a monarchy, yes or no?

Now that you cannot find ANY support for your position you are insisting that there's a third option?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46218 Jan 14, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
It has got to the stage that of the few powers the monarchy retains today,
Already refuted.

PS: A monarchy that has any powers: makes it a monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46219 Jan 14, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
retains today, they use only in ceremonial circumstances.
That includes appointing the Prime Minister;
Already refuted.

You insisted that I provide proof- I did... and then you wanted another.

You see: we don't have to make you admit you were wrong, only to make you look the fool.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46220 Jan 14, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Because your ridiculous logic states that there are no shades of grey
Are there shades of gray: are you pregnant, yes or no?

Are there 100 pennies in a dollar, yes or no?

Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?
Citizen Pain

Cromwell, CT

#46221 Jan 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>

Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?
The UK is a liberal/progressive/socialist sh*thole.

But to address your question...

It is not possible to have a federation without a constitution prescribing the powers of the different levels of government, and the UK has no such instrument. The primary principle of our constitutional law is that the UK Parliament can do anything. The legislation which created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies carefully reserved power to the UK Parliament to legislate in all matters. The powers of the subordinate legislatures are devolved powers.

So the UK is not a federation; it is a unitary state.

England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland have all been regarded for centuries as nations, and are still correctly referred to as such. This has nothing to do with legal status.

England, Scotland and Ireland all were once Kingdoms, but no longer are (since 1707 in the case of England and Scotland, 1800 in the case of Ireland). Wales was not a Kingdom but a Principality, and is sometimes still referred to as such.

http://alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 234,702
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 3 hr NoahLovesU 1,259
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr NoahLovesU 14,708
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 5 hr woodtick57 2,848
why? 6 hr Uncle Sam 55
The Consequences of Atheism 7 hr ChristineM 85
Christianity Created Hitler 9 hr thetruth 221
More from around the web