In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

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.

Comments (Page 2,227)

Showing posts 44,521 - 44,540 of47,725
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46210
Jan 14, 2013
 
Let's say many billions...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 Ė 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

Rutherfordton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46212
Jan 14, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Please tell me why you did not point out barfy butt faceís 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 Ė right?
So itís 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 itís 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

North Berwick, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

North Berwick, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

North Berwick, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46216
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46217
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46218
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46219
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46220
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Middletown, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46222
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
That includes dissolving Parliament
The monarch has the power to dissolve the UK Parliament.

No one else.

No matter how hard you stomp your feet.

This is a fact; there are no shades of gray.

"In addition to opening Parliament, only The Queen can summon Parliament, and prorogue (discontinue without dissolving it) or dissolve it.

When a Prime Minister wishes to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, he or she is obliged to seek the permission of the Sovereign to do so. For this purpose, the Prime Minister usually travels to Buckingham Palace before announcing a general election.
"

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46223
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

[QUOTE who="Citizen Pain"
So the UK is not a federation; it is a unitary state.[/QUOTE]

The United KING_dom is a monarchy: yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46224
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Citizen Pain wrote:
England, Scotland and Ireland all were once Kingdoms
There are hundreds of kingdoms and other goverments that no longer exist, and Scotland is still part of the UNITED Kingdom, no matter how hard you stop your feet, and it is not a nation as far as the UN is concerned.
SupaAFC

North Berwick, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46225
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Your black-or-white logic fails, however, when applied to complex scenarios.

Britain is a modern democracy with relics of its past. If Britain were a monarchy, which you so adamantly claim, then Elizabeth would have all the power, making all the laws, while the rest of us do nothing.

But that is not what we see.

You are flat out lying, Barefoot. Britain has a parliamentary system of government that is "ruled" by a figurehead monarch. Those are the facts, little boy.

And I see that in all your posts you responded with, none of them remotely attempted to explain what a democracy contains.

Why is that, Barefoot? Why do you refuse to set out criteria for a democratic system of government?

Oh yes, I remember: because you are lying.
SupaAFC

North Berwick, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46226
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
It is impossible to answer your question without being plain false. If someone answers yes, then it neglects the fact that we have a Parliamentary system of government where the Queen acts as a figurehead. If someone answers no, then it obviously ignores the fact that we have a monarchy.

You ask this question to deliberately trick people. It is dishonest, but then, that is what dishonest people do.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46227
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Your black-or-white logic fails, however, when applied to complex scenarios.
It doesn't.

Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?

I gave you my response months ago.

Funny how you can do it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46228
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
It is impossible to answer your question without being plain false.
You are a liar.

The United Kingdom is a monarchy.

You are welcome to deny it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46229
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
then it neglects the fact that we have a Parliamentary system
As I pointed out to you the first fifty times you cried about it: it doesn't matter.

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. Compare absolute monarchy, limited monarchy.
2.
supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.

++

do you see any exceptions?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 44,521 - 44,540 of47,725
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

7 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 30 min Anon 223,129
Our world came from nothing? 34 min Richardfs 48
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Buck Crick 21,333
Why do i deserve no respect. 10 hr Carchar king 7
Introducing The Universal Religion Wed NightSerf 718
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed ChristineM 802
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) Wed Buck Crick 324
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••