In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

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

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#46723 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stalin was an atheist. He Ö.
No contemporary evidence so irrelevant
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You ...
More irrelevance, getting to be expected
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
... my 'wife' ran off with a *black* man.
Ö.
Yup it was there in your post you hypocritical moron

Yes it was designed to wind you up and it did, tough that you seem unable to reap what you sow Ė you hypocrite
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The names you call others reflect *your* bigotry, not mine.
Ö, Skanque.
What others drippydick? Straa?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Skanque: you are projecting.
I can guarantee Ö
Ö.
Nope, juts being truthful, I realise you have difficulty with the concept but thatís down to your personality defects.
Yes we know, thatís why you are throwing up walls to protect yourself
Rather like your insistence that my children attend compulsory worship, that the US b(w)ankers did not cause the world economic recession, that my husband has left me. Your hypocrisy is astounding, and itís so pathetic that you are unable to reap what you sow. You donít like comeback you festering drippydick cuckold hen apologise to those you insult
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep insisting, sweetie, and I keep telling you men don't give a rat's ass about dripping penises.
Ö
I thank you for your work.
Yes we know you donít care about the SDI infected yellow puss trail your drippingdick leaves behind, are you saying all men are as irresponsible as you?

You are welcome to believe that itís semen but it does so obviously point to where the blame lay when you wife made you a cuckold.

Thank you but you have no clue what you are thanking me for
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you torture metaphor as well as the Ex?
There you go again, How sad.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, isn't that too bad everyone else here Ö
There you go again, How sad.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You also told us you weren't fat.
Ö.
I'll go with my gut.
So you told us your wife isnít getting screwed by a black man
Your imagination is just that, imagination.
Yes we can hear you gut from here
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans have the vote
Ö
Are you going to tell us you have two degrees in "politics", too?
Ahh you mean like the British system, such a coincidence, you are learning

Nope, I have no need to lie.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeaa, and you will say you weren't dishing it out to him either.
Poor baby...
Hey butt breath, you want the link to the post that ďhe staredĒ verbally abusing me??? And the 2 posts after that before I retaliated???

Hell no, that would prove you to be an ignorant dickhead wouldnít it
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The USA is a democracy.
Ö
mistakes.
Yes based loosely on the British system of democracy

Yes a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy

Who cares whether you copied the 2 house system?

Say what??? Which members of the lower house are ďappointedĒ by the state church?

Dog catchers traffic wardens etc are employed by the local council. The local council is elected to run local council services , thatís democracy.

Nope you thought hmm, we donít have a queen so we will bow down to a piece of cloth with pretty patterns on it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea... too bad, political scientists Ö.
Yes too bad the rest of the world does not agree with you
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't much of a benchmark:Ö yes or no"?
Too bad the people who are employed and trained to monitor these things do not agree with you
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46724 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Monarchy.
A Constitutional monarchy. If we must call everything by its umbrella term then we are not humans, but mammals. Aberdeen, San Diego and Berlin are all called "city". Romance, thriller and comedy are all called "genre". Etc, etc, etc.

Your logic, your rules.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a constitution, and is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?
Then if we are not a Constitutional monarchy then your source is wrong. Why did you use a "wrong" source?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>No proof, then?

PS: When did they start giving degrees in "politics".
What will you consider as proof, then?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>A constitutional monarchy is - and this is the tricky part- a monarchy.
And humans are mammals. Does that mean that there is no distinction between humans and other mammals? Are all mammals the same? Are all cities the same? Are all genres the same?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>It fits the definition of monarchy.
And democracy. Are you claiming that it is only possible for something to be defined with one word?

Can Einstein only be defined as a male, but not a German or scientist?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how no one refers to it as a "constitutional democracy".

Funny how that is.
Possibly because we are not a republic?

Funny how you refuse to define democracy even though you love nothing more than to hide in a dictionary.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>You don't say?

So why don't you show EVERYONE where I uttered such nonsense.

PS: if you learn how to use the scroll button on your mouse, you would find that not always do quotes originate from Wikipedia.

And if you look at the little numbers on sections of Wikipedia, you will find where they came from.
Of course you did - you ran away from your source about Edward VII by claiming that I was just as liable for using unreliable and anonymous sources by referring Wikipedia. Instead of defending your source's claim, you tried dragging my citations down to your level's.

In fact, you have even gone so far as to dismiss other people's citations based on a frankly pathetic claim that people can find anything they want on the internet. So by your own standard, it doesn't matter what we find or where we find it; internet sources, by your book, are bunk.

You pray that I will forget what you say, but unfortunately, I don't.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46725 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Applies.

You've established you lack of intellectual prowess and honesty: e.g., your inviability to say that you are wrong even after it has been crammed repeatedly up your azz so far we can see it whenever you open your flatulent mouth.

Is the United King_dom a monarchy yes or no?

Watch this:

Yes.
Like I have said before, Barefoot: if you are so sure about your simplistic yes-or-no answers, then go paste a monarchy definition in Word, send it to a British political science publication, then show the world how Britain qualifies as a monarchy but not a democracy. Maybe if you are lucky Kavanagh et al will phone you up asking if you would like to contribute to their next textbook about British politics considering your immense expertise despite having no qualifications, no knowledge of British political history, and no skills other than citing dictionaries thinking that things can only be defined by one word, but not others.

Go ahead - make history.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Monarchy.
Mammals.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Already cited.

If you really had a degree- even one- and had ever written a paper- clearly, you haven't- you would no you are not encumbered to continue to cite the same source.
It would not surprise me if you think that quotations and citations are the same thing - are they?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>What do you charge to move goalposts?

I do believe I smell red herring...
You say that you keep repeating that Britain is a monarchy as if it is some kind of achievement; it is not. All kinds of kooks say the same things over and over, but they are not right.

Likewise, nor are you. Britain having a monarchy does not mean that our government is subsequently a monarchy or that we are undemocratic. If you think playing parrot is a sure-fire way to win debates, then by all means keep going; I will pick up my mallet when I am ready.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>So a democratically elected parliament does not a democracy make.
Then what was the Weimar republic if it was not a democracy?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside: I don't give a sh!t if a monarchy has an elected parliament or not.

Putting aside: most of the UK Parliament is appointed.
Of course you don't care because it refutes your argument.

Your own system of government is based on ours. For all your screaming of us being undemocratic, that should worry you.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46726 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The UK parliament: most members are appointed (1), yes or no?

(1) appointed by the monarchy or inherited post by appointment.

Watch this: Yes.
Remember when you said actions speak louder than words in another thread?

I sure do.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I like the way when you insist that you are correct and use absolutes, and then I get to break it off in your azz, and then you run away from it, and then scream that in social sciences that blah blah bllah de bo bob doodle and the path of the moon...

When it is truly a YES or NO response that is required.
Yes or no in social science is fantasy. Unfortunately for you, you are simply not educated enough to understand this.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like when you told us Macmillan had the UNANIMOUS approval of his party...

Over here in the USA, UNANIMOUS means EVERYONE. If the Senate takes a vote, and it's 99-1 (as sometimes it is): it is NOT UNANIMOUS.

I noticed... you skipped over my question above.
I notice that as always you play word games when you cannot address the main point itself.

Macmillan to my knowledge was a highly popular choice amongst the Conservative cabinet (I did not say party)- heck - even your Wikipedia link stated that it was a -near- unanimous choice.

Furthermore, you are refuting your whole argument because prior to me making this statement you were raving about how the -Queen- made the choice of selecting Macmillan - that was why you brought him up in the first place! So, evidently, you have no qualms about dropping your own arguments if you think you can catch me with word games.

The fact is, manchild, that Macmillan was a popular choice, and he was subsequently appointed. The fact that I used a different word to state this has no bearing on this.

But then, if my only victory could come through semantics, I guess this is your best shot.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, when you insist that something NEVER happens and I say: here you go...
Lying again, manchild.

The original argument was that potential PMs are elected as party leaders based on how the parties think they can attract votes in general elections. Never did I claim that this has always been the case.

You then decided to bring up Macmillan, unprovoked, for your own argument.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The USA is a democracy, SuperFAG.
Nope, the USA is a republic with a leader chosen by the Electoral College. By your logic, democracies cannot exist unless we live in a state akin to anarchy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The UK is not. The UK is a monarchy.
If the USA is a democracy then so are we considering your system of government is based on ours.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Post the definition as many times as you like; I only have to look at the window to see one.
While when you look out the window... you see a monarchy.
I see my democratically-elected MP's constituency office.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#46727 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I proved this wrong, Skanque.
Why not start saying the first fully working military spec with red handles enigma machine captured?
Plenty of room left to move goalposts.
The pigs insisted beds were not beds if they were no sheets/
Nope you made a statement without any evidence then stamped you foot you drippydick moronic cuckold.

I provided evidence from several sources, academic, historical and military to prove my assertion correct

Oh thatís an easy one, because the handles, just like the rest of your BS foam are irrelevant. However the number of rotors and hence the ability to decode all enigma encoded ciphers is not irrelevant.

Or how about if you were only paid 80% of your pension instead of the whole 100%, would you consider that your pension was paid? In the same way that a machine that will decipher 80% of encoded material is not as useful as a machine that will decipher 100% of encoded material

We are not bothered by how wide you want to define the goalposts, only facts are relevant

More irrelevant dribbling foam, do you consider yourself expert?
Lincoln

United States

#46728 Jan 23, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have nothing of any value to say and so fall back on the good old christian incredulity from ignorance argument (not christian!!! honey I did not ask you what you rest on your chin (bollocks)). Thatís fine it tells us much of your personality and that your intelligence must fall in the mid range of double figures
Barfy butt face chooses to pick verbal fights on a PUBLIC thread, itís how he gets his jollies while his wife is out getting screwed, itís his method of relieving his sexual frustration. He has in the last 2 years had several opposers, including several Americans of whom one is Native American, Mexican, Polish, Swedish, South African, Japanese, Australian and British. He ignores evidence, he ignores fact, he provides outdated and irrelevant counters because he simply has not got the balls to admit that not everything is black or white, he is incapable of seeing the grey areas.
The point is that the British are not seeing this particular argument from the view of dubious American right wing text books and online blogs pandering to a specific intolerant audience but from actual LIFE experience.
Yet you my dear little sheepshagging dufus (remember that you began this by insulting me) have chosen to take his side in the argumentÖ thatís fine, your choice. But donít expect that anyone who is actually involved on the day to day politics of the UK and knows how politics works in the UK should roll over and show their belly just because you and barfy are a clueless morons.
Yes you sheepshagging dufus, thatís what we are arguing about - whether the UK is a monarchy or a monarchy. We all agree thatís itís a monarchy, yet barfy continues to claim that I donít, I have repeatedly shown him the posts that I agree, that I answer his yes/no question with an affirmative. We have a queen for fooks stake how can it be denied?. However that monarchy is a constitutional monarchy, itís not a dictatorship which is how barfy butt breath, from afar and infested with 3rd hand bile and spite, INTERPRETS the monarchy of the UK.
I see that you once again continue to jump in here without reading the thread. Your ignorance is becoming legendary, and it does not matter how republican you are, the queens influence in politics is minimal and falls into the realm of rubber stamping democratic decisions. Yes she can choose not to rubber stamp a democratic decision, she does however know better than that and it is an option that has not been taken during her reign. In fact I believe that the last time royal asset was refused was in 1707, almost 70 BEFORE the US became independent
Nope we are having fun with a dufus like yourself in the role the queen actually plays in politics and for you to assume without evidence (Yet another christian trait) that I have no problem with despotic dictatorships (or many other world situations) is really quite pathetically sad.
BTW What you thought is irrelevant particularly when you just think (and I use the term lightly) without the research, knowledge or education or intelligence to back that thinking up.
So you have nothing of any value to sa..........

Ba**fy butt face chooses to pick verbal fights on a PUBLIC thread, itís how he gets his jollies while his wife is out getting scre**ed....

Nope we are having fun with a dufus like yourself

Rather pathetic post,
little name calling ...
No wonder atheists still at 5%
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46729 Jan 23, 2013
25%+ plus in the UK.

Furthermore, 2/3rds in the UK say religion does not play an important part in their lives.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder atheists still at 5%

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#46730 Jan 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
25%+ plus in the UK.
Furthermore, 2/3rds in the UK say religion does not play an important part in their lives.
<quoted text>
And in Sweden 23% believe in a god.

We all know what a hell-hole THAT is: http://imagebank.sweden.se/
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46731 Jan 23, 2013
More Tetra Pak than tetragrammaton.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>And in Sweden 23% believe in a god.
We all know what a hell-hole THAT is: http://imagebank.sweden.se/
Siro

Australia

#46732 Jan 23, 2013
Hey Christine, your last name wouldnt happen to be Michaels would it?
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#46733 Jan 23, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>And in Sweden 23% believe in a god.
We all know what a hell-hole THAT is: http://imagebank.sweden.se/
The trees and reindeer are atheist?
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#46734 Jan 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
25%+ plus in the UK.
Furthermore, 2/3rds in the UK say religion does not play an important part in their lives.
<quoted text>
There is a difference between not subscribing to a religion and not believing in God.

You muppet

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#46735 Jan 23, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have nothing of any value to sa..........
Ba**fy butt face chooses to pick verbal fights on a PUBLIC thread, itís how he gets his jollies while his wife is out getting scre**ed....
Nope we are having fun with a dufus like yourself
Rather pathetic post,
little name calling ...
No wonder atheists still at 5%
Whatever you want to believe.

After all you believe that adam and eve brought fourth mankind, that there was a talking snake, that humans (mostly carbon) can be turned into salt without the aid of a supernova and there was a great flood survived only by noah and his family as well around 80 million animals in a boat that was impossible to build that sailed an ocean that was made up of around 1000 times more water than has ever existed on the earth.

Yes, thatís what happens when people call me names and verbally abuse me, I retaliate, tough world isnít it

And no wonder christianity is shrinking

Actually it depends on demographics, may be 5% in the US, not in China, not in mucj of europe

if you consider agnostic and non theistic religions such as buddhism

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#46736 Jan 23, 2013
Siro wrote:
Hey Christine, your last name wouldnt happen to be Michaels would it?
No

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#46737 Jan 23, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
The trees and reindeer are atheist?
Well, pre-Christian Pagan, anyway.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46738 Jan 23, 2013
F**k off identity thief.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between not subscribing to a religion and not believing in God.
You muppet
Siro

Seven Hills, Australia

#46740 Jan 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
F**k off identity thief.
<quoted text>
Oh cry me a nappyful, are you Paul?
hahahahahahaha
You whining brings tears to the eye.....
.....the eye of muh dik!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46741 Jan 23, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<
Barfy butt face chooses to pick verbal fights on a PUBLIC thread, itís how he gets his jollies while his wife is out getting screwed,
I guess it's no longer my wife getting screwed by a BLACK man, eh, Skanque?

But you already let your bigoted cat out of that bag, eh, fatty?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46742 Jan 23, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
He has in the last 2 years had several opposers, including several Americans of whom one is Native American, Mexican, Polish, Swedish, South African, Japanese, Australian and British.
I have opposers? Are they some kind of socks for varicose veins, Chubby?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46743 Jan 23, 2013
?
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh cry me a nappyful, are you Paul?
hahahahahahaha
You whining brings tears to the eye.....
.....the eye of muh dik!

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) 22 min Thinking 229,859
Our world came from nothing? 26 min Thinking 1,002
Islam for peace, or violence? 28 min Thinking 24
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr fadu singh 22,979
Man center of the universe. 2 hr Thinking 85
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Fri Thinking 6
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 16 Mikko 1,401

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE