In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51437 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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46816 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Why do you cherry pick I assume
Cherry pick = Barefoot2626 proves Skanque to be wrong yet again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46817 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
PS: We have two houses in our Congress.
Yes... one of them entirely appointed by the monarchy, the other made up by wealthy land owners.

The USA used the UK as a model of what we did not to do in our goverment.

E.G.: state religion & monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46818 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Honey, not yet but I expect to me menopausal soon
I've seen the flags around your house: you are hip deep, Fatty.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46819 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Yes and… christianity is dying,
UK = state church; no separation of church and state

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46820 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
And the US is full of STATES, many of which demand acknowledgement
Over here in the USA, the Supreme Court rules on what we have and you don't: a Constitution.

And The Constitution is the rule of the land, Skanque.

And SKANQUE: the rule of the land is sepeartiopn of Church and STATE.

And: as I pointed out 50+ times... the rule of the UK land is: required collective worship in tax funded schools.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46821 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
And I have remanded you several dozen times that every member of the prospective PM’s constituency has the vote do as does every member of the conservative party
And then I remind you that voting for an MP isn't voting for the PM.

Several dozen times.

And then I ask you: HAVE YOU EV ER VOTED FOR PM, Yes or NO?

And of course... you don't respond.

And then I remind you that **I** have exactly as much influence of the outcome of who is APPOINTED PM as you.

And so does my dog.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46822 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
festering drippydick misogynist,
Let's do remember your repeated use of the misogynistic pejoratives that you directed at me and my "wife" including those terms you have to use symbols to get past the Topix TOS & censors (such as t\/\/at).

You brought to the table, you sexist, racist bigot.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46823 Jan 24, 2013
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
You have a very distorted idea of the word black,
[/QUOTE]

You announced that my wife had run off with a BLACK man.

You intended as in insult, period.

What else are you going to lie about, Skanque?

Do you want to claim it was a grammatical error?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46824 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I personally find some black people very attractive...
Another racist statement, thank's t\/\/it!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46825 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Proved what? That Macmillan was appointed
Gosh, how soon we "forget" that you insisted that Macmillan was elected by his party to be nominated for PM.

I know: another grammatical error...
SupaAFC

Dunblane, UK

#46827 Jan 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is one word important?
According to you it appears to be. What I and many posters have come to realise when dealing with manchildren like you is that we must be very precise with what we say, otherwise, you will pounce on lax terminology to avoid addressing the argument itself.

Meanwhile, when we press you to address what you mean with words - democracy, for instance - you handwave them away to continue obsfuscating.

In other words, you think words are important only when we use them, but you never, ever, have to be precise with yours.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I find when dealing with LIARS such as yourself, one word is important.
How about defining democracy? That word is certainly important.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now did you NOT tell us that Macmillan was the UNANIMOUS choice of his party, yes or no?
Did you not tell us that Wikipedia, the only source you ran to to verify this, was anonymous?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretend for a second I didn't already prove you LIED about this already.
By using Wikipedia. The exact same source you claimed was hypocritical for me to use when refuting your Edward source.

Why do you get to use Wikipedia, but we don't?

In fact, why do you get to dismiss internet sources since anyone can find anything on it if they look for them, but we don't?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Already prove this to be a lie as well, SuperFAG.
What else you got?
Nope, you brought up Macmillan on your own accord for your own argument.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>You are a m/f c/s liar.

But I have already proved that.

You told us all that he was the unanimous choice.

Now you are down to popular choice.

Gosh, those EXACT quote I have sure seem to back me up as the person telling the truth and as you telling the lies.
How about addressing the argument instead of clinging to word games?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I see a jiizum-breathed liar standing in front of me.

I see he has no shame.

I wonder: why would he continue to lie about what he said when he knows I have already quoted exactly what he said?
Translation: Barefoot could not answer the question.

That is why your black-or-white logic fails, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I see you can cling to anything that you say that is wrong and say it was a grammatical error.

If you say "yes" and the correct answer is "no" you say "oh, it is a grammatical error".
Do tell us when you decide to attack the argument itself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for those two degrees in politics, SuperFAG.
Still waiting for you to establish what counts as legitimate evidence.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>

[QUOTE who="barefoot2626"] <quoted text>

[QUOTE who="barefoot2626"] <quoted text>Still waiting for that quote.
So you are agreeing that Britain is a Constitutional monarchy? Excellent.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for that quote and you insist you have numerous to choose from.
I shall take that as a yes; excellent. I shall assume that you will no longer be asking if Britain has a Constitution or not.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for that proof of "politics degrees"
And I am still waiting for you to state what you will consider as evidence for those degrees. Without agreed terms you can obfuscate forever.
SupaAFC

Dunblane, UK

#46828 Jan 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for the proof that he was elected PM.

You seem to make a whole bunch of "grammatical" errors.
Nice strawman. The point is that he was elected like any other MP so I was asking why his appointment to PM actually matters when the people had their say.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
As you must recall, I said he was appointed by the Queen and that there was no election among his party members.
And the question raised is "so what"? Had Macmillan been elected leader by the Tories you would have simply gone further back in time to find another example.

Macmillan became PM in 1957. This is 2013. Parties have changed significantly since then. How about joining us instead of trying to validate an incredibly-weak argument with cases that happened outwith my, and possibly your, lifetime?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Where are those two "politics degrees" so you can explain this- that a constitutional monarchy is not a monarchy.

I say that a constitutional monarchy is a monarchy.

Explain your position: how is a constitutional monarchy not a monarchy?
Nice strawman. The point is that Constitutional monarchy is called as such because it is a variant form of monarchy.

A Constitutional monarchy differs because power is largely vested into a democratically-elected government that the Queen ceremoniously oversees - even extending to her powers.

In other words, my manchild friend, a Constitutional monarchy is a democracy with a glorified figurehead.

No wonder you cling to the umbrella term; you think that if you use that, and only that, then these finer details can be ignored.

Is a Constitutional monarchy the same as other monarchies?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw man.
Neither were elected PM.
Macmillan was not even ELECTED by his party to be nominated for PM.
Nice red herrings, but you are still not explaining how this qualifies as a strawman considering I have not even denied as such.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>^^^^^^^^^^ Here is your EXACT statement.

Now: show us the grammatical error.

Take your choice of definitons of grammatical error:
Simple - I used the wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity.

You, of course, have latched onto it because you cannot address the argument itself.

Now that I am done addressing you, do you mind finally defining democracy, explaining how things cannot be defined by more than one word, and what the Weimar republic was if it was not a democracy?

It would be quite nice if you could actually answer my questions instead of poo-pooing or outright ignoring them.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46829 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you it appears to be. What I and many posters have come to realise when dealing with manchildren like you is that we must be very precise
It isn't your problem with being precise, of course, it is your problem of saying that you quote me but what you say I say isn't what I actually say.

Like when I make a statement and you take the word "NOT" out of the statement and insist your new paraphrase means the same thing.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46830 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you it appears to be. What I and many posters have come to realise when dealing with manchildren like you is that we must be very precise with what we say
You mean when you make claims that something is UNANIMOUS and I easily refute what you say and then you move the goalpost and pretend you never said it, SuperFAG?

Or when you roll around on the for screaming for an example of which prime minister wasn't elected as you insisted and I say Macmillan and who cry and whine and say you want another example, eh, SuperFAG?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46831 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<What I and many posters have come to realise when dealing with manchildren like you is that we must be very precise
You mean like when I say that the law of the UK land requires collective worship in tax funded schools and you scream and you cry and you say that I am a liar and then I give you exactly that law and then you fall to the floor stomping your feet crying that that law doesn't count?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46832 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you it appears to be. What I and many posters have come to realise when dealing with manchildren like you is that we must be very precise with what we say,
You mean like when you insist the United KING_dom is a democracy and I point out that according to the very definition of the word monarchy that the United KING_dom is a monarchy and you say no no no no it isn't and I provide a definition and you cry I didn't provide a source and I provide you the source even though any nine year old can look up an exact quote (as indicated) and then you say one definition isn't enough and I provide twenty more and you whine and you cry and you say that I am only "technically" correct,eh?

SuperFAG?

United KING_dom, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46833 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Macmillan became PM in 1957..
WAHHH! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

You demand an example of a prime minister who wasn't elected by his party to be nominated and I say "Macmillan" and you cry and you whine and you say:'that doesn't count, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! show me another!'

Putting aside that every single UK prime minister in the history of time has been appointed by a monarch.

He was appointed and there was no party election, SuperFAG.

Next?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46834 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
Simple - I used the wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity.
Wrong word?

You told us he was the UNANIMOUS choice.

I say that you are a liar.

I also say he wasn't the elected choice.

Was he the UNANIMOUS choice, SuperFAG, yes or no?

Was he the elected choice, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46835 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Is a Constitutional monarchy the same as other monarchies?.
Is a constitutional monarchy a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46836 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
I shall take that as a yes; excellent. I shall assume that you will no longer be asking if Britain has a Constitution or not.
Why would you?

I provided you the right answer from the very first time it was mentioned.

The UK does NOT have a constitution.

I don't care if you answer it or not- clearly, you don't even know what a monarchy is.

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 Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 min emperorjohn 10,132
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min IB DaMann 43,456
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 14 min Reason Personified 84
Good arguments against Christianity 16 min Reason Personified 246
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 1 hr Reason Personified 104
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr emperorjohn 21,254
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 1 hr Into The Night 799
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr Into The Night 631
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 18,732
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 256,648
More from around the web