In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 47707 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

Crieff, 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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46837 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Simple - I used the wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity.
So it is your explanation that anything you ever say- any time anywhere no matter what- you can define it as a "grammatical error".

Even though there was absolutely no grammatical error in the statement you put up.

Even yes or no questions, eh, SuperFAG, any position you take can be explained away as a grammatical error.

COUGH.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46838 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
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.
I am still waiting for you to post a link to a university that issues degrees in "politics".

Putting aside you don't know sh!t about what degrees I may or may not have.

Hint: SuperFAG, if you want to invent degrees that you claim to have, you might make sure the university you claim to have attended actually has such degrees.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Sweden

#46839 Jan 26, 2013
bsfoot is a troll

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46840 Jan 26, 2013
Mikko wrote:
bsfoot is a troll
Meatball is a dolt.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46841 Jan 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I see. So what you are saying is that what I see you post is not what I see you post but what you want me to believe you post based on nothing but what you think you post even if what I see you post says differently.

You could have just said "I change what I mean to suit my circumstances".
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And that statement would be...
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Ironically you used Wikipedia which you had only a week or two previously tried to disqualify me from using.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Never happened, Barefoot. You brought up Macmillan, on your own accord, for your own argument.

Can you show me where I ever claimed that every Prime Minister/leader has been elected by their party? Good luck - you will need it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Another strawman: I have never denied that worship can take place in public schools.

But by all means, keep telling porkies.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Your own definition states that a monarchy can contain other elements that contribute towards the governing of the state. For instance, a democratically-elected Parliament.

Your problem, my manchild friend, is that you think if something can be defined by one word, then that is it - it cannot be defined by anything else.

Remember that Einstein question you have run away from twice now? By your logic, since Einstein can be defined as a man, he cannot be defined as German. He cannot be defined as a scientist. He cannot be defined as a genius. He cannot be defined as revolutionary. He cannot be defined as a physicist. Etc, etc, etc.

If Britain cannot be a democracy due to having a monarch, then America certainly cannot be a democracy due to having a president. If we have to define democracy to its literal extreme, then that system of government is impossible to achieve until we resort to anarchy.

Your logic, your rules.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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!'
Never, Barefoot, has anybody - let alone me - claimed that every single PM has been elected as party leader.

Never. Until you can prove otherwise, you are arguing with yourself.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46842 Jan 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside that every single UK prime minister in the history of time has been appointed by a monarch.
Which amounts to nothing considering that in the past century at least PMs have been appointed based on the results of the general elections.

If the Queen had selected a non Tory PM in '57, then maybe, Barefoot, the people would have worried about democracy. Yet, she did not. Why? Because a Tory government entitled the people to a Tory PM - and thus Macmillan.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
He was appointed and there was no party election, SuperFAG.
If Macmillan did not have a large support within the Tory ranks he would not have been selected. The Queen rubber stamped the party majority.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Next?
How about defining democracy?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong word?

You told us he was the UNANIMOUS choice.
And unanimous was meant to illustrate that Macmillan was the most popular choice. You, of course, have ignored this point to try and refute me on semantics.

Again: you have scored a point in a boxing match and have run to the referee claiming a knock out.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I say that you are a liar.
Of course you do. In manchild land you are the expert about everything and nobody else knows anything.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I also say he wasn't the elected choice.
I also say that you are arguing with yourself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Was he the UNANIMOUS choice, SuperFAG, yes or no?

Was he the elected choice, yes or no?
Was Macmillan the popular choice of the Tories? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Is a constitutional monarchy a monarchy, yes or no?
Are variants the same as other variants within their umbrella terms? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So is Britain a Constitutional monarchy or not?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>So it is your explanation that anything you ever say- any time anywhere no matter what- you can define it as a "grammatical error".

Even though there was absolutely no grammatical error in the statement you put up.

Even yes or no questions, eh, SuperFAG, any position you take can be explained away as a grammatical error.

COUGH.
Speaking of grammar, are you going to define democracy yet?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am still waiting for you to post a link to a university that issues degrees in "politics".
Undergraduate:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/a...

Postgraduate MRes:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/prospectus/pgrad/study/...

What are your new demands now?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside you don't know sh!t about what degrees I may or may not have.
Considering your inability to construct an effective argument outwith online dictionaries and independent websites, your clear absence of social skills and inability to go a day without posting over 75-80 posts on Topix, I am going to assume that you have no degrees.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hint: SuperFAG, if you want to invent degrees that you claim to have, you might make sure the university you claim to have attended actually has such degrees.
And they have as evidenced in the above links. I will look out blueprints for how to build a time machine for your next demand of having to watch my graduation ceremonies in person.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46843 Jan 26, 2013
Mikko wrote:
bsfoot is a troll
Who serves as an excellent time killer; it gives his life purpose.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46844 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So what you are saying is...
We know whenever you start a sentence that way that you are going to lie about what you insist I have said but you just can't find that quote.

Side bets?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46845 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
... that what I see you post is not what I see you post but what you want me to believe you post based on nothing but what you think you post even if what I see you post says differently.
Clearly, when you lied about your two degrees in "politics" you at least knew better than to claim you got them in English.

Translation?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46846 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If the Queen had selected a non Tory PMn.
Goalposts:

SuperFAG asserts that Macmillan was 'elected' by his party to be nominated by the Queen as PM.

Barefoot2626 proves: there was no election, Macmillan was appointed by the Queen who asked advice of three senior Conservatives.

I.E.: Barefoot2626 correct, SuperFAG wrong.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46847 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
Another strawman: I have never denied that worship can take place in public schools.
follow the thread, SuperFag.

You are not the only NotBot in the audience.

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
John 3:16 42 min Shizle 70
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 52 min Liam R 10,778
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 244,886
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 1 hr Shizle 20
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Strel 20,589
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 8 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,657
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 12 hr Shizle 17
More from around the web