In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 20 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

#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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46848 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Ironically you used Wikipedia
I've pointed out to you several times now and had to remind you yet again:

Wikipedia is not the orginal source of most of what it posts.

And I pointed out EXACTLY the original source.

And I pointed out to you THE LITTLE NUMBERS of what you say I quoted, i.e., Wikipedia is replete with FOOTNOTES you dumfudge..

I have have NEVER EVER 'disqualified' anyone from using Wikipedia as a source.

Anymore than I laugh and laugh and laugh at you for using it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46849 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If Britain cannot be a democracy due to having a monarch
The United King_dom is a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46850 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If Britain cannot be a democracy due to having a monarch, then America certainly cannot be a democracy due to having a president.
The USA is a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46851 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Remember that Einstein question you have run away from twice now?
Do you remember the have you stopped downloading kiddie porn question you refuse to answer, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46852 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
For instance, a democratically-elected Parliament.
You keep forgetting the fact that MOST of the UK parliament is appointed.

And waste my time having to remind you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46853 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
How about addressing the argument instead of clinging to word games?
Word games?

So when you lie about the nomination of Macmillan being the UNANIMOUS choice, you are insisting that I am not allowed to the point that you lie?

I am still waiting for you to announce that you were WRONG and that Macmillan was not only NOT the UNANIMOUS choice, but he was not even the UNANIMOUS choice of his own party.

Do you know what UNANIMOUS means, SuperFAG?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46854 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
Do tell us when you decide to attack the argument itself.
Do you mean like when you tried to excuse yourself out of saying that you were wrong by insisting it was a "grammatical error"?

SuperFAG?

In an assertion that had no grammatical errors?

Clearly: you can excuse yourself out of anything (as we have seen here) by insisting whatever you say was a 'grammatical error'.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46855 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
I shall assume that you will no longer be asking if Britain has a Constitution or not.
Sweetie: You know what happens when you ASSuME.

PS: I'm the one that had to remind you that the UK has no constitution.

PSS: It's still the United Kingdom, btw.

It will probably be "Britain" in twenty years, as Scotland, wales, and Cornwall dump you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46856 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Simple - I used the wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity.
He wasn't popular (a) and UNANIMOUS is one of those black and white questions that you insist don't exist.

I.E. It was an either unanimous choice... or you lied.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46857 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
And unanimous was meant to illustrate that Macmillan was the most popular choice.
Ah!

So I was correct when I said that you lied.

u·nan·i·mous
/yo&#862;o&#712;nan &#601;m&#601;s/
Adjective

1 (of two or more people) Fully in agreement.
2 (of an opinion, decision, or vote) Held or carried by everyone involved.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46858 Jan 26, 2013
u·nan·i·mous
/yo;s/
Adjective

1 (of two or more people) Fully in agreement.
2 (of an opinion, decision, or vote) Held or carried by everyone involve

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Sweden

#46860 Jan 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Meatball is a dolt.
stop watching yourself in the mirror while writing
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46861 Jan 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
We know that you like to play word games and selectively respond to posts in order to suit your situation.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, when you lied about your two degrees in "politics" you at least knew better than to claim you got them in English.
Have you checked the links yet?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Goalposts:
SuperFAG asserts that Macmillan was 'elected' by his party to be nominated by the Queen as PM.
Lie. Nobody else brought up Macmillan - you did.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Barefoot2626 proves: there was no election
Nobody claimed otherwise.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Macmillan was appointed by the Queen who asked advice of three senior Conservatives.
That is news to me - you never even claimed that the Queen asked for advice - you simply claimed that because Macmillan was not elected party leader then he was selected by the Queen.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I.E.: Barefoot2626 correct, SuperFAG wrong.
Barefoot making up strawman, SupaAFC refuting strawman.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>follow the thread, SuperFag.

You are not the only NotBot in the audience.
Then keep your other rants out of your responses to me - I have plenty of moles to whack already.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia is not the orginal source of most of what it posts.
Yet you do not mention this until you use Wikipedia. Why is that?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I pointed out EXACTLY the original source.
You did not even cite Wikipedia. I had to copy-paste your quote into Google as per usual.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I pointed out to you THE LITTLE NUMBERS of what you say I quoted, i.e., Wikipedia is replete with FOOTNOTES you dumfudge..
Yet when I use Wikipedia all you could comment on was the anonymous aspect of the website. Why, Barefoot, are you defending Wikipedia when you need to use it, but when I used it, you simply ignored the material?

Could it be confirmation bias? I think so.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have have NEVER EVER 'disqualified' anyone from using Wikipedia as a source.
Yes you have - you have even disqualified people from using -anything- from the internet since your words were along the lines of "anyone can find anything they want on the internet if they look hard to find it".

If you can ignore online material on that stipulation, then why do I, or anybody, have to listen to yours?
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46862 Jan 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
We know that you like to play word games and selectively respond to posts in order to suit your situation.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, when you lied about your two degrees in "politics" you at least knew better than to claim you got them in English.
You have completely ignored the links I posted.

Actions speak louder than words, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Goalposts:
SuperFAG asserts that Macmillan was 'elected' by his party to be nominated by the Queen as PM.
Lie. Nobody else brought up Macmillan - you did.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Barefoot2626 proves: there was no election
Nobody claimed otherwise.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Macmillan was appointed by the Queen who asked advice of three senior Conservatives.
That is news to me - you never even claimed that the Queen asked for advice - you simply claimed that because Macmillan was not elected party leader then he was selected by the Queen.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I.E.: Barefoot2626 correct, SuperFAG wrong.
Barefoot making up strawman, SupaAFC refuting strawman.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>follow the thread, SuperFag.

You are not the only NotBot in the audience.
Then keep your other rants out of your responses to me - I have plenty of moles to whack already.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia is not the orginal source of most of what it posts.
Yet you do not mention this until you use Wikipedia. Why is that?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I pointed out EXACTLY the original source.
You did not even cite Wikipedia. I had to copy-paste your quote into Google as per usual.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I pointed out to you THE LITTLE NUMBERS of what you say I quoted, i.e., Wikipedia is replete with FOOTNOTES you dumfudge..
Yet when I use Wikipedia all you could comment on was the anonymous aspect of the website. Why, Barefoot, are you defending Wikipedia when you need to use it, but when I used it, you simply ignored the material?

Could it be confirmation bias? I think so.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have have NEVER EVER 'disqualified' anyone from using Wikipedia as a source.
Yes you have - you have even disqualified people from using -anything- from the internet since your words were along the lines of "anyone can find anything they want on the internet if they look hard to find it".

If you can ignore online material on that stipulation, then why do I, or anybody, have to listen to yours?
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46863 Jan 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The United King_dom is a monarchy, yes or no?
Are mammals A, B and C the same?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The USA is a monarchy, yes or no?
You claim that Britain is not a democracy because it has a monarch, in other words, a head of state. By your logic, any country with a head of state is not a democracy.

By your logic, democracies simply cannot exist.

What was the Weimar Republic if it was not a democracy?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you remember the have you stopped downloading kiddie porn question you refuse to answer, yes or no?
Translation: Barefoot believes that if a case can be defined by one word, then it cannot be defined by any other word.

Albert Einstein can be defined as male, but not as anything else.

Your logic, your rules.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>You keep forgetting the fact that MOST of the UK parliament is appointed.

And waste my time having to remind you.
You keep forgetting that the Lords do next-to-nothing.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Word games?

So when you lie about the nomination of Macmillan being the UNANIMOUS choice, you are insisting that I am not allowed to the point that you lie?

I am still waiting for you to announce that you were WRONG and that Macmillan was not only NOT the UNANIMOUS choice, but he was not even the UNANIMOUS choice of his own party.

Do you know what UNANIMOUS means, SuperFAG?
Like a typical fundamentalist you think that being wrong equates to lying. I picked a wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity; you thus pounce on this word and proclaim to the world that I am a liar despite the fact that you, of all people, are exceptionally dishonest with Britain's government and refuse to address the substance of the argument.

To lie is to make a false statement with the intention to deceive; I did not.

By your logic, everyone who has ever been wrong has lied. This includes you, my manchild friend, when you claimed that the Weimar republic was not a democracy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean like when you tried to excuse yourself out of saying that you were wrong by insisting it was a "grammatical error"?
SuperFAG?
In an assertion that had no grammatical errors?
Clearly: you can excuse yourself out of anything (as we have seen here) by insisting whatever you say was a 'grammatical error'.
Since you are an expert on language, how about defining democracy at long last instead of clinging to a one-word victory?

Scores a point; claims knock out.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetie: You know what happens when you ASSuME.
If Britain is not a Constitutional monarchy by virtue of not having a Constitution, does that mean the source you cited calling us as such is wrong?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>He wasn't popular (a) and UNANIMOUS is one of those black and white questions that you insist don't exist.

I.E. It was an either unanimous choice... or you lied.[QUOTE]

He was certainly popular - your Wiki quote even stated as such when it said "near unanimous".

Whoops - you have just, by your own logic, lied.

Unless you can prove me wrong, of course.

[QUOTE who="barefoot2626"] <quoted text>
Ah!
So I was correct when I said that you lied.
Is being wrong and lying the same thing?

How about when you claimed that universities do not issue politics degrees? Were you lying then?(I see you have not even bothered admitting being wrong here).

How about when you claimed the Weimar republic was not a democracy? Is that a lie?

How about when you keep refusing to answer whether mammal A and B are the same due to all cases having to adhere to their umbrella terms? Was that lying?

By all means, tell me.
barefoot2626 wrote:
u·nan·i·mous
While you have that dictionary open, do you mind defining democracy for me?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46864 Jan 29, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that you like to play word games and selectively respond to posts in order to suit your situation.
Like the way I keep posting EXACT quotes and proving you are full of cr@p.

I am sure it must be annoying.

Especially when you try to do the same thing and have to instead post paraphrases of what you insist I must mean.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min The Dude 18,861
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 21 min Uncle Sam 238,401
News .com | What hope is there without God? 1 hr geezerjock 1
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr Pete-o 7,409
News Confessions of a black atheist 2 hr Thinking 476
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr ChristineM 2,095
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr ChristineM 6,694
More from around the web