In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,713

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 Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#47718 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre the man palming yourself off as a woman.
If you spend the same amount of time loitering around public toilets as you do here you might actually pick up a top who could tolerate your neurotic whinging and stir your back door gravy pot at the same time.
Poof
Still making assertions for people, that makes them inherently fallacies. You really are an idiot, you demonstrate why we should isolate Australia again.
Lincoln

United States

#47719 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre the man palming yourself off as a woman.
If you spend the same amount of time loitering around public toilets as you do here you might actually pick up a top who could tolerate your neurotic whinging and stir your back door gravy pot at the same time.
Poof
I d i o t !
Siro

Melbourne, Australia

#47720 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I know as much about KittenKoder as I do about quantum physics.
Then why did you bother opening your butthole to comment on it?
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I said you lie when you make stereotype-based attacks on atheists.
I said KK is a tranny, did I say an atheist tranny or an atheist poof?
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Barefoot's posts are quoted and unaltered every time I post. Because he cannot refute the posts, he plays victim and claims paraphrasing instead of actually explaining what he "really" meant.
He doesnt alter his posts because he doesnt need to, his arguments have been consistent because they ring true. You are the one reposting your brain dead pap time after time but changing a letter or word here and there. When you are being shown for the mental bankrupt that you are you change letters, words, jumble the words and so on to change the context. When Barefoot doesnt go along with your game all you can say is that he has no answers and when he does play you at your dialectic games and proceeds to beat you all you do is say that he isnt dealing with the original matter at hand.
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me, then, where I have ever "refuted" Barefoot's arguments based on his religious beliefs. Considering we have for the most part been debating about British politics, you are going to need a lot of luck.
You know what I was referring to wasnt to do with Barefoot, it was to do how you keep claiming that I am Christian and then proceed to use your shrink wrapped,'peoples approved' anti-christian rants at me.
Such as the following........
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
The chances of you not being a Christian are as likely as the Pope not being a Catholic. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember my first point about you making lies based on stereotype-driven attacks on atheists?
And your responses validate my 'attacks'
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it goes like this:
If person A makes attacks on atheists, brings up the same arguments as Topix Christians, uses the same arguments as Topix Christians, alludes to a concept of "sin", and does not declare what his or her faith is if it is not Christian, then it is highly likely that he or she is a Christian.
Let me rephrase it in a simple way that you will understand:
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...
And this has what to do with me?
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus cries when you make ad hominem attacks.
Not my concern.
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you are. Bigotry leads to stereotyping that leads to strawmen.
You, my bigot, need to discern what is in your head with what it reality.
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stop stereotyping atheists.
Oh the bigotry!
I'm surprised you havent called me a racist or a misogynist or a global warming denier or whatever PC nonsense slogans you have at your disposal (approved by the Topix atheists peoples democratic collective of course)
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are not telling lies then help Barefoot in explaining what he supposedly really means in his posts. To date all he can say in response is either nothing or throw a tantrum.
His posts are in plain non-PC spinned english, everyone else can understand them.
Why cant you?
Or are you waiting for the collective to give you permission to actually examine them?
.
Pissant
Siro

Melbourne, Australia

#47721 Mar 19, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
I d i o t !
Oh its mr fifty cents each way with his lovey dovey suck up attempts to those that would happily kill him.
Go try this crap in north korea and see how far you get
Siro

Melbourne, Australia

#47722 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still making assertions for people, that makes them inherently fallacies. You really are an idiot, you demonstrate why we should isolate Australia again.
Whatever you filthy poof.....go and hug lincoln

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#47723 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you filthy poof.....go and hug lincoln
All you can do is make assertions for people because you lack any original thought in your own head, so you have to try to think for other people. You personal insecurities are very evident in your posts here, as well as your perverse mind.
Siro

Melbourne, Australia

#47724 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
All you can do is make assertions for people because you lack any original thought in your own head, so you have to try to think for other people. You personal insecurities are very evident in your posts here, as well as your perverse mind.
More blahblahblah from a poofter who thinks he is female because he wears a dress and sits down to take a wizz

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#47725 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
More blahblahblah from a poofter who thinks he is female because he wears a dress and sits down to take a wizz
Projecting your fantasies onto others as well, you really are a deluded mess.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47726 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I know as much about KittenKoder as I do about quantum physics.
Or politics.

Or Civics.

Or the ability to tell the truth.

Is the United Kingdom a monarchy? Yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47727 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
So do fundamentalists when they make up definitions for evolution.
I am responsible for what I say.

You, on the other hand, are not.

That is why I can smack the snot out of you and prove you to be the m/f c/s coward liar you are: using what you say. Quoting you exactly.

Not a single person in this forum expect you to be a man of your word- your word is, of course, worthless.

You Britished on your bet.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47728 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you bother opening your butthole to comment on it?
Because you asked what you were not telling the truth about. Do you suffer from short-term memory loss?
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
I said KK is a tranny, did I say an atheist tranny or an atheist poof?
Your fascination with the transgender community, whether KittenKoder is one or not, is not my concern.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesnt alter his posts because he doesnt need to, his arguments have been consistent because they ring true.
So you are saying that Barefoot is correct when he argues
that Britain is not a democracy because it has a monarch?

That means that Australia is also not a democracy.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one reposting your brain dead pap time after time but changing a letter or word here and there. When you are being shown for the mental bankrupt that you are you change letters, words, jumble the words and so on to change the context.
When people make claims they are expected to back them up with evidence.

Show me where I have ever altered Barefoot's posts. That means actually looking at the quotes I have posted and showing deliberate altering.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text> When Barefoot doesnt go along with your game all you can say is that he has no answers and when he does play you at your dialectic games and proceeds to beat you all you do is say that he isnt dealing with the original matter at hand.
And that is true. Because he has not rebuttal for the fact that, for instance, Macmillan's appointment to PM did not remotely damage British democracy, he pounced on a word I wrongly used, called me a liar, and trumpeted victory based on that word alone.
In other words, he used a red herring to avoid the argument itself. Took a pawn and claimed checkmate.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what I was referring to wasnt to do with Barefoot, it was to do how you keep claiming that I am Christian and then proceed to use your shrink wrapped,'peoples approved' anti-christian rants at me.
I shall say it again: the chances of you not being a Christian are as likely as the Pope not being a Catholic.

You are not the first, and will probably not be the last, poster on these forums to claim not to be a Christian, then a month or two down the line start throwing out threats of eternal hellfire when someone has finally pushed you over the edge.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
And your responses validate my 'attacks'
Of course they do. You will interpret anything and everything to fit in with your preconceived stereotypes - that is how confirmation bias works.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>And this has what to do with me?
The fact that you argue like a typical Christian on these forums who has an axe to grind with atheists.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47729 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my concern.
Does your deity tell you to call others names?
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the bigotry!
I'm surprised you havent called me a racist or a misogynist or a global warming denier or whatever PC nonsense slogans you have at your disposal (approved by the Topix atheists peoples democratic collective of course)
You are really not helping your "not a Christian" claim with diatribes such as this.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
His posts are in plain non-PC spinned english, everyone else can understand them.
Why cant you?
Or are you waiting for the collective to give you permission to actually examine them?
For being in "plain non-PC spinned english" it sure is interesting how Barefoot is laughed at by pretty much everyone who has the misfortune of reading his posts.

That includes atheists and Christians, even some of the more conservative, science-sceptical slant who regularly cross swords with me or other atheists on these forums.

Only you, for reasons known only to yourself, see sense in what Barefoot's posts.

Which means that you agree with him that Australia is a monarchy, governed by the Queen, and therefore you do not live in a democratic state.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47730 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
So you are saying that Barefoot is correct when he argues
that Britain is not a democracy because it has a monarch?
That means that Australia is also not a democracy.
"What is a logical fallacy?

All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument. Also, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true. "

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47731 Mar 19, 2013
Funny how SuperFAG cannot answer the same question that I have answered dozens of times:

Is the United Kingdom a monarchy? Yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47732 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you bother opening your butthole to comment on it?
Don't bother making any bets with SuperFAG... if he loses, he'll just British out of it...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47733 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
For being in "plain non-PC spinned english" it sure is interesting how Barefoot is laughed at by pretty much everyone who has the misfortune of reading his posts..
Funny how Barefoot smacks the sh!t out of you, SuperFAG.

Funny how you Britished out of the bet you set up.

NotBots: an embarrassment to all who say they are atheist.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47734 Mar 19, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Or politics.
Or Civics.
Remember when I refuted your claim that universities did not give out Politics degrees? I sure do.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the ability to tell the truth.
Remember when I asked you to show the quote where I ever agreed to a bet?

You still cannot because you know that you are lying. Bricks and glass houses spring to mind.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the United Kingdom a monarchy? Yes or no?
Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am responsible for what I say.

You, on the other hand, are not.
You are responsible for claiming that I chickened out of a bet. That means that you are responsible for showing where I ever agreed to one in the first place.

Go on, manchild - fulfill your responsibilities.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why I can smack the snot out of you and prove you to be the m/f c/s coward liar you are: using what you say. Quoting you exactly.
Alright then - quote me "exactly" showing where I agreed to a bet. Since you are adamant that I did it should be a piece of cake for you to do.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a single person in this forum expect you to be a man of your word- your word is, of course, worthless.

You Britished on your bet.
Only problem being you never bother showing where a bet was agreed.

That is because - shock of shocks - you are lying and you know it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"What is a logical fallacy?
Congratulations on pasting a quote about logical fallacies. Can you explain how arguing that Australia is a monarchy considering its head of state is the Queen is a logical fallacy when it is the same argument you use against Britain?
barefoot2626 wrote:
Funny how SuperFAG cannot answer the same question that I have answered dozens of times:
Is the United Kingdom a monarchy? Yes or no?
Funny how Barefoot cannot answer the same question that I have answered dozens of times:

Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
Don't bother making any bets with SuperFAG... if he loses, he'll just British out of it...
So says the manchild who Britished out of a bet regarding his Facebook link being the Encyclopedia Britannica.
barefoot2626 wrote:
Funny how Barefoot smacks the sh!t out of you, SuperFAG.
You "smack the sh!t" out of me by defeating strawmen and red herrings - addressing about five percent of my posts, ignoring the rest.

You never actually grapple with the arguments themselves.
barefoot2626 wrote:
Funny how you Britished out of the bet you set up.

NotBots: an embarrassment to all who say they are atheist.
Yet when pressed to show where a bet ever took place, you go silent.

You deliberately ignore this.

Deliberately.

That is because, oh cowardly manchild, you have no arguments, no legs to stand on, so must make up lies to salvage a rapidly sinking ship.

Why do you lie, manchild?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47735 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember when I refuted your claim that universities did not give out Politics degrees? I sure do.
I've ignored it continuously, especially now that you have moved the goalposts.

Notice: you have no quote.

Like when you asserted that Macmillan was the unanimous choice of his party and I proved that you are full of cr@p (again) and you have since then changed it to he was a popular choice.

As we all know: you are a lying sack of sh!t and you British out of a bet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47736 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Can you explain how arguing that Australia is a monarchy
Funny how when SuperFAG gets caught with his pants around his ankles in the sheep barn, he insists on creating an argument I have never been part of and picking out my position for me.

Is the United Kingdom a monarchy, yes or no?

Do try to remember: I pointed out the USA was a republic a long time before you.

And the sun does rise in the east.

Wipe your chin, SuperFAG.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47737 Mar 19, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've ignored it continuously, especially now that you have moved the goalposts.
You have a bad habit of ignoring refutations and pretending that they never happened.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice: you have no quote.
Notice: you ignored the refutation anyway.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like when you asserted that Macmillan was the unanimous choice of his party and I proved that you are full of cr@p (again) and you have since then changed it to he was a popular choice.
As we all know: you are a lying sack of sh!t and you British out of a bet.
The argument was that Macmillan's appoint as a popular, democratically-elected politician who was a member of the incumbent party in government demonstrated that his appointment reflected the democratic values and results of the general election of 1955.

That is the king of the argument.

You, on the other hand, jumped onto a pawn - a wrong word - and completely ignored the argument.

If there is one thing we have learned about Barefoot, it is that he will be as pedantic as he possibly can if it means he can wriggle out of the core points of the debate.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how when SuperFAG gets caught with his pants around his ankles in the sheep barn, he insists on creating an argument I have never been part of and picking out my position for me.
So you are saying that I just made up an argument where you copied and pasted a quote about logical fallacies in response to an analogy about Australia being a monarchy?

Have I got that right? It sure reads that way. Perhaps you can now, for once, "properly" explain what you meant instead of going into a tantrum.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Is the United Kingdom a monarchy, yes or no?
Is the United States a republic, yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do try to remember: I pointed out the USA was a republic a long time before you.
Not by answering yes or no but by expanding by saying that America is both a republic and a democracy.

You took liberties to circumvent your own question by adding additional information, yet when people do the same regarding Britain you scream that we must only answer with a yes or no.

In other words, you contradicted yourself as per usual and pretty much declared that we must play by your rules, but you do not have to.

You say you have answered the question? Excellent. Answer it using your own rule:

Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min thetruth 14,428
why? 50 min geezerjock 1
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 1 hr thetruth 39
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr thetruth 274
Christianity Created Hitler 1 hr thetruth 77
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 3 hr thetruth 1,225
Richard Dawkins needs to get a life 6 hr Thinking 17
More from around the web