In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

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.

Comments (Page 2,298)

Showing posts 45,941 - 45,960 of47,725
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47726
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47727
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Cupar, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Cupar, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47730
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47731
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47732
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47733
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Cupar, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47734
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47735
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47736
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Cupar, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47738
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a bad habit of ignoring refutations and pretending that they never happened.
You have the imagination that insists they do, SuperFAG.

No one living soul is surprised you Britished out of the bet, SuperFAG.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47739
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
The argument was that Macmillan's appoint as a popular,
You are a m/r c/s liar, SuperFAG.

As I said... from unanimous... it becomes "popular".

Funny how that is, SF.
SupaAFC wrote:
Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM.
But of course, no one here would expect anything less of someone who tried to Britished his way out of a bet.
SupaAFC

Cupar, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47740
Mar 19, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the imagination that insists they do, SuperFAG.
Then I must be imagining that the multitude of pages in this thread do not exist. The posts and the words they contain - every single one of them - are all in my head.

Is that the case? Is this thread only a few posts long? Do they only contain the posts you do not ignore? Tell me - just how does reality function in Barefootland?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one living soul is surprised you Britished out of the bet, SuperFAG.
"No one" living soul is surprised that you have never shown where a bet was agreed.

You avoid this like the plague despite giving lectures about the importance of providing quotes.

That is because, manchild, you are lying through your teeth about a bet taking place. And you know it just as much as everybody else.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a m/r c/s liar, SuperFAG.

As I said... from unanimous... it becomes "popular".
Yet you refuse to let go of this scant victory and address the point that both words are meant to convey.

You know full well what the point was, and how it, along with the other points (Macmillan being a Conservative, an MP) all demonstrate that your claim that Macmillan's appointment as PM being a blow to British democracy is laughable.

Yet you, with the one meagre pawn, still declare victory.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how that is, SF.

SupaAFC wrote:
Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM.
But of course, no one here would expect anything less of someone who tried to Britished his way out of a bet.
"Okay, I know you took my bishops, my rooks, all my pawns, my knights, my Queen, and cornered my King with a check-mate, but I took your pawn so nyeh, I win!"

Same old Barefoot, being deliberately obtuse to avoid the argument.
Siro

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47741
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If Barefoot said that then he is quite correct.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is the titular head of state or as our proper title is -'The Commonwealth of Australia'.
The Queens representative in Australia is the Governor-General and the G-G has control over the army and can dismiss the federal government/parliament but the reverse is not true.
The Queen acts on the advice of her representatives and ministers and on that advice she sanctions their actions.
.
Sounds like a monarchy to me......

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47742
Mar 19, 2013
 
Monarchy of Australia

The Monarchy of Australia is a form of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign of Australia. The monarchy is a constitutional one, modelled on the Westminster style of parliamentary government, incorporating features unique to the Constitution of Australia.

The present monarch is Elizabeth II, styled Queen of Australia, who has reigned since 6 February 1952. She is represented in Australia by the governor-general, in accordance with the Australian constitution and Letters Patent from the Queen. In each of the states, the monarch is represented by a governor, appointed directly by the Queen on the advice of each of her respective state governments.

The Australian monarch, besides reigning in Australia, separately serves as monarch for each of fifteen other Commonwealth countries known as Commonwealth realms. This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain, but they are now independent of each other and are legally distinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Aust...
SupaAFC

Cupar, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47743
Mar 20, 2013
 
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
If Barefoot said that then he is quite correct.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is the titular head of state or as our proper title is -'The Commonwealth of Australia'.
The Queens representative in Australia is the Governor-General and the G-G has control over the army and can dismiss the federal government/parliament but the reverse is not true.
The Queen acts on the advice of her representatives and ministers and on that advice she sanctions their actions.
.
Sounds like a monarchy to me......
Only problem being that as a result of having a monarchs, Barefoot argues that countries are not democracies.

Is that the case for Australia? Are your Constitutions, parties and elections all meaningless?
SupaAFC

Cupar, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47744
Mar 20, 2013
 
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Monarchy of Australia
The Monarchy of Australia is a form of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign of Australia. The monarchy is a constitutional one, modelled on the Westminster style of parliamentary government, incorporating features unique to the Constitution of Australia.
I am sure Barefoot would love to read this.
Face the Facts

Aniwa, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47747
Mar 20, 2013
 
barefoot2626 is a typical lying hypocrite just like all the lefties. Say one thing do another. Lefties are lying. racist, intolerant bigots. and etc etc etc

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 45,941 - 45,960 of47,725
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••