In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

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

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49265 Jul 30, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you give a shit about the house of lords? I am off this thread, too many crazy people.
i SHAN'T SLEEP knowing you are not reading my posts!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49266 Jul 30, 2013
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
FYI, I am co-owner (with my husband (who you repeatedly lie about)) of a multi-million pound business
[/QUOTE]

Of course you are, and you are so busy you can't get away from the desk.

Multimillion dollar pound sounds more like the wheelchair capacity the British healthcare system installed so you could drive your Scooter up to the first floor flat you and your equally fat pussies live in.

Meow!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#49267 Jul 30, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa, difficult question there! Hmmm, I am not a scientist (obviously). But have read that gravity is not fully understood.
But it *is* measurable and testable. In fact, our theories about gravity have been tested for the last 400 years.
Also dark energy and dark matter not fully understood.
Both measurable and testable.
Could it be they they are not fully testable?
What is the difference between testable and 'fully' testable? Anything not testable, even in theory, is irrelevant because it doesn't interact in any measurable way.
How about the origin of the universe, and the origin of the laws of phsyics, could these be outside of science? I am asking cause I have no idea.
Actually, the theories about those, to be scientific theories, have to be testable. For example, the Big bang theory is based on general relativity, which is testable, on statistical mechanics, which is testable, and it testable in many particulars, from the abundances of light elements to the specific form of the background radiation.

Whether the laws of physics have an origin is still up for debate. Any theory of such would have to be testable, however, to be meaningful.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49268 Jul 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But it *is* measurable and testable.
If it isn't... I guess it doesn't exist.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#49269 Jul 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The members of the House of Lords are ELECTED.
You are FAT and your husband left you.
Since I have not been on this thread much lately, I may be very confused about whatever your argument with Christine is about, however the House of Lords is NOT elected.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49271 Jul 30, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I have not been on this thread much lately, I may be very confused about whatever your argument with Christine is about, however the House of Lords is NOT elected.
Let me make sure you are willing to crawl out on a limb and assert that the House of Lords... in the UK... let me be sure... is NOT elected?

Positive?

Are you sure you are not more comfortable with a number? E.G., 0 -
800 (or so, it moves a bit).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#49278 Jul 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it isn't... I guess it doesn't exist.
If it isn't measurable and testable, even in theory, then it doesn't exist. Correct.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#49279 Jul 30, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't either. I believe in one deity, God.
You are going to Hell if you die at this very moment in your current status. Sorry to have to tell you that, but I think you know that already.
Actually, I believe you are simply wrong. Hell is a myth. So is heaven. So is anything regarding a supernatural. But I think you know that already.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#49280 Jul 30, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately the schools have abandoned God. That's why you atheists are fully to blame for the current crime rates.
You serve a wicked god, Satan.
The crime rates have been going down over the last decade or two. We are far better off than when religion controlled the government. During that stage, routine torture that was literally medieval was common.

I serve no God. Satan is simply another of the many myths you promote in your ignorance and fear.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#49281 Jul 30, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and we are . I never saw an atheist organization help a soul during the tornado damage in Illinois and Kentucky. Only faith based and Christian groups showed up with food , water, money, lodging, carpentry, supplies, etc.
You lazy atheists just sat on your couches spending tax dollars bickering about a God that does exist.
Non-religious groups showed up. They simply didn't trumpet that they were non-religious. Religious groups tend to ignore the advice to not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. And yes, it was on exactly the issue of charity.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#49282 Jul 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me make sure you are willing to crawl out on a limb and assert that the House of Lords... in the UK... let me be sure... is NOT elected?
Positive?
Are you sure you are not more comfortable with a number? E.G., 0 -
800 (or so, it moves a bit).
I am just going by what the information posted on line says about the House of Lords, and how they are appointed, in some cases for life, and how they function, much similar to our Senate in Canada. There is nothing in the articles to even suggest that they are elected. I do not live in the UK nor have I ever been there, but there is a massive misunderstanding of both Canadian and UK politics by people who do not live in those countries, going as far as some stating that the Queen runs Canada, which if she ever dared try, we would likely laugh at her.

Yes, she has a ceremonial role, which is mostly conducted by a Canadian citizen who is appointed every so many years, and they "officially" do certain things, but in both countries, the elected House of Commons are the rulers, and they are elected.

Of course, as with the kind of hijinks that go on behind the scenes in the USA, with their rather bizarre form of government, what is said to happen, and what actually happens, could be two entirely different things.

Ultimately those with their hands in the right pockets tend to run things. Canada, though, is by no means as corrupt as the USA, nor have we had such bizarre leaders as the likes of the two Bushes, especially Jr Bush, who did enough in his two illegal terms to set the US back most of anything it gained in preceding decades, including getting it involved in two nonsense wars, which history will likely show were as big a disasters as the Vietnam fiasco. Granted the military personnel needed work, and the new technology need to be tested, and who better to test them on then some countries that pose a potential threat to US control of their oil sources.

Had, by some weird stroke of events, the USA been beaten in the wars that Bush started, he would surely have been executed as an international war criminal, or if not, he well should have been, however not approving of the death penalty, I would gladly have let him rot in prison for the rest of his life.

I wonder how the families of those young people from the USA who were killed or permanently maimed in those wars will deal with their traumas (hopefully not as they have in the past and hope that the next generation will follow in their father's footsteps and get killed in some senseless war too).

By the way, some years ago, percentage wise (percentage of total personnel from each country involved), Canada had the highest fatality rate of any countries, including the USA, in Afghanistan. I don't know where that figure stands now, since the change of approach to those wars has occurred. I have not paid a lot of close attention to those wars because after following US aggression for most of my life, it eventually gets boring. It however will soon be more personal as a close relative is leaving soon for 6 months in Afghanistan, even though a couple of family members had vowed to break limbs to prevent that from happening a few years ago.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49283 Jul 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it isn't measurable and testable, even in theory, then it doesn't exist. Correct.
Like quarks, eh?

Or your intelligence, eh?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49284 Jul 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The crime rates have been going down over the last decade or two.
There is no connection- putting aside the USA has been MORE religious over the last decade or two.

I guess you leave measurable proof to others.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49285 Jul 30, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
I am just going by what the information posted on line says about the House of Lords, and how they are appointed, in some cases for life, and how they function, much similar to our Senate in Canada.
no... I am not the person asserting the members of the House of Lords are elected.

If you follow the thread back you can see I (again) refuted something Skanque said and she was stupid enough (as in the Enigma case, as in the monarchy case, as in the law that requires Christian worship in UK schools) to insist she was right and I think it is amusing if you want to try to follow the logic she uses to insist the members of the House of Lords are elected...

Even though (well of course) the OFFICIAL website describes the appointments in rather exacting detail.

Well... of course putting aside it's ridiculous to 'have' to prove.

It is one of those mental deficiencies of someone with an ego who can't admit he/she is wrong even when presented with a mountain of irrefutable proof.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49286 Jul 30, 2013
boooots wrote:
I do not live in the UK nor have I ever been there, but there is a massive misunderstanding of both Canadian and UK politics by people who do not live in those countries, going as far as some stating that the Queen runs Canada, which if she ever dared try, we would likely laugh at her.
I find it amusing to run at my Canadian friends to remind them that the Queen of England (her royal highness blah blah blah et cetera east and west and where the sky is blue and water is wet) is the head of state in Canada.

However: we both know her role in (what's left of) the UK is far from merely ceremonial, though I would happily admit the subjects of the ream pay royally for a long and expensive list of... cermonials.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#49287 Jul 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no connection- putting aside the USA has been MORE religious over the last decade or two.
I guess you leave measurable proof to others.
From the Telegraph: "The number of Americans who describe their religious preference as "no religion" is now 20 per cent, according to a new study. There is "no evidence of a slowdown" in this tendency, which has risen from eight per cent in 1990 and 14 percent in 2000. Ethnic minorities remain generally more religious, but this has become less true as they have become increasingly integrated into American society. The number of Hispanics with no religious affiliation has risen by 9.7 per cent since 1990; the number of African-Americans by 13.7 percent."

Oh and btw, the title of the story is "America is becoming less religious"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/...

Time again for you to f*ck off with your bullsh*t barefoot.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#49288 Jul 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no connection- putting aside the USA has been MORE religious over the last decade or two.
I guess you leave measurable proof to others.
And here's a link to the study, you pig-ignorant piece of sh*t: http://sociology.berkeley.edu/sites/default/f...

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#49290 Jul 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the way you proved that the members of the House of Lords were appointed?
You sure showed me, Skanque!
I thought you had already agreed to that, or was that just another error you made that you hope will go away?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
contractually?
Context, Chubby.
Satire.
Have the postman explain it to you.
Yes that was an error, should have read congratulate, but look, contrary to your lies, I am perfectly able to accept my dyslexia sometimes means I make mistakes in spelling and grammar.

But of course you ignore your possible error so we assume that it was no error at all and you agree with my that the House of Lords is (in itís way) elected, thank you

All you have to do to extricate yourself from this screw up is admit you made an error but of course I realised that you project when you accused be of being unable to accept responsibility because you are unable to accept responsibility for you own screw ups.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the postman has been known to cry out "eUUUUGH".
I donít really give a toss what your postman cries out. I asked a question based on your post and you ignored it, you refused to respond, why? Bcause you are a pathetic, ignorant and stupid loosing scrounger and are frightened of the repercussions of your own post.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you are, and you are so busy you can't get away from the desk.
Multimillion dollar pound sounds more like the wheelchair capacity the British healthcare system installed so you could drive your Scooter up to the first floor flat you and your equally fat pussies live in.
Meow!
The company is busy, I sometimes am.
You are welcome to your wet dreams, just so long as in your rare lucid states, when your medication is not having to much effect on your thinking process, you realise they are dreams

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#49291 Jul 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like quarks, eh?
Or your intelligence, eh?
Again, quarks are detectable in a variety of ways. Collision experiments in the mid-60's showed there to be particles inside protons. Quarks are detectable through the properties of the particles they produce. In fact, one of the first predictions of the quark theory was the existence of a particle that was then confirmed. Since then, not just the original three quarks (up, down, strange) have been detected, but three more have been (charm, bottom, top). What we have NOT seen is a *lone* quark. But we have detected many quarks. Furthermore, the quark theory is testable: it makes very specific predictions about the types and properties of subatomic particles that can be tested in accelerators.

Intelligence is detectable in a variety of ways, including discussions like this.

Once again, to exist means to be detectable and testable, at least in theory.

Let me put it this way: how do you know there isn't an elephant in your room?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#49292 Jul 31, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
That's clear.
Cherry picking again? That is a christian trait, surely you cannot be a christian?

Oh wait as moment, of course you are, the deliberate ignorance is there for all to see.

A little heads up, you want to make fun of me with deliberate lies then be prepared to have fun made of your with the truth.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 23 min Joe fortuna 232,798
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Eagle 12 2,275
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr EXPERT 23,181
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr _Bad Company 120
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 7 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 8 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 9 hr thetruth 1,442
More from around the web