In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51414 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.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#31370 Jul 29, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll insult you when, how, and to the extent that I feel like.
When I feel like you deserve a considerate response, I'll give you one, but that doesn't mean I won't poke fun at you when I do it.
It's just a game and you're very good at it.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31371 Jul 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally, some honesty from you!
Unreal.
You're correct. You offered no argument.
Right. I offered a factual statement.

"Allelic frequency change is not the definition of evolution".

Would you like to have it again?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31372 Jul 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering I am the one who originally posted the excerpt from the Constitution it would seem obvious I knew what it says. I made a post agreeing with him and out of that entire post all Buck took from it was a chance to tell me I was wrong about using a word I felt was interchangeable. I have seen some people put a ridiculous emphasis on needing to be right all the time but correcting people agreeing with them on a semantic basis kind of pushes the limits.
And barefoot made a stupid post and instead of just saying so I try as a courtesy to place the fault at my feet saying I didn't understand it so he could have the opportunity to clarify and instead he tries to be a smartass and insult me.
As people know I have no problem rolling up my sleeves and getting in the mud but I have to say it is not often I get two people being who respond to kindness with hostility. I found both exchanges to be enlightening.
It was not semantic.

Favoring religion is contitutionally permissible. An establishment by Congress is not.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31373 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Improbable events will not necessarily occur. They might.
Something possible does not mean something actual.
And it is proof of nothing to point to a highly improbable event once you know the event has occured - as his genetic makeup.
It's really funny watching you trying to "argue" against the fact that Creationism / ID is a pile of made up bullsh*t spread around by desperate neocon politicians.

What's funny is that none of your arguments are grounded in any facts. Since you are a Creationist, you are trying (and failing) to lie about god and get more people to follow your silly, infantile cult.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31374 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You presented proof of evolution - changing allele frequency?
So what? Nobody doubts that.
Lol, "proof of evolution". Try "fact of evolution" you braindead Creationist.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#31375 Jul 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering I am the one who originally posted the excerpt from the Constitution it would seem obvious I knew what it says. I made a post agreeing with him and out of that entire post all Buck took from it was a chance to tell me I was wrong about using a word I felt was interchangeable. I have seen some people put a ridiculous emphasis on needing to be right all the time but correcting people agreeing with them on a semantic basis kind of pushes the limits.
And barefoot made a stupid post and instead of just saying so I try as a courtesy to place the fault at my feet saying I didn't understand it so he could have the opportunity to clarify and instead he tries to be a smartass and insult me.
As people know I have no problem rolling up my sleeves and getting in the mud but I have to say it is not often I get two people being who respond to kindness with hostility. I found both exchanges to be enlightening.
You're just too nice Skom. But that's why I enjoy your posts and interacting with you.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31376 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not using "respecting" in that sense - of showing respect.
"Respecting" means "with respect to".
Congress shall make no law with respect to establishment of religion...
Meaning, Congress will not legislate for it nor against it.
I disagree

If it meant 'in respect to' it would have 'in respect to' and the second part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" would have become redundant since it already stating you can make no law concerning religion.

It means exactly what is says meaning no law favoring religion and no law prohibiting religion.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31377 Jul 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Creationist/ID friend, whom you labeled "scientist," who believes that Adam and Eve were the first humans, denies that.
You understand what the ID people are saying better than he does. He mostly writes Creationist garbage and tells us it's ID - hence you were scolding him before that ID people believe in evolution.
The thing you ID people fail at is understanding how the mechanisms of evolution work. It's too intellectually hard for you, I guess. So you give up and say "god...ahem, I mean some intelligence cause...did it!"
So...what testable predictions does the ID inference make?
That complex systems will be irreducibly complex.

The prediction has been tested, and supported by the testing results.

Produce where I labeled him a scientist. You are lying again.

I said he is more of a scientist than you. That's a low bar, and it is not to say he is a scientist.

You committed materialists reject ID because it is intellectually too hard for you. So you give up and say, "oh gosh, I guess Darwin diddit".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31378 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It was not semantic.
Favoring religion is contitutionally permissible. An establishment by Congress is not.
Where do you get laws can be passed favoring a religion?

Jefferson's Wall of separation clarifies what he meant prior to that excerpt

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state"

http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_sta...

He believed it was strictly between man and his God and governemnt was to play no role. How from that can one conclude governemnt can pass laws favoring a religion?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31379 Jul 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree
If it meant 'in respect to' it would have 'in respect to' and the second part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" would have become redundant since it already stating you can make no law concerning religion.
It means exactly what is says meaning no law favoring religion and no law prohibiting religion.
Wrong. It would be meaningless to prohibit making a law "showing respect to" an establishment of religion.

"Respecting" means "with respect to".

And this has no affect on the free exercise clause, it would not then be redundant. "concerning religion" and "establishment of religion" are not the same thing.

A law could infringe on free exercise without being a law with respect to establishment. For instance, a taxing of tithes and offerings would inhibit free exercise, but do nothing with respect to establishment of a government religion.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31380 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That complex systems will be irreducibly complex.
Debunked Creationist bullsh*t.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The prediction has been tested,
And it failed because its unscientific religious bullsh*t.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
and supported by the testing results.
Creationist lie, your religion has nothing to do with science.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Produce where I labeled him a scientist. You are lying again.
If you claim your cult is scientific, why do you attack science?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I said he is more of a scientist than you. That's a low bar, and it is not to say he is a scientist.
You don't even know what science is, you still think humans rode on dinosaurs, your still have the mindset of a id who believes in santa, except he's all grown up now and the belief is no longer cute.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You committed materialists reject ID because it is intellectually too hard for you. So you give up and say, "oh gosh, I guess Darwin diddit".
Materialism isn't an "ism". We live in a material universe where unmaterial things aren't real.

Materialism is a bullsh*t terminology used by people who don't understand science.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31381 Jul 29, 2012
Science tests the material world (everything that is)

Creationists test the unmaterial world (their imaginations)

That's right Buck, your beliefs are bullh*t and not grounded in any form of science.

You are a liar, and I think you know it already.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31382 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. It would be meaningless to prohibit making a law "showing respect to" an establishment of religion.
The law cited by Skombolis is designed to keep bullsh*t cults like Creationism out of government. And thank goodness, you guys tried to indoctrinate Children by lying to them in schools, you shameless people.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Respecting" means "with respect to".
And this has no affect on the free exercise clause, it would not then be redundant. "concerning religion" and "establishment of religion" are not the same thing.
Yu're wrong, the law keeps your bullsh*t out of the parts of society that desperately need a dose of sanity.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31383 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. It would be meaningless to prohibit making a law "showing respect to" an establishment of religion.
"Respecting" means "with respect to".
And this has no affect on the free exercise clause, it would not then be redundant. "concerning religion" and "establishment of religion" are not the same thing.
A law could infringe on free exercise without being a law with respect to establishment. For instance, a taxing of tithes and offerings would inhibit free exercise, but do nothing with respect to establishment of a government religion.
By looking at the context. which makes more sense.

No laws favoring religion and no laws prohibiting religion?

or

No laws in respect to religion and no laws prohibiting religion?

The first example works. The second makes no sense as the second part would be unnecessary to even include.

And Congress can make laws in respect to religion. What they were not allowed to do is make laws leaning towards one religion or against another. Government was to remain silent in this regard as it is a matter of personal choice. Government can't pass laws to legally favor any religion and they can't pass laws to legally oppose any religion.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31384 Jul 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get laws can be passed favoring a religion?
Jefferson's Wall of separation clarifies what he meant prior to that excerpt
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state"
http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_sta...
He believed it was strictly between man and his God and governemnt was to play no role. How from that can one conclude governemnt can pass laws favoring a religion?
Jefferson was simply re-stating the First Amendment religion clauses.

Jefferson also had nothing to do with drafting the First Amendment, and was not in the country at the time.

Also, his statement "No power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the Federal government. It must then, rest with the States" - supports my position perfectly.

You might also take note that Jefferson, as president, appopriated federal tax money to build a Catholic church and pay the salary of a priest for a certain Indian tribe.

I'd say that favored Catholics over Jews, or even Baptists, at that particular juncture.

And I already mentioned imposition of non-polygamy requirements on the state of Utah.

There is no constitutional prohibition against favoring one religion over another. In fact, early court rulings stated that Christianity is part of the common law.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31385 Jul 29, 2012
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just too nice Skom. But that's why I enjoy your posts and interacting with you.
I know some people who would disagree LOL!

But I try to start off friendly and sometimes just let the current take me in whatever direction it is going!

:)

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31386 Jul 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get laws can be passed favoring a religion?
Jefferson's Wall of separation clarifies what he meant prior to that excerpt
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state"
http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_sta...
He believed it was strictly between man and his God and governemnt was to play no role. How from that can one conclude governemnt can pass laws favoring a religion?
You seem like a nice guy.

Don't fall prey to liberal urban mythology on the Constitution.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31387 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Jefferson was simply re-stating the First Amendment religion clauses.
Jefferson also had nothing to do with drafting the First Amendment, and was not in the country at the time.
Also, his statement "No power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the Federal government. It must then, rest with the States" - supports my position perfectly.
You might also take note that Jefferson, as president, appopriated federal tax money to build a Catholic church and pay the salary of a priest for a certain Indian tribe.
I'd say that favored Catholics over Jews, or even Baptists, at that particular juncture.
And I already mentioned imposition of non-polygamy requirements on the state of Utah.
There is no constitutional prohibition against favoring one religion over another. In fact, early court rulings stated that Christianity is part of the common law.
Why don't you get to the part where you tell us the earth is 6000 years old and that humans rode on the backs of dinoaurs?

Are you that much of a coward that your have to pad up your bullsh*t with propoganda first?

Why not just let your beliefs do the talking...

...oh, yeah, its because all your beliefs are massive unproven LIES!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31388 Jul 29, 2012
Creationism & ID is proven bullsh*t, but not just now, we're talking DECADES AGO.

That's how old your BULLSH*T is.

Its freaking 2012 and your Palin tried this sh*t back in 2005 and it FAILED.

Get a clue neocon tw*t, reagan's gone, come and join us in the real world now..where you don't have to lie about your brothers and sisters.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31389 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem like a nice guy.
Don't fall prey to liberal urban mythology on the Constitution.
Lol at the Creationist assuming all atheists are liberals. hahahah

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump endorses boycott of NFL 3 min RaidersPhart 47
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min Meow meow 1,603,013
News Dem Rep Who Compared Illegal Immigrants To Holo... 16 min Fed Up in North C... 1
News Charles Barkley 22 min Super Glue 4
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 26 min Agents of Corruption 10,303
News GOP health bill all but dead; McCain again deal... 34 min Tea Bag Residue C... 76
News GOP bill will offer Dreamers citizenship after ... 37 min Fed Up in North C... 2
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Patriot 289,270
More from around the web