In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 47711 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.

Roy Bryant

Carrollton, GA

#16232 Jun 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel that (A)theist bigotry.
[/sincerity]
PS: Let me know when all you bigots agree on my religion, it's all a little confusing being a Jew and a Muslin and a Christian and a Fundamentalist at the same time.
I thought your religion was getting down on your knees and worshiping cock.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16233 Jun 14, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a terrible definition of "intolerant", since it depends on a definition of "tolerant".
Alright...
Tolerance:
GEEZ, pot kettle black big time.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16234 Jun 14, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
It seems that you view of "tolerance" is not what the dictionary says.
Funny how I got my definition directly from the dictionary (direct quote) and you say it's not what it says.

You are a big c/s liar. It's exactly what it says.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16235 Jun 14, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Allegorically sound, you say? That sounds damned strong. That's Jack and the Beanstalk strong, huh? Or stronger.
Don't forget with all of that allegory, there's more: the soul is also allegorical, sin is allegorical, the resurrection was an allegory, and Jesus himself is a metaphor. Which is why worship, prayer, and religious observation are empty gestures. All of the above would have to be literally true to matter, not allegory. The fox and the grapes is allegory. These things do not suffice as the foundation for a world view. They're not even a good idea.
An allegory is an illustrative example of a principle important to instruction in a worldview.

Your strawmen get weaker with each use.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16236 Jun 14, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<And the fact that you attribute this opinion of yours on the fact I am an atheist
No: I attribute this to you being a big c/sing liar.

I don't know what your religious belief is, and I don't believe when you say you are an atheist, frankly.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16237 Jun 14, 2012
Roy Bryant wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought your religion was getting down on your knees and worshiping cock.
I see you have the mark of the belt buckle on your forehead and it is for you something you do five times a day.
rider

Ishpeming, MI

#16238 Jun 14, 2012
THE SECRET RIGHT VOLUME ONE-Josh Reeves(HIGH DEF ...
May 31, 2010 ... COMING SOON THE SECRET RIGHT VOLUME 2,UNTIL THEN WE PRESENT
FOR THE FIRST TIME VOLUME ONE IN HIGH DEFINITION.

- 184k -

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#16239 Jun 14, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
An allegory is an illustrative example of a principle important to instruction in a worldview.
Your strawmen get weaker with each use.
Buck!

What's up?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16240 Jun 14, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to define free will for us to decide if you're talking about what others are talking about. I'm pretty well convinced that free will as I define it is an illusion.
Worse, even if will is not determined by the brain or anything else, it would be pretty near impossible to demonstrate that will is free or uncaused.
And worse yet, free will means indeterminate will, and thus will that nobody can know in advance - nobody, not a god, and not even the self that apparently generated it.
Have you ever provided a definition of free will that would clearly distinguish it from other things that are NOT free will. or that would allow us to decide wither something in question qualified as free will?
Look at how I give lip service to the idea that you might do that, knowing full well that I will be the one to have to provide a definition of free will, including an operational definition.
My actual purpose here will be to show how you evade, in part with the deliberate choice to blur language and keep it indistinct. As chief obfuscator, your job will be to prevent a clear definition of free will - including a test - from emerging, so that you can continue to refer to free will as if it has definite properties, without having to say what those are.
Now, what is free will as you mean it?
With an omniscient god, there is no "in advance".

Everyone knows what free will is. Except you, apparently.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16241 Jun 14, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha
I like this.
And now we wait.
Hold your breath.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16242 Jun 14, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>I have found that some people, both theists and non-theists, ignore evidence that does not support their point of view. You seem to be in that group of theists who has such a fierce need to believe you are correct that you will ignore any evidence produced at any time and any place if it would mean you had to rethink your position.
Intelligence does not, unfortunately, rid one of this tendency.
Was that evidence?

No wonder I ignored it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16244 Jun 14, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
God has been abolished in California.
It was done by initiative. Proposition 666.
Still want to come out here?
They can abolish a deity but can't balance a budget.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16245 Jun 14, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hang on a moment.
Let's say the omniscient entity (let's call it god, ok?) knows you are going to wear a green shirt.
Can you don a blue one?
If you say yes, no omniscience dude. Atemporal or not, he got it wrong.(Less'n he's color blind.)
Don't engage in tautological glossolalia.
The choice causes the knowledge, not vice versa.

It doesn't know you will wear the green shirt unless you choose to wear the green shirt.

If you choose to wear the blue shirt, it knows you will choose to wear the blue shirt.

The omniscience had no effect on your choice, or free will.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16246 Jun 14, 2012
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Free will cannot cause omniscience, because God is supposedly omniscient before humans with free will arrived.
How about the "God can do anything because it's God, logic be damned" argument? It's akin to taking your marbles and going home in a huff.
I'll correct you.

The assertion is not that free will caused the omniscience. The assertion is that a particular choice of free will caused the knowledge of the particular choice, and the choice is unaffected by the knowledge.

Your argument is a fallacy based on displaced causation. Omniscience has no effect on free will.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16247 Jun 14, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>On this we agree..to an extent.
But what is the purpose of creating humans just so they can learn they don't know sh*t?
Personally, I have always found that the more I know, the more questions I have. That goes with math, science, child rearing, cooking and a spiritual quest. But there is no purpose in a spiritual quest that has no end goal and only ends in 'you don't know sh*t'. If you start out with that assumption, you would never complete the quest. You would never find any true meaning.
This only means that knowledge is not the purpose.

To "know" things is fine. The problem is when the ego (devil, serpent) leads one to believe that knowledge takes him beyond his source (God).

"My crown is on my heart, not my head. It is a crown few kings will wear".

-Shakespeare

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16248 Jun 14, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see that message in the Adam and eve story at all.
It says , "I am a magical being who will provide all your needs unless you figure out how to provide your own."
It is pure fairy tale. There is absolutely no allegorical value to this story. It has no basis in reality.
I didn't expect you to see it.

Jewish and Christian scholars don't even get it.

Autonomy of the self vs. unitive harmony.

I could recommend a book, if you like.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#16249 Jun 14, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> Great books. Pure fantasy. Better fantasy than the Bible.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a fiction or fantasy book that isn't more compelling than the Bible.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16250 Jun 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you presuppose the why to not be about the mechanics. There's a certain amount of arrogance in doing that - you are force fitting the picture to be entirely about humans. And, in your belief system, it's about "souls" that are ever learning, moving toward something.
You're welcome to have this belief system. It won't add explanatory power to biological science, but it may be comforting to you.
It's no less arrogant to assume the "why" is only the mechanics.

My belief is not just about humans.

"If you can't see God in everything, you can't see it in anything".

Forgot the author.

Somebody decided that religion should be about something distant, separate from ourselves. They decided that ***, whatever one likes to call it, should be like a cosmic bell hop who, if beseeched, would bring things.*** would differentiate between people based on the beseeching, or their merit, or their purity.

Which is the exact opposite of what *** is, at least as far as what all insight I can gain into the subject says.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16251 Jun 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a fiction or fantasy book that isn't more compelling than the Bible.
Maybe, but some of the Bible is profound.

I never understood how, if God exists, he is assumed to have spoken to one small group of people at one time in history, and gave them His final word on all things.

For instance, Paul never met Jesus. But his paranormal visions of Jesus are practically the full basis of Christianity. And Paul's teachings do not agree with what we have of Jesus' words.

But in 2012, if someone has a paranormal experience, or a NDE, if it disagrees with any scripture, he will be labeled evil.

Yet they meet every Sunday morning to celebrate the paranormal visitations of a deceptive Pharisee.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#16252 Jun 14, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck!
What's up?
It's good here.

Start my repo job this weekend.

$40 per hook.

Got me a new set of brass knuckles.

Actually, I stole them.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min USAsince1680 1,250,640
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Dr Guru 192,011
State Secretary Sex Tape LEAKED 11 min Dan evans 2
News Baltimore homicide rate soars as ex-mayor annou... 29 min groidsmashet 13
News Marriage equality good for Missourians 33 min mike 3
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 38 min Chimney1 168,622
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 41 min Black Power 2,038
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Brian_G 332,504
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr IND 186,108
More from around the web