In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51437 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27203 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your creationist underbelly has been shown. Get over it.
See what I mean?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27204 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
'Evolution has no theoretical framework'
'Astrology is a valid scientific theory'
'Big Bang implies a creator'
Dammit Buck.
I am pretty aware of the low intellectual standards you set. I am pretty aware of how little you know of the topics you discuss. But damn... You stepped it up a notch.
See what I mean?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#27205 Jul 18, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Having read up on it, I ain't arguing.
That was during the Devonian extinction - one of the mass extinctions.

Evolution seems to go into overdrive at the brink of chaos, methinks.

You see the same with other extinctions:

- Devonian extinction brought forth Tiktaalik, meaning kingdom Animalia conquered the land

- Permian/Triassic brought forth Archosaurs as the dominant species

- Triassic/Jurassic extinction brought forth the dominance of the dinosaurs

- K-T extinction brought forth the reign of social animals, mammalia

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27206 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, maybe it is some sort of mass delusion, because I am pretty sure you claim that there is 'scientific evidence for reincarnation'.
Of course, that is a stupid statement, hey Buckster?
What I said:

'scientific evidence for reincarnation'

What she said I said:

'reincarnation is a scientifically proven fact'

Double Dumb, do you notice any difference in these two statements?

I know you claimed that every different definition of theory means the same thing, except for Behe's. Maybe this explains it.

But even you should see this distinction.

Too much gay music and porn?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#27207 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
Darwinism requires that the eye formed unguided and independently at least 40 times. In the study of statistics, the chance of that happening is far beyond what is agreed to be impossible.

But it's considered scientific fact.

You have a god need that deforms your thinking. What you consider impossible is anything that challenges that. Your uncorroborated data and conclusions cannot be trusted.

The scientists and mathematicians not only say that unguided evolution is possible, but also that there is no evidence for anything else.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this again, but nobody's arguing these issues except theists. The educated skeptics are mostly in agreement: the theory of evolution is correct in the main, and theistic objections are dishonest, and can be ignored.

You people don't seems to care about anything except justifying your god delusions. You don't care what damage you do in the process. You've set up think tanks to generate your propaganda and to inculcate it into young minds, and America is now a laughingstock, Hidingfromyou's evolution students hearing about Americans, to Behe featured on the Nova special on Kitzmiller, the world sees what American Christianity is doing to American children. You might as well just hit them in the head with a club.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27208 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
Very happy Birthday to Nelson Mandela!
In SA, we celebrate his birthday/legacy by donating 67 minutes to public service, be it working at a soup kitchen for the homeless, visiting cancer patients, or simply picking up garbage in the neighbourhood.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2012/07/18/m...
Or buy some of the rights to video of his funeral being sold to highest bidders.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#27209 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That was from a biology research journal.
Your ass is handed to you.
You are reduced to wisecracks.
It's an interesting study - what Darwinists do when I prove them wrong. Imam IAnus responds by saying he lost interest. Hiding responds by changing her statements and denying she made the original one. You respond with wisecracks which you think are funny, but are not at all.
Another psychological observation. You guys on here cannot compete with the likes of Michael Behe or myself, either intellectually or scientifically. So you have to resort to non-substantive ridicule. I might read up on the science of psychology to determine what pathology makes you do that. I might be able to help you.
I am open to a substantive, relevant response to the demonstration of Behe being correct on all points at Kitzmiller.
Be aware, if it is a lie or a wisecrack, as is your habit, I will likely not respond, since I have owned you in these exchanges.
And you never thanked me for providing a valid falsification for whale lineage, which you obviously could not do.
Buck, honestly, there is nothing to gain from any argument with you. The only reson I do so, is because I have large parts of slow going at work (some of it simple procrastination).

The fact is, it is impossible to have any argument with you, about anything related to natural science.

Your affirming of really stupid ideas such as 'Astrology is a valid theory','whale evolution has been falsified without fossil evidence','Big Bang implies a creator''Evolution has no framework' etc only shows that either 1) You are just as bored as us and trying to kill the time by making stupid arguments, or 2) you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't really care to enter those discussions with you, much like I don't care to engage the man at the old age home about his claims that he was taken away by a space ship.

I resort to wisecracks, because when someone like you is trying to present a scientific argument, it is kind of like watching a monkey fuck a doorknob.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27210 Jul 18, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a god need that deforms your thinking. What you consider impossible is anything that challenges that. Your uncorroborated data and conclusions cannot be trusted.
The scientists and mathematicians not only say that unguided evolution is possible, but also that there is no evidence for anything else.
Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this again, but nobody's arguing these issues except theists. The educated skeptics are mostly in agreement: the theory of evolution is correct in the main, and theistic objections are dishonest, and can be ignored.
You people don't seems to care about anything except justifying your god delusions. You don't care what damage you do in the process. You've set up think tanks to generate your propaganda and to inculcate it into young minds, and America is now a laughingstock, Hidingfromyou's evolution students hearing about Americans, to Behe featured on the Nova special on Kitzmiller, the world sees what American Christianity is doing to American children. You might as well just hit them in the head with a club.
I made no claim that unguided evolution is NOT possible.

And statistics is not a religious field.

You are arguing the issue, albeit poorly and incompetently, but claim it is only argued by theists.

You are incoherent.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27211 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, honestly, there is nothing to gain from any argument with you. The only reson I do so, is because I have large parts of slow going at work (some of it simple procrastination).
The fact is, it is impossible to have any argument with you, about anything related to natural science.
Your affirming of really stupid ideas such as 'Astrology is a valid theory','whale evolution has been falsified without fossil evidence','Big Bang implies a creator''Evolution has no framework' etc only shows that either 1) You are just as bored as us and trying to kill the time by making stupid arguments, or 2) you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't really care to enter those discussions with you, much like I don't care to engage the man at the old age home about his claims that he was taken away by a space ship.
I resort to wisecracks, because when someone like you is trying to present a scientific argument, it is kind of like watching a monkey fuck a doorknob.
Oh, so now you are losing interest?

"Hey IAnus. He's stealing from you!"

Bwahahhaahahahahahahhahaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa....

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#27212 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
What I said:
'scientific evidence for reincarnation'
What she said I said:
'reincarnation is a scientifically proven fact'
Double Dumb, do you notice any difference in these two statements?
I know you claimed that every different definition of theory means the same thing, except for Behe's. Maybe this explains it.
But even you should see this distinction.
Too much gay music and porn?
I read your utterly laughable post.

You did say 'scientific evidence for reincarnation'

It is still utterly laughable

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#27213 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
That was during the Devonian extinction - one of the mass extinctions.
Evolution seems to go into overdrive at the brink of chaos, methinks.
You see the same with other extinctions:
- Devonian extinction brought forth Tiktaalik, meaning kingdom Animalia conquered the land
- Permian/Triassic brought forth Archosaurs as the dominant species
- Triassic/Jurassic extinction brought forth the dominance of the dinosaurs
- K-T extinction brought forth the reign of social animals, mammalia
Yes.

Archæology rocks. No pun intended.

And I saw the younger Alvarez deliver a lecture at UPenn, back in the day.

DICONTINUITY AT THE K-T BOUNDARY!!!

D'you think any of the creationist/IDers even know what iriidium is?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#27214 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>

And statistics is not a religious field.
Statistics is not a religious field, but one easily usable to deceive those unaware. In first year statistics, many of the tricks people try to use were explained to us, meaning for someone who actually had higher mathematics and statistics, we see through that very quickly.

Probability studies are one area were you are easily fooled.

Let me give you an example of what ID does:

In SA, to win the lotto, you need to score 6 numbers out of 49. The probability is thus 13.998 million (or thereabouts, I don't have my calculator handy) to one.

Now, what are the odds for a man losing his arm, having a white Volvo and 2 dogs win the lotto?

ID 'scientists' tries to factor the loss of limb, make of the car, breed of the dogs, type of job he does, length of his penis and how many cups of coffee he drinks a day into the equation.

They then get a very low probability, and therefore say "See! It's nigh impossible! Design is proved!"

ID is a joke.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27215 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Right. I suspect you include Astrology in 'natural sciences' again?
<quoted text>
That is the proper one, based on fossil evidence.
<quoted text>
You don't have an idea what science is.
<quoted text>
That's the problem. Your ID people just look at the evidence and say 'Damn. That IS complex. Goddidit'
<quoted text>
Oh great. So people who believe Astrology is a valid science decides that the Whale hypothesis have been falsified. What's next? Proving that Santa Claus live in the North Pole?
<quoted text>
Lol. Your hacks do that without once mentioning a fossil find. I suppose you are stupid enough to fall for it.
So what's the ID position? Whales are fish?
<quoted text>
Astrology ain't science. Neither is ID.
So now you are rejecting population genetics as science, too?

You are a true believer, Double-Gay.

Oh, and population genetics does rely on fossil evidence. It is a key feature of the falsification. I did not personally go out and find them, if that's what you're getting at.

You know nothing about science. Your education has failed you, and so has your faith.

Hate to be cruel.

...well, I lied. I enjoy making a fool of you publicly.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#27216 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so now you are losing interest?
"Hey IAnus. He's stealing from you!"
Bwahahhaahahahahahahhahaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa....
Never had interest to begin with. You are clueless and uneducated.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27217 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
I read your utterly laughable post.
You did say 'scientific evidence for reincarnation'
It is still utterly laughable
Really?

OK. Laugh while you can.

Get really far out there on that limb.

Let's hear some more. Please.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27218 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Never had interest to begin with. You are clueless and uneducated.
How many times would you have posted on it if you had interest?

A thousand?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#27219 Jul 18, 2012
HugeKielbasa wrote:
I mean the evidence points towards the Big Bang being real. To say it is absolutely proven is laughable.
What's laughable is to be criticizing science while still thinking that a scientific theory can be proven, or that red shift data is the only support for the Big Bang Theory. You can't successfully post like that to people with a science background.

You deny being a theist, and might even mean it. But if so, you are wrong about yourself. Who but theists make comments like that about a theory not being proven? I've never seen it elsewhere.

There is a god belief expressing itself in you. This about the fifth time I've pointed out behavior in you that is pathognomonic for theistic thought.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#27220 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are rejecting population genetics as science, too?
Nope.

But to use it on an *estimated* population 50 million years old?

Very wrong
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a true believer, Double-Gay.
Hey, btw, you never said what you thought about Sir Doctor. Do you agree with his homophobic views? If not, why do you consider calling someone 'gay' an insult?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and population genetics does rely on fossil evidence. It is a key feature of the falsification. I did not personally go out and find them, if that's what you're getting at.
Then your stupid claims are worthless. Not to worry, I didn't attach any value at the time.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You know nothing about science. Your education has failed you, and so has your faith.
Says the guy that recognises Astrology as a valid scientific theory
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to be cruel.
...well, I lied. I enjoy making a fool of you publicly.
Oh yeah. When I look around, I pretty much see everyone with a bit of sense poking fun at you.

Pretty clear that you be the clueless one here.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#27221 Jul 18, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
OK. Laugh while you can.
Get really far out there on that limb.
Let's hear some more. Please.
Hey, you are the one supplying those snippets. Keep 'm coming.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27222 Jul 18, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Statistics is not a religious field, but one easily usable to deceive those unaware. In first year statistics, many of the tricks people try to use were explained to us, meaning for someone who actually had higher mathematics and statistics, we see through that very quickly.
Probability studies are one area were you are easily fooled.
Let me give you an example of what ID does:
In SA, to win the lotto, you need to score 6 numbers out of 49. The probability is thus 13.998 million (or thereabouts, I don't have my calculator handy) to one.
Now, what are the odds for a man losing his arm, having a white Volvo and 2 dogs win the lotto?
ID 'scientists' tries to factor the loss of limb, make of the car, breed of the dogs, type of job he does, length of his penis and how many cups of coffee he drinks a day into the equation.
They then get a very low probability, and therefore say "See! It's nigh impossible! Design is proved!"
ID is a joke.
ID people play the lottery very little, from what I understand.

You are a walking science clown.

If you had any clue whatsoever how ID works, then your comments might be worthwhile.

They use informatics and information theory in ways you could not begin to fathom - unless I explained it to you.

Your best bet right now is to pretend to be disinterested again.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Democratic National Convention Takeaways: Obama... 3 min Cordwainer Trout 1
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Quirky 391,441
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Cornelius Scudmister 233,371
News Madeleine Albright on Donald Trump: 'He has und... 9 min Cordwainer Trout 10
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min Dr Guru 219,609
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 24 min replaytime 201,480
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 59 min ChristineM 20,614
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr Yeah 1,405,041
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 4 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 5,540
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 4 hr Trumping On 300
More from around the web