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.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#31363 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Take 6 months, see if you can give a definition for evolution, or a statement of the theory.
For a person of such advanced science, 2013 would seem an adequate time frame for you to come up with a theory.
Especially since Darwinists claim it is a "fact".
You do me a service by copying me, sir! Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery - and you are mimicking me so very well here.

Yes, it's abundantly clear that ID has no theoretical framework to speak of. Hence, the Biologic Institute is desperate to build one - and hence you had to look to the Disco Inst to find a non-theoretical statement from them posing as theory.

Sure, take all the time you need. When you develop a theory, let me know.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31364 Jul 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You wanted estimates - it provides them. My point in posting that one was to show how absurd your silly challenge is - especially when we have objective evidence of the mechanisms of evolution.
Yes, I know you can't handle that and need to hide from real science.
<quoted text>
Then you understand that you're entirely incorrect about evolution. The papers I posted observed the mechanisms of evolution in action.
<quoted text>
The mechanisms for these mutations are fairly well understood - and we're discovering new information about them all the time. I can post to you hundreds and hundreds of papers, but you are just going to cower and deny them as you did the ones above.
<quoted text>
See? Argument from personal incredulity.
Improbable does not mean impossible. Sorry. Over deep time, improbable events will occur, impossible ones will not. Your basic opinion is "that's so unlikely!"
So what? It is unlikely. It happened anyway. You're unlikely, btw. As an individual, the chances of your genetic make up existing is 1 over 25000X24999X24998X etc., all he way to X1. But here you are - a very unlikely but existent combination of your parent's genes!
<quoted text>
Coward. The two papers I presented described a mechanism of evolution observed in the lab. No need for probabilities, it was 100% observed. Evolution, demonstrated in the lab. You can't argue with it, you've been proved wrong.
Now answer my many challenges to you. Outline your framework theory for biological science. Demonstrate its ability to generate new knowledge and technology - demonstrate its applicability.
Yes, you're right to dodge and cower - you haven't got any foundation to stand on.
Mutation, variation, and selection are all demonstrated.

Nobody doubts that - it occurs.

It's the rest of the story that gets tenuous and fanciful.

You know, the part you don't include in your definition.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#31365 Jul 29, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a dial.
It goes all the way up.
I have a friend.

She goes all the way down.

She makes more money than scientists.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#31366 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You presented proof of evolution - changing allele frequency?
So what? Nobody doubts that.
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?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31367 Jul 29, 2012
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck and his lickspittle Barefoot are two of the most pedantic a-holes you'll ever meet. As pedantry is a sign of a personality disorder it explains a lot about both them.
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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31368 Jul 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You wanted estimates - it provides them. My point in posting that one was to show how absurd your silly challenge is - especially when we have objective evidence of the mechanisms of evolution.
Yes, I know you can't handle that and need to hide from real science.
<quoted text>
Then you understand that you're entirely incorrect about evolution. The papers I posted observed the mechanisms of evolution in action.
<quoted text>
The mechanisms for these mutations are fairly well understood - and we're discovering new information about them all the time. I can post to you hundreds and hundreds of papers, but you are just going to cower and deny them as you did the ones above.
<quoted text>
See? Argument from personal incredulity.
Improbable does not mean impossible. Sorry. Over deep time, improbable events will occur, impossible ones will not. Your basic opinion is "that's so unlikely!"
So what? It is unlikely. It happened anyway. You're unlikely, btw. As an individual, the chances of your genetic make up existing is 1 over 25000X24999X24998X etc., all he way to X1. But here you are - a very unlikely but existent combination of your parent's genes!
<quoted text>
Coward. The two papers I presented described a mechanism of evolution observed in the lab. No need for probabilities, it was 100% observed. Evolution, demonstrated in the lab. You can't argue with it, you've been proved wrong.
Now answer my many challenges to you. Outline your framework theory for biological science. Demonstrate its ability to generate new knowledge and technology - demonstrate its applicability.
Yes, you're right to dodge and cower - you haven't got any foundation to stand on.
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.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#31369 Jul 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You do me a service by copying me, sir! Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery - and you are mimicking me so very well here.
Yes, it's abundantly clear that ID has no theoretical framework to speak of. Hence, the Biologic Institute is desperate to build one - and hence you had to look to the Disco Inst to find a non-theoretical statement from them posing as theory.
Sure, take all the time you need. When you develop a theory, let me know.
Buck thinks a definition of ID, IS the theory. Sheesh.

“Game Over”

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min mdbuilder 1,417,187
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 16 min Sharrp Shooter 393,373
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 18 min Dr Guru 222,265
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 28 min road house girl 7,353
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 28 min Rosa_Winkel 15,675
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 32 min road house girl 239,624
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 55 min Aura Mytha 204,712
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 2 hr Christians In Nam... 236
More from around the web