In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Read more: Spiked 47,711

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.

Read more

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47699 Mar 17, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Definitions has been Barefoot's game. He chooses what to define.
Yea, he does.

And then he gives you about a dozen sources.

And then when he proves that you are wrong, you move the goalposts.

SupaAFC wrote:
"Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM."

When Barefoot proved you wrong, you whined about semantics.

Is the United Kingdom a monarchy?

Yes or no?

Do you need the definition of monarchy again, SuperFAG?
Siro

Sydney, Australia

#47701 Mar 18, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
As if anyone would expect you to tell the truth.
Well.....when have I lied?
I said KittenKoder is a transvestite...am I wrong?
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitions has been Barefoot's game. He chooses what to define, what not to define, and what can and cannot be defined with certain words. I can only play by the rules that he himself makes up.
But then, to look at the posts for what they actually say requires impartibility. You base your conclusions based on the name of the author of the post.
So in your 'reasoning' if it comes from Barefoot it must be wrong or lies. If he said that the sun shines during the day or that it gets dark at night he must be lying and the opposite must be true because hes Barefoot.
You are essentially the Topix atheist comic book superhero...the ..(ta dum) "anti-Barefoot"
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Christian speak: "I believe that I can do whatever I want, when I want, and all I have to do to get away with it is pray for forgiveness to wipe the slate clean again".
When you are done playing with strawmen, let me know.
You have problems with supposed 'Christian speak'?
Then take it up with a Christian - not me.
I dont speak on their behalf.

Goose
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47702 Mar 18, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, he does.
And then he gives you about a dozen sources.
Congratulations - you know how to copy and paste dictionary definitions.

So do children at primary school level. I repeat: primary school level.

How about learning how to construct an actual argument instead of playing semantics?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And then when he proves that you are wrong, you move the goalposts.
You jump onto red herrings to avoid the points themselves. You take a pawn or two in a game of chess then declare checkmate - king untouched.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
SupaAFC wrote:
"Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM."
When Barefoot proved you wrong, you whined about semantics.
Exhibit A.

The argument was that Macmillan's appointment to PM did not demonstrate royal prerogative nor damaged British democracy for the following reasons:

The appointment came at a time when the Conservatives had no mechanism for replacing sitting PMs;

Macmillan himself was an elected MP.

He was a popular choice within the Conservative party.

That is the king you need to checkmate. You cannot. Thus, you latched onto a red herring, screamed that I was a liar, then proclaimed victory - completely avoiding the argument itself.

That is how you argue. Take some pawns, ignore the king, claim checkmate.

How about being an adult and addressing the points themselves?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the United Kingdom a monarchy?
Yes or no?
Once again let's demonstrate the fallacy of your question:

Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?

You never answer using your own "yes or no" standard. And we all know why, hypocrite.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you need the definition of monarchy again, SuperFAG?
How about providing a definition of democracy?
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47703 Mar 18, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Well.....when have I lied?
I said KittenKoder is a transvestite...am I wrong?
When you make stereotypical attacks on atheists.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
So in your 'reasoning' if it comes from Barefoot it must be wrong or lies. If he said that the sun shines during the day or that it ets dark at night he must be lying and the opposite must be true because hes Barefoot.
Nice try - but that is how your reasoning works. If person A is an atheist and person B is a Christian, then person B's arguments automatically refute person A's.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>You are essentially the Topix atheist comic book superhero...the ..(ta dum) "anti-Barefoot"
I find your obsession of me very flattering, but superhero I am not.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
You have problems with supposed 'Christian speak'?
Then take it up with a Christian - not me.
I dont speak on their behalf.
Goose
It is asimple demonstration of your own stereotype-driven strawman arguments.

Are you ever going to be able to debate with atheists like an adult or must you keep relying on strawmen? Does your deity tell you to lie?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47704 Mar 18, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations - you know how to copy and paste dictionary definitions.
I also know how to use the words I define.

Do you want to know what unanimous means,. SuperFAG?

Here's a hint: it is the number of people who are surprised that you broke your word and welshed out of a bet.

Putting aside your word has never been worth a plugged nickel.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47705 Mar 18, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
How about learning how to construct an actual argument instead of playing semantics?
You mean like proving that you are wrong and then you insisting I am playing semantics by using words as they are defined?

Like when you say 'unanimous" and then you insist it means 'most' after I prove you wrong?

Or by using semantics to prove that the United Kingdom is a monarchy... but only because I use "monarchy" as it actually means in English while you insist it doesn't?

Guess how many people on this thread are surprised you welshed out of a bet?

From now on, I will call it 'Britished' out of a bet since... well... you know.

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#47706 Mar 18, 2013
Of course they are..Folks get tired of having to stand up for their beliefs..AND get knocked down everytime..in the Amish culture you are SHUNNED for your independent thinking..and NOT going along with the herd..So, they keep to themselves, WHATEVER you believe to be TRUE, is your concern..NOT anyone else"s ...FREE THINKERS UNITE!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47707 Mar 18, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Nice try - but that is how your reasoning works.
Funny how you continue to insist how other people think yet you cannot think for yourself.

Funny how you continue to "paraphrase" what you infer and make others suffer for it.

What a shame it is you still do not know how to quote.

I understand: no one says what you want them to say so you have to make something up.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47708 Mar 18, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
He was a popular choice within the Conservative party.
And now you say he was a "popular" choice.

Funny how that is.

Of course, I have to remind you what popularity he may or may not have had: he was APPOINTED to office by the Queen.

Do you want me to post the definition of APPOINT again, SuperFAG?
CunningLinguist

Hernando, FL

#47709 Mar 18, 2013
Colorado Chick wrote:
Of course they are..Folks get tired of having to stand up for their beliefs..AND get knocked down everytime..in the Amish culture you are SHUNNED for your independent thinking..and NOT going along with the herd..So, they keep to themselves, WHATEVER you believe to be TRUE, is your concern..NOT anyone else"s ...FREE THINKERS UNITE!!!
Religion is Organized Superstition

“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.”~ Bertrand Russell

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#47710 Mar 18, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Well.....when have I lied?
I said KittenKoder is a transvestite...am I wrong?
<quoted text>
So in your 'reasoning' if it comes from Barefoot it must be wrong or lies. If he said that the sun shines during the day or that it gets dark at night he must be lying and the opposite must be true because hes Barefoot.
You are essentially the Topix atheist comic book superhero...the ..(ta dum) "anti-Barefoot"
<quoted text>
You have problems with supposed 'Christian speak'?
Then take it up with a Christian - not me.
I dont speak on their behalf.
Goose
Wrong is different than a lie, but when you are wrong and do not admit it, then it becomes a lie. You are a liar, you lie so much about things, you don't even know what it's like to be honest. What's worse is that you also make assertions for people, which is even more lies.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47711 Mar 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong is different than a lie, but when you are wrong and do not admit it, then it becomes a lie.
You've been a liar for a very long time, Chubby.

PS: It isn't a lie to be wrong and not admit you are wrong, it is a lie to know that you are wrong and not admit it.

Say you insisted that a country was other than a monarchy when you know it's bee been a monarchy all along.

Putting aside you've also been wrong and refused to admit it.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47712 Mar 19, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I also know how to use the words I define.
So do fundamentalists when they make up definitions for evolution.

So do politicians when they make up definitions about fairness and freedom.

So do lawyers when they make up definitions about guilt and innocence.

Unfortunately for you, manchild, arguments - at least good ones - require more than copy and pasting a dictionary definition. You are challenged to paste a monarchy definition into a social science paper and submit it to a university department, yet you do not - and we all know why.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want to know what unanimous means,. SuperFAG?
Takes a pawn, claims checkmate.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a hint: it is the number of people who are surprised that you broke your word and welshed out of a bet.
Putting aside your word has never been worth a plugged nickel.
Yet you, Mr always-quote, cannot show where a bet was ever agreed.

That is because, manchild, you are lying. And you know it.

Why, if I am so easy to refute, must you resort to lies?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like proving that you are wrong and then you insisting I am playing semantics by using words as they are defined?
Exactly - actually prove me wrong by refuting the arguments instead of picking on scraps to avoid the points themselves.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like when you say 'unanimous" and then you insist it means 'most' after I prove you wrong?
When did I ever claim that it meant "most"?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Or by using semantics to prove that the United Kingdom is a monarchy... but only because I use "monarchy" as it actually means in English while you insist it doesn't?
If we play by your game of semantics all I have to do is copy and paste a definition of democracy to prove that Britain is a democracy.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47713 Mar 19, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess how many people on this thread are surprised you welshed out of a bet?

From now on, I will call it 'Britished' out of a bet since... well... you know.
So you Britished out of the Facebook-Encyclopedia Britannica bet?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you continue to insist how other people think yet you cannot think for yourself.

Funny how you continue to "paraphrase" what you infer and make others suffer for it.

What a shame it is you still do not know how to quote.

I understand: no one says what you want them to say so you have to make something up.
Every time I show what you actually mean, you never get round to explaining what you properly meant. You simply go into a tantrum or outright ignore the post.

Your actions, manchild, speak more than your words.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>And now you say he was a "popular" choice.

Funny how that is.
Taking pawns in a game of chess does not win the match. Stop being a pedantic coward and address the argument - the king - itself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, I have to remind you what popularity he may or may not have had: he was APPOINTED to office by the Queen.
The Queen could have appointed anyone she wanted. She did not. She "selected" a democratically-elected Conservative MP who was highly popular within his party - even the Wikipedia quote you danced around said "near unanimous".

You claim the Queen's appointment was a blow for British democracy. The facts, manchild, say otherwise.

The facts, manchild, show that in your desperation to find a case to suit your argument, you must ignore recent history - including the 1990 Conservative leadership change when the party did have a system for replacing sitting PMs in place - and go back to 1957 when such a system was not used.

1957.

And it still supports British democracy for everything that Macmillan represented - popularity and the sitting party in government that the people voted for in '55.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want me to post the definition of APPOINT again, SuperFAG?
How about showing me the definition of democracy?

Also, I see you could not answer the question, again.

Does that mean that you now understand why it is a farce to ask "yes or no" questions?
CunningLinguist

Hernando, FL

#47714 Mar 19, 2013
"If only God would give me some clear sign!
Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank."
~Woody Allen
Siro

Ringwood East, Australia

#47715 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
When you make stereotypical attacks on atheists.
I made a statement about KittenKoder and asked if I was wrong in doing so.
You said I was wrong because KittenKoder is an atheist.
You gave no further explaination, and yet in the same post you coughed up this phlegm....
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try - but that is how your reasoning works. If person A is an atheist and person B is a Christian, then person B's arguments automatically refute person A's.
I could reply by changing a letter or word here or there just like you do when you 'counter' Barefoots replies....
Could reply? I will.....
If person A is an atheist and person B is a Christian, then person A's arguments automatically refute person B's.
.
How many umpteen times do I have to say that I am not a Christian for you morons to understand?
But lets examine the Topix atheists 'logic'......
If person A is not an atheist then that person becomes person B and is automatically a Christian.
You and Boob of QF really ride with this psychobabble.
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I find your obsession of me very flattering, but superhero I am not.
Superhero you are not, but SupaFAG you are.
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
It is asimple demonstration of your own stereotype-driven strawman arguments.
Are you ever going to be able to debate with atheists like an adult or must you keep relying on strawmen? Does your deity tell you to lie?
You were whining about 'Christianspeak' to me and I said I am not a Christian.
Now you are claiming that a statement is a strawman argument and that I'm lying.
Does my deity tell me to lie? No.
I am not telling lies when I say you are a brain dead crapclown or that Barefoot has consistently used your face as a mop in showing up your 'make it up as you go along' supposed 'arguments' which are really nonsense rants you spew so as to get the thumbs up from the Topix atheist peoples democratic collective because that to you is more important than winning an argument on merit and fact.
.
You crapclown
Siro

Ringwood East, Australia

#47716 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong is different than a lie, but when you are wrong and do not admit it, then it becomes a lie. You are a liar, you lie so much about things, you don't even know what it's like to be honest. What's worse is that you also make assertions for people, which is even more lies.
Youre the man palming yourself off as a woman.
If you spend the same amount of time loitering around public toilets as you do here you might actually pick up a top who could tolerate your neurotic whinging and stir your back door gravy pot at the same time.

Poof
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47717 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
I made a statement about KittenKoder and asked if I was wrong in doing so.
I know as much about KittenKoder as I do about quantum physics.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
You said I was wrong because KittenKoder is an atheist.
You gave no further explaination, and yet in the same post you coughed up this phlegm....
I said you lie when you make stereotype-based attacks on atheists.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
I could reply by changing a letter or word here or there just like you do when you 'counter' Barefoots replies....
Barefoot's posts are quoted and unaltered every time I post. Because he cannot refute the posts, he plays victim and claims paraphrasing instead of actually explaining what he "really" meant.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Could reply? I will.....
If person A is an atheist and person B is a Christian, then person A's arguments automatically refute person B's.
.
Show me, then, where I have ever "refuted" Barefoot's arguments based on his religious beliefs. Considering we have for the most part been debating about British politics, you are going to need a lot of luck.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
How many umpteen times do I have to say that I am not a Christian for you morons to understand?
The chances of you not being a Christian are as likely as the Pope not being a Catholic. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
But lets examine the Topix atheists 'logic'......
Remember my first point about you making lies based on stereotype-driven attacks on atheists?
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
If person A is not an atheist then that person becomes person B and is automatically a Christian.
You and Boob of QF really ride with this psychobabble.
Actually it goes like this:

If person A makes attacks on atheists, brings up the same arguments as Topix Christians, uses the same arguments as Topix Christians, alludes to a concept of "sin", and does not declare what his or her faith is if it is not Christian, then it is highly likely that he or she is a Christian.

Let me rephrase it in a simple way that you will understand:

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Superhero you are not, but SupaFAG you are.
Jesus cries when you make ad hominem attacks.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
You were whining about 'Christianspeak' to me and I said I am not a Christian.
Now you are claiming that a statement is a strawman argument and that I'm lying.
Of course you are. Bigotry leads to stereotyping that leads to strawmen.

You, my bigot, need to discern what is in your head with what it reality.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Does my deity tell me to lie? No.
Then stop stereotyping atheists.
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not telling lies when I say you are a brain dead crapclown or that Barefoot has consistently used your face as a mop in showing up your 'make it up as you go along' supposed 'arguments' which are really nonsense rants you spew so as to get the thumbs up from the Topix atheist peoples democratic collective because that to you is more important than winning an argument on merit and fact.
.
You crapclown
If you are not telling lies then help Barefoot in explaining what he supposedly really means in his posts. To date all he can say in response is either nothing or throw a tantrum.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#47718 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre the man palming yourself off as a woman.
If you spend the same amount of time loitering around public toilets as you do here you might actually pick up a top who could tolerate your neurotic whinging and stir your back door gravy pot at the same time.
Poof
Still making assertions for people, that makes them inherently fallacies. You really are an idiot, you demonstrate why we should isolate Australia again.
Lincoln

United States

#47719 Mar 19, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre the man palming yourself off as a woman.
If you spend the same amount of time loitering around public toilets as you do here you might actually pick up a top who could tolerate your neurotic whinging and stir your back door gravy pot at the same time.
Poof
I d i o t !

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 40 min Tinka 323,263
News US Shouldn't Condone Turkey's Posture Of Denial... 41 min SpaceBlues 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Guru 186,856
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr ACTUALLY 1,216,684
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 52,701
News Hillary Clinton has a new position on same-sex ... 2 hr Fa-Foxy 197
News Is Congress sabotaging Iran nuclear deal? 3 hr see the light 29
More from around the web