In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51425 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.

SupaAFC

Blairgowrie, UK

#47767 Mar 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagining is just another way of saying you are a m/f c/s liar.
We know that.
Quote-mining is just another way of Barefoot contradicting himself when accusing others of deceit.

We know that.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And now we see you Britishing out of a bet.
No surprise there.
And now we see Barefoot unable to show where a bet was ever agreed.
No surprise there.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, Shug, it wasn't a bet because you had your fingers crossed.
Or because I made it clear that I was not interested in your red herring.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for you to admit that the quote was posted elsewhere on that net, SuperFAG.
Still waiting for you to declare where you got the quote from.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want me to post your quote again or is 20 times enough?
How about posting the quote where I agreed to a bet? Once would be enough.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how someone who (I assume) lives in Australia but doesn't have a problem "admitting" the type of government running that country.
Siro, I assume, is intelligent enough to know that the Queen is as much a serious political player in Australian politics as she is in Britain and that elected politicians actually run the country.
Only you, Barefoot, genuinely believes that the Queen is an active player in British-Australian political processes.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that people live in England want to pretend they live in a democracy and that the Queen that the rest of the world knows and has known about doesn't exist?
Why must manchildren who claim they "slap the snot" out of their opponents must make up strawman arguments if their opponent's arguments are as weak as they claim they are?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the United Kingdom a monarchy? Yes or no?
Gosh... watch this:
Yes... the United Kingdom is a monarchy...
Is the sky falling?
No, obviously: SuperFAG is just one of those persons who can't admit he's wrong.
Grated... I've slapped the snot out of him many times here.
Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?

Gosh... watch this... Barefoot will not answer the question.

Because he plays double standards.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
WIKIpedia!!!!!!!!!!
Now, we know that SuperFAG uses WIKI but forbids anyone else from using it.
SHAME SHAME!
Shame, shame indeed that you have resorted yet another strawman.

I never said that you, or anyone, could not use Wikipedia in their arguments.

The contention was that you - yes, you, my manchild friend - poo-pooed Wikipedia for being written by anonymous, unknown authors which in turn - you argued - delegitimised Wiki's content.

Then you copied and pasted a Macmillan quote straight from Wikipedia. We all know you did - you refuse to say where you got the quote from - so your guilt is blatantly obvious.

You refuse, to this day, to say where you got the quote from, then went on a red herring argument about an imaginery bet just because I had the audacity to use a Google search to find where you got the quote from.

The issue about Wiki was your blatant hypocrisy. That you now try and claim I argued otherwise is just plain sad.
SupaAFC

Blairgowrie, UK

#47768 Mar 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another quote from another source that SuperFAG will insist doesn't exist (or was copied first from WIKI or other such nonsense)
Notice that Barefoot does not cite where he got the quote from.

In academia, that would set off alarm bells.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Gosh... let's put aside for a second the government of Austratilia doesn't seem to be ashamed that they are a monarchy... but look at this clip again...
Let's put aside the fact that your quote simply said that Australia's head of state is a monarch.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"... government used in Australia is a constitutional monarchy –‘constitutional’ because the powers and procedures of the Australian Government are defined by a written constitution..."

WRITTEN CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!

Let's all recall how SuperFAG (and his fellah NotBots) rolled around and kicked and screamed because I made the SAME observation (applied to the UK) in the *lack* of written constitution.
Let's all recall how:

multiple sources have absolutely no problem calling Britain a Constitutional monarchy;

Barefoot seems unable to understand that Britain's "Constitution" is in the form of various documents throughout history that date back to the Magna Carta;

Barefoot says that a Constitutional monarchy "is a monarchy", but other forms of monarchy such as absolute as elective are "kinds". To this day, he has never explained the distinction.

In other words, Barefoot has made up his own definition for Constitutional monarchy in defiance of what academia, history and even the British government itself say.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, we cannot expect SuperFAG to be a "man" of his word... as he Britishes out his bet.
Of course, we cannot expect Barefoot to ever show where a bet was agreed... as he beats this strawman to death.
SupaAFC

Blairgowrie, UK

#47769 Mar 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fallacious logic and of course: the standard SuperFAG loaded question.

Have you stopped downloading kiddie porn, SF?
We are well aware that by "fallacious logic" you mean "points I cannot provide a refutation for so must therefore dodge".

Speaking of fallacious logic, can you answer this question?:

Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how I have several hundred posts in this thread and state quite clearly what my position is yet SuperFAG continues to insist he can infer what I have said...
Funny how every time Barefoot claims I have twisted his position and arguments, he never gets round to explaining what he "really" meant.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>...and paraphrase it for you other dullards who apparently cannot read EXACTLY what I have said.
Oh, right. So when people read what you say, and understand what you are saying, it is not that your arguments are pedantic, hypocritical and illogical, but rather that they are stupid and do not understand what you are saying.

Here is a simple question:

Do you actually believe the insane stories you type?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is even after I have slapped the snot out of him in his use of the English language, with him insisting that I am merely "semantically" correct when I say 'some' doesn't mean "always" and "occasionally" is not the same as "never", that "most" can mean "many" when SuperFAG says so, that "unanimous" doesn't mean everyone, it means "many".
And there you have it, folks: Barefoot admitting that his arguments are based on word usage rather than the arguments themselves.

Goes for the pawns, ignores the King. Goes for the jab, not the knockout. Goes for the spoon, not the gold.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course what I have asked is:

"Is United Kingdom a monarchy, yes or no?"

And I have given him the answer: Yes.
Watch this:

Is the United States a republic, yes or no?

Barefoot runs away. And everybody knows why.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And now SuperFAG Britishes out of a bet, to no one's surpise.

No one = nobdy, not a single soul.
And Barefoot avoids proving a bet was agreed, to no one's surprise.

Lie, lie and lie some more, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave the answer to this a long time before you asked, Packy.
Then what was the answer? Yes or no?

You type an average of 80 posts a day - how difficult and time consuming is it for you to type a two or three letter word?
Face Reality

Canton, IL

#47770 Mar 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Barefoot is a man(child) of many contradictions. I assume he believes that every thread he participates in and the arguments they contain are all entirely separate to the others, and as such, he can contradict himself to his heart's content.
One of his main arguments about Britain being an undemocratic monarchy is that we must take laws and definitions literally, even though our government and Queen act completely different in reality. Yet in another thread, he has outright said that actions speak louder than words.
Seems like he argues for the sake of arguing and will play contrarian no matter the debate.
He/she is a lying idiot.
Face Reality

Canton, IL

#47771 Mar 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I come from the school whose credo is "si non accipiunt... non inferes illud!"
Ask around your alias, see if one knows latin.
Lady/man/girly child, Let me break it all down for you.
You're an idiot.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47772 Mar 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Quote-mining is just another way of Barefoot
I only have to post what you said exactly, Packy.

Your words and your own stupidity sinks you.

Who can blame you for using other aliases?

Certainly you have much to be embarrassed about using this one.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47773 Mar 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Still waiting for you to declare where you got the quote from.
Posted with sources, SuperFAG.

Several times.

I'd bet you but your word is worthless.

No one soul expected you to keep your word, SuperFAG.

You britished your way out of a bet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47774 Mar 21, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice that Barefoot does not cite where he got the quote from.
Posted many times, SuperFAG.

Wipe your chin, you are a mess!
Nashoune L

Chula Vista, CA

#47775 Mar 22, 2013
Bringmedinner wrote:
Atheists are such posers. They insist on telling little children their dead parent, or sibling is worm food and then making fun of them when they cry. Atheists are sick to the core they can't find.
Atheists are posers? You mean like all the people who like to try to find a b-zillion ways to cram their brand of Jesus down the throats of others are NOT posers? Benny Hinn, Jimmy Baker, Jerry Falwell, Creflo Dollar, Witness Lee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Jenkins, Tim LaHaye, doesn't the list go on forever? So many people in religion blame the woes of humanity on the Atheists or anyone who decided to believe in alternate spiritual beliefs. I guess I was mistaken to think that people are culpable for their own damn mistakes...not that Atheists are the starting point for the problems of the world and out society. Wow. Good thing you set me straight. I bet your version of spiritual belief is quite compelling as it urges you to blame everything you cannot explain, control, or meld to your special version of conformity on the evil atheists of the world. Don't lose that confidence.
Nashoune L

Chula Vista, CA

#47776 Mar 22, 2013
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists have no basis for morality of any sort. Anything they adhere to as morality is something they have accepted, or mindlessly absorbed from their religious heritages. Some wordy atheists have struggled endlessly to establish a basis for morality and have always failed miserably.
Do you really and truly think that religious belief in any sort of supreme being is a good basis for morality? Maybe someone should tell all the priests that molest children and get them in on the deal. Oh, and, if someone finds it necessary to look outside themselves to find a basis for morality there is a problem...a big one...especially when that supposed basis for morality is founded on the make-believe. Do YOU really need some god or religion or faith or whatever to tell you what is right and what is wrong? Don't you have a brain and a heart (the kind a person loves with and not the physical one with four chambers) that tell you that you should or should not treat others a certain way, treat yourself a certain way, or approach life in a certain manner (with joy and determination and all that fun stuff)? Are you that deluded that you truly think that morality exists only in some belief in gods or a god? So silly. Again, don't lose that confidence.
Nashoune L

Chula Vista, CA

#47777 Mar 22, 2013
CODEsapphire wrote:
Im a 17 year old girl, proud atheist from the UK and iv never used drugs, i drink once a months at most and never go so far to get drunk, never been in trouble with the police and im top of my course in college, so how dare you say it`s all athiests fault for being out of hand and wild.
your confusing the Atheists with the Non-Beilevers.
Atheists: research to find out what they agree and disagree with, hence why it is called a religion in most places, because it takes time and faith in what the person chooses.
And
Non-Beilevers: They don`t care, they don`t bother to seek meanings of man kind and if there is a god or not, they get on with there lives, and if you ask them they wont be able to explain why they dont beileve, they just don`t.
Well said, Sapphire. And besides, why should those who chose to not believe in any God or religion have to explain anything? Why does a reason need to be given? Is the believer's answer of believing in a pretend being so they can go to some imaginary perfect place when they die any better of an answer than a person who does not believe giving no answer at all? And whenever there are religious individuals who become frustrated that people do not believe the same as they do, or that people will not live according to the absurd rules of their mythological stories what do they do? They blame Atheists. It is the equivalent of a bratty little kid on the playground stomping their feet and huffing off because no one will play with them because they are an ass.
SupaAFC

Blairgowrie, UK

#47778 Mar 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have to post what you said exactly, Packy.
Your words and your own stupidity sinks you.
Well, Mr. quotes-exactly, perhaps you can quote me exactly showing where I agreed to a bet. We are most likely into double figures in regard to the amount of times I have asked you this, but maybe this time you - the man who quotes me exactly - will finally get round to living up to the moniker.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who can blame you for using other aliases?
Certainly you have much to be embarrassed about using this one.
SupaAFC has been my screen name throughout my time in Topix. If you are going to throw out more accusations you can at least try to make them sound realistic.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Posted with sources, SuperFAG.

Several times.
In the same context as a murder suspect posting cities where he could have been at the time of the crime.

Until you say where you got the quote from it is all but obvious that you hypocritically used Wikipedia despite waving it away when I used the site against you.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd bet you but your word is worthless.

No one soul expected you to keep your word, SuperFAG.

You britished your way out of a bet.
"No one soul" believes your accusation that I dodged a bet because they know as much as you and I that you are lying about one ever taking place.

You, Mr quotes-exactly, the manchild who stresses the importance of quotes, the significance of sources, continually pretend to ignore my requests to show the quote where I ever agreed to a bet.

I know that you have read this request. You can keep picking at scraps, repeating the same refuted strawmen, but "no one soul" believes your desperate lies.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Posted many times, SuperFAG.
Wipe your chin, you are a mess!
Show me the citation you made in that post.

Then perhaps you can explain why, to qualify as a Constitutional monarchy, a country requires one physical Constitution even though Britain is cited by many sources as being a Constitutional monarchy regardless.

In other words, explain why you, a one man band, is right, and everybody else - contemporary academics, historians, even the government and royal websites themselves - are wrong.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47779 Mar 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Mr. quotes-exactly, perhaps you can quote me
Posted.

I know: you had your fingers crossed.

Britisher.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47780 Mar 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Until you say where you got the quote
You like to move the goalposts, spoogebreath, after the happy ending.

SupaAFC wrote:
" Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim"

AS has been pointed out to you 50 times, I only need to provide a single source (one) where the quote shows up and I provided FOUR plus the sources, and PLUS I pointed to the footnote from the WIKI source ***YOU** found and showed you that WIKI was not the even the original source he used.

You are a fraud and a coward and of course: you Britished out of the bet.

Wipe your chin, SuperFAG, you are leaking on both sides of your sticky mouth.
SupaAFC

Blairgowrie, UK

#47782 Mar 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Posted.
I know: you had your fingers crossed.
Britisher.
I know: I never agreed to a bet.

Why do you continue to lie?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You like to move the goalposts, spoogebreath, after the happy ending.

SupaAFC wrote:
" Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim"

AS has been pointed out to you 50 times, I only need to provide a single source (one) where the quote shows up and I provided FOUR plus the sources, and PLUS I pointed to the footnote from the WIKI source ***YOU** found and showed you that WIKI was not the even the original source he used.
I finally got round to reading the whole post that you continue to quote(-mine) this from.

The full post:

"It could not be anymore obvious that you got the excerpt from Wikipedia. Every time I paste a quote from your uncited quotes into Google, I get an ad-verbatim copy from a website.

You most likely do not have the physical copy of the source - Wiki does not even quote it because the author of the article, whether citing it or not, wrote his/her own version of the statement;

Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;

You -never-, ever, cite your sources.

Conclusion? Manchild got caught in another contradiction and is trying to save face.

Prove me wrong - show me the original source."

Let me highlight the final sentence:

"Prove me wrong - show me the original source."

Closer:

"the original source."

Once more:

"THE ORIGINAL SOURCE."

The goalposts have remained in place for nearly two months now. You, Barefoot, have been arguing a pathetic red herring to avoid declaring where you got the quote from.

Why?

Because you got it from Wikipedia.

Which means every argument people have made against you using Wikipedia, which you hand-waved away, do matter after all.

Also: I do not see me agreeing to a bet. Perhaps you can show me where?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a fraud and a coward and of course: you Britished out of the bet.

Wipe your chin, SuperFAG, you are leaking on both sides of your sticky mouth.
Seeing as Mr always-quote decided not to quote me agreeing to a bet, I decided to do his work for him.

Unsurprisingly, what was actually said completely contradicts the manchild's claim of a bet taking place:

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Still waiting: one cite : you stop posting."

SupaAFC:

"You either cite your sources like an adult, or don't and show to all the world that you are a dishonest, spineless, lying coward who never cites his sources, then lies about their origin when backed into a corner.

I am not going to stop posting just because an immature manchild wants me to. This is like my four year-old cousin saying she will only eat her peas if she gets ice cream for dessert.

You, without doubt, have the mentality of a four year-old. That is very, very sad. "

Where was the bet avreed, then? I see your offer. I see my response. I fail to see a "deal", or "you're on".

Why do you lie, manchild?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#47783 Mar 23, 2013
Nashoune L wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really and truly think that religious belief in any sort of supreme being is a good basis for morality? Maybe someone should tell all the priests that molest children and get them in on the deal. Oh, and, if someone finds it necessary to look outside themselves to find a basis for morality there is a problem...a big one...especially when that supposed basis for morality is founded on the make-believe. Do YOU really need some god or religion or faith or whatever to tell you what is right and what is wrong? Don't you have a brain and a heart (the kind a person loves with and not the physical one with four chambers) that tell you that you should or should not treat others a certain way, treat yourself a certain way, or approach life in a certain manner (with joy and determination and all that fun stuff)? Are you that deluded that you truly think that morality exists only in some belief in gods or a god? So silly. Again, don't lose that confidence.
I agree that an invisible and most likely non-existent being should not be the basis for morality, but I also think that morality is something we are taught by responsible people who tell us how to live our lives so as to benefit the most but not harm others. I think man happened onto what is right after likely many thousands of years of living each person for himself, and discovering that such a way of living made one constantly afraid for their own life, and constantly having to harm other people in order to not be harmed, and he finally realized that he needed some rules which would protect him from others and others from him.

This was a slow process and it seems in some areas of life man still hasn't quite got it, as we still condone certain types of very evil behavior, if it is given the name war, or some other official designation.

Gods and religions may have sometimes been attempts to get control of people, by making them believe that if they behaved in a certain way, some invisible being would do very nasty things to them. Since these entities were invisible, with a persuasive argument, one could easily win over gullible people.

I don't think, if it was possible to place newborns into an environment where they could survive but not be taught anything about right and wrong, they would not naturally be moral. The book "Lord of the Flies" which I studied a long time ago, in high school, was an attempt to point out how young boys, when suddenly alone on a desert island, will act like savages, because they have not yet been taught how to properly deal with various situations, for the good of all.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#47784 Mar 23, 2013
Nashoune L wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said, Sapphire. And besides, why should those who chose to not believe in any God or religion have to explain anything? Why does a reason need to be given? Is the believer's answer of believing in a pretend being so they can go to some imaginary perfect place when they die any better of an answer than a person who does not believe giving no answer at all? And whenever there are religious individuals who become frustrated that people do not believe the same as they do, or that people will not live according to the absurd rules of their mythological stories what do they do? They blame Atheists. It is the equivalent of a bratty little kid on the playground stomping their feet and huffing off because no one will play with them because they are an ass.
That last sentence describes well the behavior of many so-called believers on Topix, though I feel a bit of a bully too for latching onto your comment to point that out.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47785 Mar 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I know: I never agreed to a bet.
Why do you continue to lie?
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I had my fingers crossed!

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! fingers crossed!

~stomp stomp stomp~

No one person thought you would keep your word.

Britished out of a bet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47786 Mar 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
You -never-, ever, cite your sources.
I'd bet you double or nothing, SuperFAG, but- well, you British your way out of bets you make here.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47787 Mar 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
The full post:
I've already quoted exactly the whole thing, parts, and applicable parts.

Many times.

Wipe your chin.

Now go away.

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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 7 hr Tm Cln 3,390
News Supreme Court hands President Obama a major vic... (Jun '12) 8 hr Obamas Powerful Gun 3,707
News Santorum, Gingrich tote Etch A Sketch toys (Mar '12) Thu Grecian Formula 16 38
News Gingrich: Romney will win 'over 300 electoral v... (Oct '12) Mar 21 Trumptard Abandon... 36
News Trump aides, daughter, meet with Hispanic busin... Mar 18 spytheweb 1
News Nation-Now 42 mins ago 1:34 p.m.How glitter has... Mar 13 Ria 1
News The man who helped sink Hillary Clinton Mar 12 Texxy 1
More from around the web