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.

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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47788 Mar 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
"Prove me wrong - show me the original source."
You keep thinking that you get to make demands.

You don't.

All I have to do is quote you- which I did, and pull down your pants and kick you in your grapes.

Done and done.

I proved you wrong.

I don't have to make you admit you are wrong- you are a conceited, fimicolous git.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47789 Mar 23, 2013
boooots wrote:
"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.
Nope.

Putting aside that it is a middle school book... perhaps sixth grade.

The moral is: the ethics of a (collective) society is built on the morality of the individual and not (**not**) on how they were raised (social, political, or religious) in the society.

Were you not paying attention?

The characters in Lord of the Flies were raised in a "upper class" social setting but what they learned fell apart as soon as their were removed from that setting.
SupaAFC

Blairgowrie, UK

#47791 Mar 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Here is the post again:

"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 is the agreement, manchild?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd bet you double or nothing, SuperFAG, but- well, you British your way out of bets you make here.
Like the one I made about a Facebook link being the Encyclo-

- whoops, that was the bet -you- welshed out from.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already quoted exactly the whole thing, parts, and applicable parts.

Many times.

Wipe your chin.

Now go away.
Nope, as per usual you cherry-picked, ignored the rest, and tried desperately to change the question that I asked you.

Then you made up a story about a bet.

Now, because you have no arguments about Britain being a monarchy, you persist with this strawman.

Do you so happen to be a creationist?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep thinking that you get to make demands.

You don't.
I forgot that people do not have to back up their claims if their name is Barefoot and have the mental age of six year-olds. The golden rule of internet debate.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
All I have to do is quote you- which I did, and pull down your pants and kick you in your grapes.

Done and done.

I proved you wrong.
The world still awaits for the quote where I agreed to a bet.

The world is also waiting for you to define democracy...

... and explain why things within an umbrella term are the same...

... and why things can only be defined by one word...

... and what the Weimar Republic was if it was not a democracy...

... and why you cannot admit that universities do indeed give out politics degrees...

... and why for a supposedly powerful monarchy, Parliament has not had a bill refused by the royals in over 300 years...

... and why a Constitutional monarchy "is a monarchy", but absolute and electives are "kinds"...

... and why a Constitutional monarchy requires one physical Constitution to be defined as such...

... and why, quite simply, everybody and everything else - academia, history, reality - simply ridicules your inane argument about Britain not being a democracy.

For a guy who stresses the importance of quotes and pasting as many source as he can, it sure is funny how you never really seem to answer anything.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to make you admit you are wrong- you are a conceited, fimicolous git.
So says the manchild who calls his opponents fags and can only argue against strawmen.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47792 Mar 24, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the post again:
SupaAFC wrote:
" Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim"

Proof needed to refute: ONE other source.

Proof provided: FOUR sources.

GAME SET MATCH.

Oh... I forgot, Limeys aren't very good at tennis either...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47793 Mar 25, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
So says the manchild who calls his opponents fags and can only argue against strawmen.
Only you, SuperFAG, and I guess you shouldn't dish it out if you are going to whine when it get tossed back into your fat sticky face.
Nashoune L

Chula Vista, CA

#47794 Mar 25, 2013
Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists may very well be not directly doing any of the above. However, pushing God out of our system is handing control to Satan. There is nothing that can be done to stop it completely. Returning to God in large numbers and asking HIM to return His blessing and battle evil on our behalf can slow the process.
Handing control to Satan? Hilarious! It sounds like something you would see on one of those Scary Movie spoofs. No such thing as Satan. No such thing as God. What there is: An amazing number of people who for some reason or other like to blame the ills of mankind and the related poor choices made by man as being the fault of some evil super-being who is really out to defile God's creation (man) just to get back at God. I have read better plots in the Sunday comics. You DO realize that making quasi-sensationalist (and ridiculous) claims intended to frighten people into believing in some grand spiritual fairy tale has never worked, is not working now, and will never work. And as much as so many people who claim to believe in God seemingly love to cling to absurd claims as to the depressing fates of mankind are concerned, well, things are not all bad like so many claim. Life is a balance of the good and the bad and neither one can exist without the other, because the inverse meaning of the one is the definition of the other. Of course, no matter how many times people such as myself try to inform scared little puddy-cats like you that the world is most certainly not getting worse and is not without hope (and I am NOT referring to some fairy tale deity or some grand poo-bah judgment as being hope) you simply will not get it. You would rather sit around like a bump on a log, claiming that nothing can be done to save anything, that the wiles of your imaginary pal are the ONLY answers to anything reminiscent of any type of remedy for mankind, and that it is NOT mankind who can fix anything with lasting effect, but that only God can do that. Religion and the related versions of God and other deities cannot save anything, you silly. People have to change what they do, and there are plenty of people in this world who absolutely enjoy getting up every day and giving life every effort to the fullest extent. So, if YOU truly think that there is no hope except that the imaginary come and fix everything...well, that is most certainly YOUR cross to bear. Enjoy it. And, it is alright if you and individuals like yourself wish to continue to spout off about the absurd because while people like me who think that every moment is an opportunity to make things better, we can certainly appreciate the humor and satire your claims provide. Every court needs a jester. Tell me, does your hat have the little bells on it?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#47795 Mar 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only you, SuperFAG, and I guess you shouldn't dish it out if you are going to whine when it get tossed back into your fat sticky face.
Is that where the October Surprise Bush trip to Paris to delay Iranian hostage release hit you - in your fat sticky face?

You went all in on that one. Bwhahaa...

Like you did when I proved Reagan's refusal to negotiate with Gorbachev on SDI brought down the USSR.

You took the side of the USSR, or course.

You blabbering moron.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#47796 Mar 25, 2013
By the way, Man-Made Climate Change has been thoroughly debunked, folks.

It was published in the science journal "Nature".

"In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling."

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 Ted Cruz quickly becomes news at GOP confab 1 hr spud 162
News Race and Beyond: Let's Talk About Race and Poverty (Oct '12) 2 hr Human 156
News Supreme Court hands President Obama a major vic... (Jun '12) 15 hr swedenforever 3,701
News Making GOP history, Trump vows to protect LGBTQ... 23 hr Christsharian Law 6
News Mitt Romney hints of "trickle-down racism" from... 23 hr swedenforever 42
News Clinton's Fundraising Outpaces Trump's As The G... Fri Eleanor 5
News Gingrich: Romney will win 'over 300 electoral v... (Oct '12) Fri Pie in the Sky 31
More from around the web