Current time: 21st December 2014, 15:23

Our server costs $125 a month to run. Please help keep our community online by donating what you can.
Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Burden of Proof
21st August 2011, 18:26 (This post was last modified: 21st August 2011 18:35 by Rhythm.)
Post: #41
  18k posts! 3 years membership!
RE: The Burden of Proof
*Shrugs* Must be a belief of yours.
“I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me" - Christopher Hitchens.
Rate user Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22nd August 2011, 21:24
Post: #42
    3 years membership!
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21st August 2011 01:07)padraic Wrote:  
Quote: Atheistfreethinker Wrote: The men who wrote this infallible [sic] document were fighting against a totalitarian, despotic regime where the monarchy was, and still is, the head of the church.

Really, I didn't know that. I thought they rebelled against England,which in the eighteenth century was a constitutional monarch,hardly either totalitarian or despotic. Arrogant and unwise,certainly.

The American evolution was fomented by a bunch of well-off,slave owning white men who felt hard done-by over taxes. It was about money and power,not freedom.

Wars are never about moral principle, except perhaps for some of the poor dumb bastards who do the actual dying. Hard to tell,when most countries fill their ranks by conscription and bare faced lies in times of war.

The English monarch is the titular head of The Church Of England,just as she is the of head of state. However,she has no actual power,religious or political.

Yes I suppose that 18th century England had a Parliament, but it would be very naive to believe that King George didn't rule the country. The Parliament did whatever the king wanted just like the days of the Tudor dynasty.
Rate user Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
23rd August 2011, 07:14
Post: #43
  6k posts! 5 years membership!
RE: The Burden of Proof
Quote:but it would be very naive to believe that King George didn't rule the country.

Well, he didn't actually,he had influence,but no real power, A constitutional monarchy means the monarch reigns but does not and cannot rule.

The other reason he did not and could not rule is because he was barking mad a lot of the time. Modern doctors think the poor guy suffered from acute intermittent porphyria.(one of the symptoms is blue urine)

England became a constitutional monarchy with Charles the second in 1660. George the third became king a hundred years later, in 1760.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:Constitutional monarchy (or limited monarchy) is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have strictly ceremonial duties or may have reserve powers, depending on the constitution. Under most modern constitutional monarchies there is also a prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power.


Quote:Contemporary constitutional monarchies include Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.
Rate user Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
23rd August 2011, 07:39
Post: #44
    3 years membership!
RE: The Burden of Proof
(23rd August 2011 07:14)padraic Wrote:  
Quote:but it would be very naive to believe that King George didn't rule the country.

Well, he didn't actually,he had influence,but no real power, A constitutional monarchy means the monarch reigns but does not and cannot rule.

The other reason he did not and could not rule is because he was barking mad a lot of the time. Modern doctors think the poor guy suffered from acute intermittent porphyria.(one of the symptoms is blue urine)

England became a constitutional monarchy with Charles the second in 1660. George the third became king a hundred years later, in 1760.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:Constitutional monarchy (or limited monarchy) is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have strictly ceremonial duties or may have reserve powers, depending on the constitution. Under most modern constitutional monarchies there is also a prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power.


Quote:Contemporary constitutional monarchies include Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
The point was keeping religion out of politics. Anybody who denies that religion in politics is not a bad idea need only look at N. Ireland.
Rate user Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Kudos given by (1): KichigaiNeko
24th August 2011, 12:35
Post: #45
    3 years membership!
RE: The Burden of Proof
(23rd August 2011 07:39)Atheistfreethinker Wrote:  
(23rd August 2011 07:14)padraic Wrote:  
Quote:but it would be very naive to believe that King George didn't rule the country.

Well, he didn't actually,he had influence,but no real power, A constitutional monarchy means the monarch reigns but does not and cannot rule.

The other reason he did not and could not rule is because he was barking mad a lot of the time. Modern doctors think the poor guy suffered from acute intermittent porphyria.(one of the symptoms is blue urine)

England became a constitutional monarchy with Charles the second in 1660. George the third became king a hundred years later, in 1760.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:Constitutional monarchy (or limited monarchy) is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have strictly ceremonial duties or may have reserve powers, depending on the constitution. Under most modern constitutional monarchies there is also a prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power.


Quote:Contemporary constitutional monarchies include Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
The point was keeping religion out of politics. Anybody who denies that religion in politics is not a bad idea need only look at N. Ireland.
My next question is: Of what use is a constitutional monarchy? I would say that democracy and the inalienable right of people to be free has rendered monarchies useless just as it has religion. There are for sure credulous masses that would disagree with me. Only because of their want or need to be serfs.
Rate user Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
24th August 2011, 23:10
Post: #46
  14k posts! 3 years membership!
RE: The Burden of Proof
(24th August 2011 12:35)Atheistfreethinker Wrote:  My next question is: Of what use is a constitutional monarchy?

Keeping the aristocracy fat, rich and happy?
It's not easy being drunk all the time - if it were easy, everyone would do it.
Rate user Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Kudos given by (1): bozo
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Proof! rtfguy 50 1509 2nd October 2014 21:01
Last Post: TaraJo
  Proof of the soul? JesusLover1 50 1754 6th March 2014 16:23
Last Post: pocaracas
  Why atheism always has a burden of proof Vincenzo "Vinny" G. 358 40648 1st November 2013 01:40
Last Post: Stimbo
Wink Proof that God(s) can not exist. way12go 19 2376 19th August 2013 02:22
Last Post: bennyboy
  Burden of Proof Mark 13:13 213 21766 13th January 2013 00:38
Last Post: Stimbo
  Finally, proof there is no god! Tempus 6 1878 15th August 2012 04:17
Last Post: Minimalist
  I have proof of God, from God Himself. MuslimBrother 13 3121 30th May 2012 20:17
Last Post: whateverist
  Proof of existence of God jain.rahul 21 4072 15th May 2012 23:05
Last Post: rasetsu
  A question regarding proof Fred 152 16636 16th September 2011 05:15
Last Post: xxxtobymac
  Scientific proof for a theist. DraxQuin 28 4803 24th August 2011 17:21
Last Post: Cthulhu Dreaming



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)