Old forum member Shell_B has released a short horror story online as part of a competition. Download for free in ebook, Kindle, or PDF format!
Our server costs $25 per month to run. Please consider donating to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
 
Current time: 7th July 2015, 10:13

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Burden of Proof
#41
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.


Reply
#42
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20th August 2011, 21:07)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.
Reply
#43
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.
Reply
#44
RE: The Burden of Proof
(23rd August 2011, 03:14)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.
Reply
#45
RE: The Burden of Proof
(23rd August 2011, 03:39)Atheistfreethinker Wrote:
(23rd August 2011, 03:14)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.
Reply
#46
RE: The Burden of Proof
(24th August 2011, 08:35)Atheistfreethinker Wrote: My next question is: Of what use is a constitutional monarchy?

Keeping the aristocracy fat, rich and happy?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Proof! rtfguy 50 2029 2nd October 2014, 17:01
Last Post: TaraJo
  Proof of the soul? JesusLover1 50 2421 6th March 2014, 12:23
Last Post: pocaracas
  Why atheism always has a burden of proof Vincenzo "Vinny" G. 358 51034 31st October 2013, 21:40
Last Post: Stimbo
Wink Proof that God(s) can not exist. way12go 19 2881 18th August 2013, 22:22
Last Post: bennyboy
  Burden of Proof Mark 13:13 213 24404 12th January 2013, 20:38
Last Post: Stimbo
  Finally, proof there is no god! Tempus 6 2292 15th August 2012, 00:17
Last Post: Minimalist
  I have proof of God, from God Himself. MuslimBrother 13 3406 30th May 2012, 16:17
Last Post: whateverist
  Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists? JesusLover 220 32532 16th May 2012, 13:18
Last Post: Chaostheosis
  Proof of existence of God jain.rahul 21 4549 15th May 2012, 19:05
Last Post: Jörmungandr
  A question regarding proof Fred 152 18975 16th September 2011, 01:15
Last Post: xxxtobymac



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)