blueblood

So then we have some people are equal, some more equal than others. Outstanding. So only ideas you guys agree with should be expressed and to he'll with everyone else's. My point stands yet again. Why can't you guys let people express themselves? Why do they need to be brow-beaten? That's the slippery slope to what happened in Stalinist Russia

No, the nonsense is brow beating Betsy because she believes in something and has an opinion. That is cowardly horse shit period end of sentence. She does not brow beat you for not believing, show some respect. They have every right to be in government and represent their constituents. If atheists don't like it, they can get people elected to advance their agenda. Politics is a bloodsport.

Ther was reasonable probable grounds to have the airplane landed because of the possibility that it entered restricted airspace. However it didn't, no charges were laid and the plane was free to fly again. Wow, the system works!

Yet they seemed quite happy to murder religious people and drive religion underground. Had it been despite atheism, wouldn't they not have driven religion underground and just killed people at random?

My original point that we have atheists brow beating religious people because they believe in something, yet get in a tizzy when a religious person has an opinion. Are atheists and religious people that insecure that they need to resort to brow beating nonsense? My question is does it matter if it makes logical sense? Why do atheists feel the need to spread their version of the truth (according to christians) yet cry bloody murder because there are religious people in government. As far as I'm concerned both atheists and religious people are hypocrites.

Because we have atheists in this thread acting " holier an thou" nothing wrong with a reality check.

Wealth was deconcentrating in the late 1800s and early 1900s unfortunately for some that wasn't good enough...

My point stands...

And they shut down churches and drove religion underground. My point is that atheists have their hands just as dirty as religious people. Nut bars come in all shapes and sizes.

It provided a foundation for the recession. Had people not went stupidly in debt, this problem wouldn't have existed in the first place. Imagine house prices at a level people could afford because they are smart with their money and not wanting to swim in debt. What's your solution, reward stupidity and this bad behavior with easy credit so they can continue their consumption binge?

Their problem is too many people were dreaming...

I have no problem with people who choose organic. The market exists, and some producers fill it. My issue exists with greenpeace types who suggest I change my production methods.

Yes it is, I'm a person living in north America, Im special I deserve a house even though I can't afford it, I deserve this that and the other thing even though I can't afford it. That's not a problem???

They were still atheist, now your making excuses. They didn't want religion around and snuffed it out as best they could. One could argue some atheists are doing something similar on a smaller scale by suggesting that religious people have their influence tempered and using legal means to do so. Religious people have every right to be represented as atheists however, they are going to have to learn some give and take. One could also argue the religious murderers killed scores of people not because god told them too, but for more pragmatic reasons such as securing power and wiping out dissent like *gasp the atheists.

S

Outstanding, so we are in agreement that pesticides shouldn't be stopped.

They were major contributing factors. The main cause was a sense of entitlement.

Atheists like to say that religious people are incompatible with people Peacefully existing with one another. I like to point out that it was atheists who did the larges killings in history and put the tightest constraints on freedoms. They have their hands dirty too.

You don't think that the pope didn't have a hand in influence? Last I checked he has a few followers. You didn't think he helped illustrate the lack of freedom in those countries which was a motivating factor for their decline. By playing the religion card, he highlighted one of the lack of freedoms in a state that banned religion.

That would be gw bush and the Taliban thinking that god is telling them something which was on par for the brain fart that Stalin and Mao received.

No, they had government place stupid regulations, I.e. Artificially lower interest rates, intimidate banks to loan to low risk people, spend like drunken sailors. Had the govt not interfered in the first place, this nonsense wouldn't have happened and both dems and reps equally share the blame.

Not for you necessarily, however there are some...

So was the lack of religion in the USSR and tpchina during the great leap forward. " religion is poison!" Curse that religious pope john Paul II. Helped bring down communism, bring freedom, and improve the lives of those in eastern Europe. That bastard!

Isn't that what democracy is, a group with ideas being represented? That would take a considerable amount of extremist Muslims to do that, and other groups would use their clout to shut the border and promote secular education in schools to combat that. A bigger group with further clout got prayer out of the public school system than those who wanted it in. That's your opinion of stock well day, however his record in cabinet suggests otherwise.

No it's not a false choice, the green revolution answered a similar question in the 1960s.