Furthermore, I'd pursue my earlier point.   Atheism has been a complete disaster for mankind. Religion has not.

Anybody who this is invited to give evidence to the contrary.

Reason is also obvious: in an atheist state it is easy for the leader to take on himself the attributes of God. Makes it not easy, to say the least, to contradict the leader.

In addition to defending the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, atheists are also requested to provide names of hospitals founded by atheists, charitable orders started by them, and books saved by them.

Also on Mudcat there is another aspect worth discussing:   music.    Admittedly I am not an unbiased observer, since I have been a choral singer in an excellent group for about 20 years.

Atheists are requested to give names of pieces of choral music composed by atheists.

Religion, especially Christianity, has given us the most sublime vocal music known to man--everything from choral masterpiece to spirituals. . Examples are far too many to count.   Just for starters:   Mozart Requiem, Brahms Requiem, Verdi Requiem, Faure Requiem, virtually all of Tallis' and Byrd's choral music. And spirituals--all of them.

All unthinkable without Christianity.

And don't bother to whine that these accomplishments are due to religion often being organized. My argument is at least as fair as the tarring and ridiculing of religion which goes on constantly on Mudcat.



And to further address an earlier issue:

The opening poster, it seems, might possibly think describing candidate Obama as a "coconut" is just fine since it was not "oreo".

If he learns to read anytime soon he might possibly discover that "oreo" and "coconut", in this context mean exactly the same thing.   According to his own definition:   "white on the inside" (Identikit thread:   10 Jan 2008, 5:43 PM).

As I said earlier, genteel racism is no more acceptable than the more blatant sort. Though with his just so slightly supercilious attitude, he may think that it is. Wrong.   Open mouth, insert foot.   And he is indeed a past master at this.

Sorry, it is not at all clear that this definition of Mr. Obama is "a criticism of which I disapproved". .

What is clear is that he thought he was being witty.

No surprise that he wants now to conveniently-- ex post facto (perhaps he understands Latin)-- claim that he disagreed. No surprise there.

Nice try, but no cigar. As anybody who reads the opening post of the thread in question will see.

I wonder how he is with "Stepinfetchit."

But he might want to actually start thinking before hitting "send". Would be a pleasant change.

Just a friendly suggestion.