MB>> I take exception to that. Richard is atheist, so this
MB>> demonstrates if nothing else, that atheists are as fallible as
MB>> non-atheists.
RT> Indeed. If Richard is an atheist then
RT> I'm wrong. Fallibility knows no bounds.
rm> I suppose you would know, yes?
I'm sure he would since observation of a pathology is an educational process.
For instance, did you know that
    1) nearly every racist or homophobic bigot in the Westernized
    societies of the world are Christians?  I've been utterly unable
    to find even ___ONE___ atheist hate group.  They're either Christian,
    Muslim, or Jewish with the rest being theistic of some kind.  None
    are atheists groups.
    2) most prison inmates in the United States prison system are
    Christians?  And that there are extremely few atheists in prison?
Observing Christians certainly does lend itself toward discovering the
lows of evil and stink that humanity is capable of achieving.  Islam and
Judism are close second runners to the evil of the Christian cult.
MB>> Simply because you disagree with someone -
MB>> they automatically are labeled religious?
RT> Nope.
rm> Yep.
That's a pretty silly claim.  Are you willing to defend it?  Are you sure
you want to demand that anyone who disagrees with RT is automatically
labeled religious?  Well?  You opened your yap, shall I close it for you?
---
---------------