Talk:Main Page/Archive index/167

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Iowa bans aborting babies with detectable heartbeats

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has signed a into law a bill banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected [2] --David B (TALK) 01:38, 6 May 2018 (EDT)

I saw that -- hopefully, some court won't strike it down before it actually goes into effect. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2018 (EDT)

Schneiderman resigns. Who can save us now?

Back in November, Samantha Bee hailed New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman as "the one person who could save us from Trump." This false god has now fallen: "the man who rails the loudest against a sinner is often an even bigger sinner himself.” He liked to beat women and tell them: "You know, hitting an officer of the law is a felony." Now that the light from Albany has failed, Stormy Daniels is the new hope of the Democratic Party, according to Ben Shapiro. She went on SNL and called for Trump's resignation on Saturday. Lewinsky also appeared on SNL back in the day. She didn't say anything bad about Bill. She simply advised viewers not to mix sex and work. PeterKa (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

Stormy Daniels is fruit of the poisonous tree from FISA abuse. IG Mike Horowitz's FISA abuse investigation will take at least a year. So unless someone can prove a crime was committed, and there wasn't, it's not worth acknowledging and talking about. The focus should remain on Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Barack Obama, Sally Yates, John Brennan, Susan Rice, et al misuse of government power, offices, and agencies to violate the civil rights of political opponents. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:24, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
While congressional Dems "go dark" on impeachment and Trump bashing ahead of the midterms, the base turns to Stormy Daniels, Michael Avennatti, and Michelle Wolfe. PeterKa (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
Base my foot. The commie media does. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:34, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
Even the Democrat base is not that stupid to see through what the communist media is doing. They need to be embarrassed for being so naive to believe it. Ask them why Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose and Tom Brokow are silent on the issue. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:39, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
Stormy Daniels is not claiming unwanted advances or harassment - she's boasting about it. It's a nite-and-day issue. Let the communist-Democrats lecture you on 'moral leadership.' RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:43, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
I was a Stormy fan until she came out as a climate crusader on SNL. Who wants to be lectured about greenhouse gases by a porn star?
This video of Bee worshiping Schneiderman as a superhero has to be seen to be believed. PeterKa (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2018 (EDT)
Treasury leaked the payments Cohen received to Avennatti even before the NYT got a hold of them.[3] Remember when leaking Valerie Plame's name justified a special counsel investigation? Plame's name was something you could find in Who's Who. Surely this type of leak is more serious. Avennatti should be jailed until he tells us his source, like Judith Miller was. Imagine if payments to scumbag Clinton attorney Rob Bennett were made public. PeterKa (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2018 (EDT)
That's assuming it's the right Michael Cohen. Sources say the Obama operative leaked the wrong Michael Cohen, again - to discredit and confuse the fact they had the wrong Michael Cohen last time in the Steele dossier - which exposed the whole Obama administration FISA abuse. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:25, 10 May 2018 (EDT)

Today's baby names

Biblical names are back: Noah, Benjamin, Elijah, James, Jacob, Abigail. See Top 10 Baby Names of 2017. PeterKa (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2018 (EDT)

Yet another sign that America/world is experiencing desecularization and religious fundamentalism is growing. See: Growth of religious fundamentalism.
The name Noah being popular is a sign that young earth creationism will see a resurgence. :) Conservative (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2018 (EDT)

A message to British evolutionists regarding your dilapidated roads

Deny that Britain is the fountainhead of Darwinism and lacks a well-maintained road system, and lose all credibility! A plague of potholes has enveloped Britain![4]

The Automobile Association’s insurance chief, Janet Connor, has described Britain’s broken roads as “nothing short of a national disgrace".[5]

Hang your evolutionist heads in shame - British evolutionists! You cannot even master asphalt and tar. Mastering biology is surely beyond your reach!

The Swiss, a beacon of European creationism, have a country of well-maintained roads - despite living in a colder climate.Conservative (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2018 (EDT)

Brits might have worse roads but they certainly seem to be better drivers than most. Actually, than nearly all because for all the alleged potholiness of the bitumen there, the accident toll in Britain is far less than in nearly all countries.
On a personal note, I have generally felt quite relaxed at 70mph on the British motorways, probably because of the intrinsic courtesy of the average Brit. driver. AlanE (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2018 (EDT)
There's another con here, and we can see it here in the States. Wherever you find a local or state government bent on entitlement spending, i.e. welfare and food stamps, other services are going to take a back seat to it. In Tennessee we have a more-or-less conservative government with the roads repaired quite regularly; in California - with a rabidly-liberal government - it's more important to spend billions on illegals than it is to fix a dam that threatening to break. It isn't so much Darwin as it is a leftist mentality that has thrown common sense out the window. Karajou (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
AlanE and Karajou both made some good points.
However, I do think that Darwinism is both a cause and effect of liberalism. For example, Darwinism is a often a causal factor of atheism/agnosticism. And atheists/agnostics tend to lean left politically (see: Atheism and politics). Also, Darwinism is a causal factor of sexual immorality and university study showed the correlation between the two (see: Belief in evolution and sexual immorality). And people who are pro-premarital sex and pro-abortion, tend to be liberal/leftists. For more information, please see: Evolution and liberalism.
Also, in countries where Protestantism was strong and where the countries have retained a significant amount of a Protestant cultural legacy (see: Protestant cultural legacies), in terms of hitting a pothole, I would not feel uneasy driving 70mph on a motorway. Others seem to feel the same, as can be seen by PORSCHE 718 CAYMAN GTS HITS 294KM/H ON THE AUTOBAHN - VIDEO and How come there are no pot holes in the Netherlands?.
Yes, the Germans caused WWI/WWII and evolutionism/evolutionary racism certainly played a part in that (See: World War I and Darwinism and Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust), but I am guessing the trains still run on time in Germany and their roads are still in good repair.
In terms of hitting a pothole, I would not feel totally comfortable driving 70mph in Britain even on some of their busiest roadways (see: M6 SOUTH BOUND UNDER JUNCTION 18 POTHOLES and Pothole appears on the M25 Motorway, the one of the busiest roads in Europe).
Next, when I look at the best 10 countries at ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, Protestantism played a significant role in at least 8-9 of those 10 countries (see: Protestant cultural legacies and Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).
Lastly, the Brits gave us the King James Bible, Methodism, Puritanism, etc., but perhaps the fact that Anglicanism was largely started because King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife who bore him no children, the Reformation and biblical Protestantism did not deeply affect the Brits as much as it potentially could have. Plus, Britain is the fountainhead of modern evolutionism. I would rather live in Switzerland than Britain after all is said and done. Britain seems to be unraveling faster and faster. But the saving grace of the British is their politeness and good humor. I do enjoy talking to the Brits I come in contact with.Conservative (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
I agree that leftism and Darwinism go hand in hand (heck, technically, the whole "social Darwinism" thing predated even Charles Darwin considering that the Marquis de Sade pretty much advocated that we treat each other like how lizards treat their prey in nature). I also agree that those kinds of things ultimately are a huge hamper to civilization as a whole, not just with potholes, but also with enforcing the law as it is. However, can you guys PLEASE stop acting as though Protestantism was the only things that allow for society to work? Does the Catholic Church truly seem to be of no merit to you guys? For goodness sakes, technically, Catholicism did the whole Protestant Work Ethic long before Protestantism was even a concept, so give Catholics the credit they are due for once instead of either having our positive contributions outright ignored or otherwise be outright demonized for bad events, even if they are events we not only had no involvement in but if anything went out of our way to stop (like the whole Nazi persecutions of Jews). I just get annoyed when Protestants tend to act like they're responsible for society at its best, even when Catholicism adopted many of the things they did long before Protestantism did. There are plenty of Catholic conservatives like myself and User:Northwest on here, so alienating potential Catholic conservative editors in favor of protestants isn't going to win anyone converts and will probably drive a lot of Conservative Catholic editors away. Now, that's not to say that Protestants didn't benefit society at large regarding any contributions they made. After all, it was protestants that helped make America, and there were also a few Protestants who, just as Catholics did during World War II, went out of their way to aid the Jewish people from being killed by the Nazis, but I would deeply appreciate it that we Catholics at least get credit to our contributions and not like all good things in society were due to Protestant beliefs, or acting like only Protestants were responsible for Capitalism. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

Pokeria, the social science data shows that on the whole Protestants read the Bible more frequently, have a stronger work ethic and countries with a Protestant cultural legacy have less political corruption. See: Protestant work ethic and European countries and Protestant work ethic and Article on Protestant vs. Catholic religion and corruption. Even a Catholic at the National Catholic Register indicates: "Catholics don't read the Bible anywhere near as much as evangelical Protestants do, and that is to our shame." from Why Are Catholics So Deficient in Bible-Reading?[6] Also, according to the website "According to the poll, 25 percent of Evangelical Protestants read the Bible daily, as do 20 percent of other Protestants, while daily Bible-reading is done by only 7 percent of Catholics."[7]

The countries/regions of the world that have been very strongly affected by Catholicism such as Central America, South America and the Philippines, all have rampant problems with political corruption. In the Philippines political corruption, political assassinations and extrajudicial killings are very prevalent. The political corruption in Catholic countries is so prevalent and so easily documented that Wikipedia has articles on: Corruption in Spain and Corruption in Portugal and Corruption in the Philippines.

Scripture teaches that reading the word of God trains one in righteousness, increases Christian faith, etc. etc. The Bible has a very strong effect on a culture when it is read regularly widely by a sizable portion of the population. Conservative (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

First of all, Catholics do in fact read the bible. Heck, as a matter of fact, we actually do a lot of scriptural readings every day of the week for the various daily masses in addition to Sunday masses (an old testament reading, plus a gospel reading, for each day, and that's not even counting new testament readings for the second readings on Sunday). If anything, we do bible readings far more than the Protestants, who don't even go to worship unless it's specifically on Sundays or stuff like Christmas. Second of all, you might want to define "read the bible", because my Catholic priest made it pretty clear that Lutheran readings of the bible usually involve not engaging in any critical thinking at all, usually doing an extremely literal interpretation even if it flies against what God himself actually said. In other words, if your definition of "reading the bible" means "parroting bible phrases without knowing what they actually mean", that's not a good sign for protestants. After all, a guy who parrots the bible could also claim, for example, that God wants us to allow prostitutes and quote "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" since, technically, they're well-read enough to quote that phrase.
In addition, social science data has been wrong on a few instances and is often a very unreliable measure of doing data, mostly because of people in the social sciences having various biases. By that same token, social science data could also claim that people who have problems doing well in interactions with the opposite sex must automatically be homosexual (my female cousin actually got snookered by someone who used that social science data, a psychologist, more specifically, and is now "married" to a woman thanks to her stupid advice, and my mom when learning this was left aghast at this, and she had some formal training in psychology as well due to studying to become a nurse.). Heck, had social science data meant anything, Hillary Clinton would be our President, not Donald Trump (and it's a darn good thing that social science data is wrong there). If you're going to claim Protestantism is better than Catholicism, especially in those areas, I suggest you go by hard data, NOT soft data. And for the record, there have been plenty of Protestant countries that were deeply corrupt, like King Henry VII's England, or Lord Cromwell's England, or how about Salem, Massachusetts, and how it slaughtered many of its own people under the mere assumption they might have been witches, and many of them even utilized that time as an excuse to grab more land? Heck, Massachusetts, a state literally founded on Protestantism, is currently one of the most corrupt states in the union, actually allowing people like John Kerry and Barney Frank to represent them, and those two were deeply corrupt to the core. Massachusetts alone blows the claim out of the water that protestant states have less corruption. If anything, Georgia has less corruption with its Archdioscese and its Protestantism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Protestants must automatically be corrupt and incapable of lacking it, but I am saying that you really should stop acting like Catholics are nothing but corrupt dullards.
And one of the links I gave you pointed out that the Scandinavian countries that had production centers tended to be Catholic, NOT Protestant (in fact, a few times, Protestantism at the time they had that didn't even exist as a concept in those countries).
Like I said, all I'm asking for is that you stop acting like we Catholics are scum compared to Protestants, and that our positive contributions actually BE recognized (and yes, actually, Catholicism pretty much practiced Protestant Work Ethics and even perfected it before it was even a concept. In fact, we shouldn't even call it a "Protestant Work Ethic". "Christian Work Ethic" would suffice perfectly).
Also, you might want to read "Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History" by Rodney Stark. That gives some things about Catholicism that you might not have even considered when trying to promote Protestantism as the only good for the world, including, I should point out, the whole work ethic thing that's even discussed on Chapter 10, page 209 (and bear in mind, the author of the book, Rodney Stark, is himself a Protestant, meaning he has no dog in the fight for defending Catholicism). Pokeria1 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

Pokeria, A few things:

1. You engaged in the strawman fallacy. I merely said that Catholics read the Bible significantly less. I certainly did not said Catholics don't read the Bible. And I cited the website indicating: "According to the poll, 25 percent of Evangelical Protestants read the Bible daily, as do 20 percent of other Protestants, while daily Bible-reading is done by only 7 percent of Catholics."[8] I also cited this: a National Catholic Register article indicates: "Catholics don't read the Bible anywhere near as much as evangelical Protestants do, and that is to our shame." from Why Are Catholics So Deficient in Bible-Reading?[9]

2. Although I don't agree with various points of Catholic theology/practices, I don't have antipathy towards Catholics. For example, I like reading G. K. Chesterton and have worked with conservative Catholics as far as various political endeavors. In addition, I believe I may be learning Spanish and subsequently moving to a Catholic country. Furthermore, I am happy that the Irish, who certainly have political/religious differences, put an end to their violent conflict.Conservative (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

1. Like I said, that depends on how you define "reading the Bible" or "how much is read." You can also argue that Catholics read more than Protestants by going to not just the Sunday Masses and Holy Days of Obligations, but also the non-required Daily Masses, since they read more of the Bible in three years (due to the readings of the bible having for regular daily masses being an old testament reading and a gospel reading) than the Protestants do in all the sundays of a year plus Christmas, requiring them about four years to catch up to Catholics. And as far as, look, I'll need more information on that, as that could just as easily be a lukewarm catholic website for all I know. I've heard that National Catholic Register also has a few problems lately regarding promoting the bible from what I heard, a few times supporting some left-wing catholics, so we might want to take that into consideration regarding whether what they say is valid as well (ChurchMilitant for example has a lot of things to say about NCR about how it's failing its flock). Now, I'll acknowledge it is indeed true that Catholics unfortunately haven't really been taking biblical efforts too seriously ("Cafeteria Catholics"), but saying that they are reading less than protestants really doesn't work because that literally depends on how you define "reading the bible" or "how much", not to mention you also have to take into account whether they have critical thinking or are literally just parroting phrases from the bible without actually understanding what said phrases mean. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much you can quote verse by verse from the bible if you don't have anything beyond an extremely shallow interpretation of the meanings behind the verses and use them to promote the opposite of what God wanted. Even Satan's good at quoting the Bible.
2. I'm not saying you have any antipathy towards Catholics at all (though that being said, I do get irritated when Conservapedia continues spreading the KGB-manufactured falsehood that Pope Pius XII did nothing to save the Jews during World War II. He certainly did more than enough to not only have the Chief Rabbi of Rome not only convert to Catholicism after the war, but even use as his Christianized name Pius XII's birth name in honor of his efforts.), just that you aren't giving them credit for things they have actually contributed in and tend to act like, say, Capitalism was invented by Protestants rather than acknowledging that the precepts of Capitalism existed under Catholic countries as early as the 9th century (and believe me, you'd be hard-pressed to justify how Capitalism could flourish under a time where Protestantism as a concept didn't even exist if you cling to the idea that Protestants invented the work ethic or Capitalism). That's all I ask, that we actually be given credit where credit is due. I can credit Protestantism for helping found America as a country to a certain extent. Heck, I can even credit protestantism for creating Thanksgiving as a holiday. I just expect the same courtesy for Catholic achievements rather than outright ignoring them. And good luck regarding going to a Catholic country, you might learn some Catholic history on the way. GK Chesterton's also a pretty good author. His Father Brown series was pretty good. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

As someone who has actually driven on Swiss roads, I agree that they're in very good shape. However, I wouldn't praise the country transportation system -- not only are the roads (and trains) becoming increasingly congested (mainly because of mass migration), but road construction literally takes years even for small streets. There have been several times that I visited the country one year and noticed a road construction project on a small town street, and when I return the next year, construction is ongoing on the exact same street. Considering that Switzerland is a typical socialist/left-wing European country, it's not surprising (by contrast, comparable road projects in the U.S. usually take a few weeks, at least where I live). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

To some atheist gentlemen: In terms of permeating a culture, Christianization can taken hundreds of years. According to Pew Research, 27% of the adults of Louisiana are evangelical Protestant.[10] That isn't a big percentage. On the other hand, Protestantism has deep cultural roots in Northern/Western Switzerland and the Swiss in these areas have excellent roads.
UK roads ranked worse than Chile and Cyprus in global survey.[11] Singapore, a former colony of Britain, was ranked second for the best quality of roads. Switzerland, a beacon of European creationism[12] , was ranked third. Checkmate atheists!Conservative (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

To the British atheist, re: Manchester bombing

At the time of the Manchester bombing in 2017, Muslims were at least 11% of the population of Manchester (Muslims were 11% of the cities population in 2011).

Next, consider this information concerning Muslims and their percentages in a population from Dr. Peter Hammond:

"From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- Muslim 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 10-15%"[13]

Also, consider this information from the City Journal:

"Nor do Muslims magically change their views on the subject when they move to the West. As long ago as 2005, the head of the Netherlands’ leading gay rights group said that, owing to the growth of Islam in Amsterdam, tolerance of gay people was “slipping away like sand through the fingers”; over the last 10 or 15 years, Dutch gays have fled the cities in droves to escape Muslim gay-bashing. In Norway, several high-profile Muslims have refused publicly to oppose executing gays, and when challenged on their views have gone on the offensive, demanding respect for orthodox Muslim beliefs. This past April, a poll established that 52 percent of British Muslims want homosexuality banned."[14]

The Google search Ariana Grande and risque pulls up over 400,000 Google hits.[15] She is also a vocal advocate of pro-homosexuality views and feminism. Also, here is a Metro article: Ariana Grande says the songs she wrote at 14 were ‘too sexual, too mature’[16]

Given the various views common within Muslim populations which are widely known even among non-Muslims (views on women's apparel, sex, homosexuality, etc.) and the prevalence of Muslim violence/terrorism in Europe, it doesn't take a genius in cultural anthropology to figure out that holding a Ariana Grande concert in an area with a fairly high population of Muslims (which means a certain percentage are going to be Muslim extremists) is an exercise in culture clash and poses a security risk. Secular leftists, as usual, are largely engaging in denial about this matter.

This cultural conflict was predicted Samuel Huntington's classic book Clash of Civilizations which was published in 1997.

Lastly, the fans of Ariana Grande don't subscribe to wholesome values. And there is a price to be paid for libertine values: "Here is the lottery ticket that single mothers are handing their innocent children by choosing to raise them without fathers: Controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced."(Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America by Ann Coulter).Conservative (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

British atheist: Do Bible believing Protestants have a reputation for terrorism and/or mass murder/violence or promoting these things? Absolutely not. It is the Muslims and secular leftists who do. See: Muslim terrorism and Islam and war and Atheism and Mass Murder and Antifa.
And Islam and secular leftists are not known for their tolerance (see: Intolerance of militant atheism and militant Islam and Atheism and intolerance).
The BBC reported: Manchester Arena attack 'could have been stopped' and the BBC article refers to "spinning plates" of potential Muslim terrorists that the police are monitoring. The British authorities are tracking so many potential Muslim terrorists ("spinning plates") that their job is incredibly difficult. The simple truth is that large scale Muslim immigration was a bad idea and is the causal root of so many "spinning plates" to manage/monitor.
And whose idea was it to have large scale Muslim immigration into Britain? It was secular leftists and Muslims. If your looking for people to be angry about concerning the Manchester terrorism attack, I suggest looking in the direction of the secular leftist/Muslim camps. Of course, you don't want to do that since you are in the secular leftist camp.Conservative (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
To that little leftist Brit: you said "So you finally admit the "Pro sodomite sluts and whores" deserved it", as if we wrote and insinuated something that despicable. Scroll up and find it; try reading the history. We made no such statement or insinuation. In fact, the insinuation is quite the opposite: it is YOU and YOUR LEFTIST ILK that is doing the killing. YOUR SIDE is bringing into your country Muslims by the bushel, and we all know and have seen just what they do to homosexuals. They are not going to change their ways because you think they are on your side. Just what do you think they will do to you once they have absolute power in Britain? You would have two choices: get on your hands and knees with your sorry butt high in the air, or get your head chopped off, because the last I heard is that they have a dim view of atheists as well. Now try copying this to your silly leftwing sites. Karajou (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
Muslims are well over 10% in the Russian Federation, something like 40%. And demographically speaking, those of military service age is approaching 50%. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:57, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
I find it interesting that leftists tend to use extremely vulgar and hateful language, especially against people they disagree with, yet they act like moralists when one makes a factual statement that promiscuous values have very negative consequences. These are obviously horrible things that happen to those people, but you shouldn't be surprised when it does happen. Leftists are in denial that destructive lifestyles have destructive consequences -- probably because they support those lifestyles. I strongly recommend that the British atheist reads Isaiah 5:20. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
Also, leftists rarely engage in any substantive debate -- when conservatives and Christians disagree with them, they engage in emotionalism and moralism and claim the other side is evil. It shows that leftists are the real hateful and intolerant bigots. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

The British atheists in question is furiously engaging in denialism regarding his country unraveling and the root causes of the unraveling. He reminds me of Handel's song: Why do the nations so furiously rage? (this Bible verse is translated in the KJV Bible: "Why do the heathen rage?" (Psalm 2:2).).

Moreover, in general, he is especially angry at me for pointing out all the flaws of atheism and its negative effects on individuals/cultures. Yet, he has yet to point out a single factual error in Conservapedia's atheism article.Conservative (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

The British, leftist, atheist, who is probably Mercian at an atheist wiki, appears to be bitter that his country may be in further decline and that British atheism appears to have peaked and is heading for decline (see: UK and secularism and European desecularization in the 21st century). In addition, the secular left in Britain appears to be stalled and is up against stiff opposition post Brexit. In September of 2017, the Guardian indicated in an opinion piece concerning Britain: "There are multiple reasons for the right’s hegemony."[17]
The British historian Niall Ferguson, who is an atheist, declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."[1]
Since SJWs/leftists always project, no doubt he is projecting his bitterness on me and would like to see me as a bitter person who is gloating over some concertgoers being the subject of a terrorist attack. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. SJWs/leftists frequently like to disqualify people (ad hominem arguments, etc.) rather than face their arguments so he wants to disqualify me as a moral monster. While I don't think Ariana Grande or her fans subscribe to wholesome values, I certainly did not want to see harm come to Grande's fans.
I would like to see Britain turn around and stop the mass immigration of Muslims (which is the underlying cause of Muslim terrorism in Britain). This may occur. Brexit was certainly a good sign as is the growth of evangelical Christianity in Britain (see: Growth of evangelical Christianity). I would also like to see biblical Christianity grow faster in Britain which would solve a lot of Britain's problems. For example, Britain would have stronger families and might have a more prosperous future should this occur (see: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).
The British historian Niall Ferguson, who is an atheist, declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."[18]Conservative (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2018 (EDT)