I don't get how so many are Christians (salvation, soul, Satan)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

I want you to "push for religious policies"? I honestly have no idea what you mean. And are you really waiting for me to "make a case" for religion? I doubt it. So why would you ask me to? I have no desire to anyway. Just like other irreligious theists have said, we don't desire to convert atheists. From my point of view I just tried to answer the original question of why do people follow Christianity. I gave reasons. It's not my problem if people can't accept that or don't understand it.

It doesn't help when you misquote me and then say you don't understand.

want you to "push for religious policies"? should read: say that you, at least, want to help us in pushing for better religious policies.

I really can't say what you irreligious theists really want. I can say what logically you should want - to help us
keep your right to remain irreligious. But so many seem to want to fight us on behalf of Religion.

Probably we have dropped off the original argument because - as you say - we don't 'get' the reasons.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

There are so many stupid assumptions made here it's unreal. I have to assume people are either joking, or else lying and trying to start trouble out of boredom.

My dear old chap, I don't at all assume that you are joking, lying or trying to start trouble. It's just an emotional attachment to a religion you don't believe (or maybe you do and are pretending that you don't) and a Bible that you know isn't true (or maybe you don't).

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

. I don't feel equipped to debate things here
.

This is just about the only thing he's gotten right

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

The way that some skeptics just dismiss a religious and literary text which has endured for centuries before they were alive, and will probably do so for long after, just makes them look foolish sometimes.

And the way some theists just dismiss issues with the text in generalized terms makes them look foolish sometimes. The reality is however that mostly what people - myself included - are dismissing is the absolutely evidence devoid claims that such religious texts are in any way historical or describe real world events and reality. From talking snakes to dead men coming back to life - there is no reason to think the texts anything but complete fiction.

But that is not to dismiss the texts _entirely_. We can appraise the text on other merits other than actual truth value for example. We can look at it on literary merits and realise that an appreciation of everything from Milton to Shakespeare is limited without an appreciation of the King James Bible for example. We can look at the moral messages within it and appraise it against the moral messages of our own time and see how morality evolved in our species. We can appraise it as a cultural document which helps us glimpse into the past and see what the social, political and agricultural concerns were in primitive times of illiterate peasants.

That the text is useful and relevant and precious is not in question and I see few people dismissing it. That the text is an accurate description of actual real world historical events however - not so much.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

It has endured because it gives value and honor to the common man.

I see absolutely zero reason to think that is true. Rather I think it more likely "common man" has values that are then mapped onto the text and the text cherry picked or interpreted to retrospectively give credence and validation to those values. However _many_ of our concerns and values have moved on since the days of an illiterate and ignorant peasantry. And the idea a modern world should seek values and honor in ancient texts is not a healthy one.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

So I guess now you guys are saying that it's okay if other people ridicule Hindu and Buddhist texts. Anything else you say will make you look like an idiot.

Your wish to insult people and call them names aside - the answer to your question here is that _any_ text should be open to the possibility of ridicule. Especially if the text makes nonsense claims.

That one can _also_ find wisdom or utility in otherwise nonsense texts - is not a reason to withhold ridicule where ridicule is warranted.

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Though I fear you wish to pretend they are.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

What have you done specifically for women, gays, or handicap people?

I can not answer for the user you asked - but I can answer for me. And the answer is a whole heap load. I have been working quite hard for those groups for 20 years now. The first two groups more so than the third - but all of them none the less.

Recently for example I had a large part in campaigning for the referendums in my home country of Ireland which have now allowed Abortion and Gay Marriage to be introduced into the land. And very proud I am of the strong results we won in the results of both - and of the society that voted with such a majority in both cases.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

There is good and bad in both the religious and non-religious perspectives. It's not fair or valid to point the finger at the bad associated with religion

Except I can happily list for you the issues with religion. I have not yet seen any such list for non-religious perspectives. At best - and I use the word "best" in the derogatory sense here as the examples have been so poor - what I have seen is attempts to indict non-religious perspectives with the actions of someone who happened to be non-religious. Without a shred of causal linkage between them.

No one should do that - towards religious _or_ nonreligious perspectives. Someone doing something while they happened to be religious or nonreligious is not the issue. Someone doing something _because_ they are religious or nonreligious however is.

And as I said I can offer such examples about the religious. Something tells me you will not be able to do the same in the opposite direction. And until you do - you are not comparing like with like at all.

For example when was the last time you saw the parent of a small defenseless child tell you "My child has a treatable illness - but because I am nonreligious I have to now withhold medical attention from the child and watching it die painfully".

Because I sure as hell have seen religious people do that in our society. Your turn. What's your examples? Regale me.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

And are you really waiting for me to "make a case" for religion?

It would be nice if one of you could. A lot of your ilk have been asked to. Over many decades. And none of you have managed yet. Wonder why. Could it all be - shock horror - entirely made up nonsense by any chance?!?!?!?!

[Back2thebeach]

God did say "Ny ways are not your ways". It's all about trust, imo.

[OzzyRules]

For all the lovely and wonderful deeds a person does that would make someone worthy of citizen of the year award, it seems like there is a ton of work being done under the surface that is not being shown. Atheists love to criticize religious people, but the fact is that religious people make up the majority of the population. And it was probably religious people who built their homes and who brought their food to them from the fields. But those kinds of things are just so mundane and not even worth mentioning.

I'm sure now there will be atheists who claim that all that necessary hard work is being done by atheists, even though they are a minority of the population. Fantasy worlds.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

For all the lovely and wonderful deeds a person does that would make someone worthy of citizen of the year award, it seems like there is a ton of work being done under the surface that is not being shown. Atheists love to criticize religious people, but the fact is that religious people make up the majority of the population. And it was probably religious people who built their homes and who brought their food to them from the fields. But those kinds of things are just so mundane and not even worth mentioning.

I'm sure now there will be atheists who claim that all that necessary hard work is being done by atheists, even though they are a minority of the population. Fantasy worlds.

Are you insinuating that if all those workers weren't religious, the work wouldn't have gotten done?

[OzzyRules]

Originally Posted by old_cold

Are you insinuating that if all those workers weren't religious, the work wouldn't have gotten done?

I hadn't thought of that, but you bring up a good question.

[OzzyRules]

Maybe someone should start a thread showing the statistics of professions held by atheists. But I think this will probably be swept under the rug. Or an atheist will hire someone to sweep for them.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Atheists love to criticize religious people, but the fact is that religious people make up the majority of the population. And it was probably religious people who built their homes and who brought their food to them from the fields.

Which tells me one thing - that religion likely had nothing to do with any of the good deeds they did. You certainly have not shown any causal links between the two.

As I said in the previous post to you above - what people do while being religious or nonreligious is simply not important. It is what they do demonstrably _because_ of their being religious or nonreligious that is of concern.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

I'm sure now there will be atheists who claim that all that necessary hard work is being done by atheists, even though they are a minority of the population. Fantasy worlds.

Isn't it interesting that you have moved frmo what atheists _actually_ say to attacking instead things you are "sure now there will be atheists" saying? Is what we actually say so difficult for you rebut or live with - that you have to attack fantasy straw versions of them instead?

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

There is good and bad in both the religious and non-religious perspectives. It's not fair or valid to point the finger at the bad associated with religion, which has nothing to do with the religion. Especially if you are going to always give a pass to the non-religious view. I can't take atheists seriously because they always do that. Therefore I can barely make any statement here that is even serious, since nothing I'm replying to seems to be serious enough for warranting a response to begin with. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

It is not our fault that you can not take us seriously because you do not understand.

It is simple. When a religious person does something bad because their religion not only allows it, but says it is the thing to be done, we have the right to point that out.

But there is nothing in atheism that say do bad things. Even when atheists do bad things, it is not because of atheism itself. The closest you get to this is with out group hatred, which is a possibility even for atheism.

We have explained this to you before, as if you your brick wall.