To SteeleRedux.

You said:

<<I'm not sure why I should be explaining what a cultural Christian is every time I use the term. Thus far you are the only person who seemed to be caught out by it and as soon as that became evident I corrected the record. Indeed directly above my reply to you was a full definition of it.>>

The term's description was put into question between you and OzSpen. I just mis read what you wrote. However in your replies to OzSpen, my comentary is that it would have been more direct and easier to just give your discription so that that was clear. Instead, you had to put in your distaste for christians who are evangelical, Protestant, and conservative. As well as a long winded defense for ad hominem arguments that you use. A long winded but useless point because you do use that kind of logic more often then not. Even to the point that in some posts that's all you really say is a long snide remark aimed at your focused target. There is no point to argue that you don't trash talk Christians. You do it so regularity that you must not read what you write if your surprised by the obvious.

As for walking on thin ice. I think I accept much more of Christianity as being part of my brothers and sisters in faith, then you do to accept all of Christians as one family. Clean up your own house before commenting on your neighbor's house.

To Banjo Paterson.

I don't know what it would look like to have a court prusume that the defendants are neither innocent nor guilty until proven either way, yet sill have the condition to prove guilt. On criminal cases, where someone is murdered, raped, or even a theIf who steals enough. Those are big enough cases that would get a negitive response for just being accused of them. If they are not protected to some degree that they are innocent until proven guilty, then the number of false convictions will go up quite a bit. If for no other reason but to close a hard case, meet closure for the people who have lost so much, and to but all of this behind them all.

If the court is to not prusume innocence or guilt, I assume that also mean for the court will need to get rid of juries so to remove biased crowds and try to train judges to be unbiased.

This is changing too much of the court system to be able to gauge if it will work as well as what's currently there, with the benifit of more justice towards rape victims; or if it would be much worse.

Personally, I'd rather have a jury reach a verdict, instead of hope that the single judge is enough to weigh it all out fairly day in and day out on all the cases they see.

NNS,

<<Instead, you had to put in your distaste for christians who are evangelical, Protestant, and conservative. As well as a long winded defense for ad hominem arguments that you use. A long winded but useless point because you do use that kind of logic more often then not. Even to the point that in some posts that's all you really say is a long snide remark aimed at your focused target. There is no point to argue that you don't trash talk Christians. You do it so regularity that you must not read what you write if your surprised by the obvious.>>

Thank you for your insightful analysis of what SteeleRedux does in many of his responses, in trying to trash Christianity.

I'm so pleased you, as a Christian, have joined us on OLO to help respond to those who debunk God and Christianity. Jesus warned us this would happen: 'Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also' (John 15:20 NIV), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+15%3A20&version=NIV

What we experience in OLO comments often amounts to 'persecution' against us, for Christ's sake.

OzSpen,

"Persecute Christ" ?! Many of us atheists have great respect for the myths and stories of the symbolic Christ-figure - he/it represents a coming-together of many of the best Greek, Jewish, Indian and other philosophical trends at the time (say 500 BCE to 500 CE). Whether he was real doesn't matter, it's many of the ideas that he is purported to espouse which are more important.

And I think they have guided much of the very best of philosophy ever since (with a few ups and downs, like the Middle Ages). But one does not need to posit anything supernatural or godly or divine or magic about any of those ideas - they were around before 0 BCE/CE and I hope they'll be around in another two thousand years.

Joe

OzSpen,

Try this, twenty minutes of pure delight, Five Mystical songs of George Herbert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7MYRaPalSU

Vaughan Williams' music - he was a non-believer too, but wrote some wonderful music with a religious orientation, 'Job- A Masque for Dancing', Lazarus, etc.

Sir Thomas Allan sings this masterfully with an excellent choir. I don't know if god has the best tunes, but he's had some timeless and loving help from us non-believers :)

Joe

loudmouth2,

<<Many of us atheists have great respect for the myths and stories of the symbolic Christ-figure>>

You have dumped another Straw Man on us.