The difference is, you keep making things up. Why are you not addressing that -- this is why you are being idiotic. You want to just ignore what you can't answer and obfuscate everything else. If I am an idiot to you that would be the best complement.கால பைரவன்;221002 said:... coin even if you consider it being said out of spite!
KB, you keep ignoring the fact there is no definable group called irreligious with well defined sins. Religion, which ever one it may be, has well defined rules, sins, etc., and those who profess a given religion pledge allegiance to the rules and sins of that given religion. On the other hand, the irreligious don't pledge allegiance to anything but their own innate sense of morality. So, in practical terms, it can range from totally immoral like many overtly religious folks like Ted Haggard though all he did was hire a male prostitute, not commission the murder of anyone, to totally ungodly but very moral like Peter Singer.My view is that it is shameful and self-serving for an irreligious person who is equally guilty on an issue to point the finger at religion.
However, I am pointing my finger at your religion for not considering amassing evil amount of wealth as sin, give an answer for that. Why is it not a sin to hoard obscene amount of wealth, but eating rice on the eleventh day of lunar cycle is a sin? You keep ignoring all the questions I am raising, but dishing out dirt. KB, if you are serious take these questions on.
Make it rational, make it serious, simply saying the irreligious are this or that won't do. You can reserve the right to be anything, even to be idiotic, it does not make your case any more rational.Just like you do not forfeit your right to comment on religion, I reserve my right to comment on the irreligious! What is good for the goose is good for the gander!
Read this and my other posts carefully. There is nothing called THE irreligious. It appears this may be too complicated for you to grasp. Let me explain to you slowly, there is no unified group of the irreligious like Hindus, Christians, or one of their sub-sects. Your criticism of the imagined blob of the irreligious is simply a reaction to the criticisms against your religion that you are unable to answer.My criticism of the irreligious on this issue is as valid or invalid as your criticism on religion. Take it or leave it...