And what do you mean the OT was not sanctioned by god necessarily? Did some one sit down with your gods and have a discussion about penmanship? You religious talk as if your gods were real and that they talk, what language I wonder?

You have to realize all the gods are figments of your imagination, only in the mind! Not real!

And then you say Christians are trying to save others from a dreadful life after death, that is poppycock! How do they know what is after death? Oh wait! something that they have been told or read. Give me something besides circular logic! All the Christians are doing by trying to get more converts and save them is to justify their erroneous beliefs.

Considered as one, even by your big JC, according to your man made books/bibles, not separate at all, I’m an atheist/unbeliever in any gods and know more than you about your religion, do some studying!

Funny religee’s!

From wikipedia,
“Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor) is the English equivalent of the Latin lex parsimoniae — the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.”

One thing it failed to tell you is that Achem’s is another used spelling for the word.
It seems another thing you failed is to understand the meaning of the principle properly. It doesn’t mean use the simple answer, whether it is correct or not.
Which is what you say when you said;
“Now Occams Razor: It doesn’t matter if the story is true, it doesn’t matter if He ever existed, the fact of our western agreement on His principles and philosophyr protects you and your children every day, otherwise you are condemning your children and grandchildren to Thunderdome. The idea of Him is worth your respect, if not your worship.”

The logic in that is wrong in a few ways, as was your logic in the first half of your post.

Firstly, that is not a correct application of Ockham’s razor. Simple but STILL CORRECT answer is what you are looking for. So it kinda does matter if the story is true.

Secondly, you suggest that even if the story is not true, “the idea of Him is worth your respect, if not your worship.” Hmm, I disagree with you. I don’t think a fairy tale (which IF it isn’t true it really becomes), however appealing the idea may be, is worthy of my respect if not my worship.

Thirdly, when you say “western agreement on His principles and philosophyr protects you and your children every day, otherwise you are condemning your children and grandchildren to Thunderdome.”
I assume you meant ‘our western society which is based on his principles and philosophy, which protects you and yours, otherwise you are ….. thunderdome.’
Hmm, I’ve lived in a Muslim country, (I’m a white Australian). Going on what you say, I should have been fearful for myself and any children with me, as we were in a Thunderdome. We must have been, as we weren’t in a country based on your required principles and philosophy. The funny thing is, I felt safe. Maybe that was because I couldn’t see what you call a thunderdoome.

Another theory is, David is just plain wrong. Being protected and not trying to survive a ‘thunderdome’ of a world is not purely a result of values and principles based on ‘Him’. Others may have had the same or similar idea, and created a society other then David’s Thunderdome, not in the western world, having nothing to do with Jesus.

Now if we apply Ockham’s razor…. ohh, it’s not required as the two theories aren’t actually competing. One is correct, the other is not.