reply to post by pstrron
This in fact is incorrect. The person of faith does not deny himself in a negitive way.
What a crock of sh*t. Your denying that you are personally responsible for your own morality. By placing the responsibility of determine morality upon
a higher entity, you are impacting your own ability to make sound judgments.
He simply chooses to not partake in activities he feels is against his beliefs.
And here we can interject a fine example of 'faith in deity'. In some religious sects, they don't allow thing's as mundane as blood transfusions
as part of their "faith". This has led to the deaths of people in dire need of such a simple medical procedure.
Is it a positive aspect of faith, or a moral and righteous act to withhold life saving medical techniques?
There for he has lost nothing.
He lost morality. I have no reason to assume he is moral for the sake of being moral because he has FAITH that being moral will grant him a reward.
Take away that promise of reward, then what?
When he dies should there be nothing hereafter he again has lost nothing.
He has freely given up his intellect by dismissing what we've learned about our universe and how thing's work within it.
However for the atheist if God exists then he will face Him without excuse and pay full measure for his error.
And if Osiris exists, then you will have your soul weighed by Anubis.
What's your point?
The loss is only one sided when it comes to God.
If arguing from a closed minded point of view whilst exclaiming to the hundreds of millions of followers of other faiths and deities that their
deities don't exist despite all their personal proofs for existence.
People can debate all day long and in the end it still boils down to faith. The atheist has faith He doesn't exist and the beliver has faith
He does. The atheist lacks evidence and knowledge to support his claim. The person of faith is in a simalar position as not having enough scientific
evidence.
Atheism has archeological history showing the young age of the Judaic-Christian deity in comparison to much older deities.
Faith not be applied to written history, and YAY for written history!
Where the person of faith errors is believing in something they were told without checking the facts. This can make them look foolish at best
or ignorant at worst. I won't go into their major blunder about the age of the earth. It only gives those that do not believe cause to ridicule based
on a sound fact.
Huh?
The atheist errors in much the same way. Though its not due to lookin or checking for facts as just not having enough to truly support his
position. Saying they do is really putting faith in our very limited knowledge. Edison was quite correct in stating that we do not know 1/10 of 1%
about anything even though we think we do.
I agree with Edison, and as an Atheist I don't believe in anything that is not fully proven and has sufficient evidence for being real. Claiming a
deity exists without evidence for it's existence is arrogance at it's purest level.
