Athiesm is dangerous

[Sinyalan]

athiests without morals or have weak sense of good or bad are dangerous.

absence of proof is not proof of absence.

and theists too.

[LIBER777]

The supporting evidence is not good, so we should remain skeptical........

da ! ! !
usab paka ani kebot

Kasakit.

[Ramini]

Why don't you read it? Because If I say it's a good book... I am biased. If you read it, then you will know.

there's your answer mr. kebot..read it..

[Hellblazer 2.1]

that's fair enough. hehe.

[LIBER777]

Mao ni naKa pa-it ani ...
People choose the book considered sacred by the community in which they are born and out of that book they choose the parts they like ignoring the others...


Cege Sir Kebzzzzzzzz

Jaiga Jaw sa!ko...

[LIBER777]

I WILL CLOSE THIS THREAD BY THIS "Les Adieux" MSG. TO THE BEARER.

It could be realized tomorrow if Mr. Kebot would learn to pursue his own happiness rather than the misery of others.

[gabstafari]

everybody is dangerous.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

learn to pursue his own happiness rather than the misery of others.

i agree to this.

[kebot]

da ! ! !
usab paka ani kebot

Kasakit.

You cannot teach something to a person that is way beyond his comprehension. This i remain skeptical.. hahaha

[kebot]

Thiesm and Athiesm simplified.

Thiests are like kids with rich parents, while athiests are like orphans.

The kids with rich parents, since they're not the earners, spend their money freely as they wish, which more often than not, leads them into trouble (i.e. debt). However, they have their rich folks to rescue them from their deeds.

The orphans however (who possibly have found a means of living by themselves, since they have no parents) are more careful about how they spend their money, because they know they don't have any fallback (i.e. they don't have any parents who can "save" them), and thus they usually don't end up in debt, compared to the rich kids.

I though I'd use this as an analogy to explain brownprose's observation...

----------------
So going back to the topic, yes, in the eyes of those who have parents (theists), being an orphan (atheist) would seem to be a "dangerous" situation, because a person who has not experienced being an orphan might be terrified at the thought of not having any parents (because all the material freedoms they enjoyed while having rich parents will be gone), whereas, someone who grew up without having any parents may not really mind it at all.

-RODION

Brad your example is an example of CHEAP persuation. I don't give a syet on this... you know why. Does it mean we have an advantage in believing over you.

Brad we are all the same, you can think for yourself i can think mine. Talking about rich and poor like your example. How do you know our father mo lukat namo? does it mean you are Christian and you believe in it? and this athiest are on thier own? If that is the case then you must be true. But if it does not apply on the perception I picture out then, You are trying to picture out that this ORPHANS Athiest needs more attention and care and blah blah blah...because they are on thier own? Brad If that is the case why stay on being ATHIEST? does that sound logical? OUR FATHER refering to your example is willing to accept you... Its your decision. But don't give a bias analogy...

We are rich because of our father. So dont blame us believing him.. Its your fault for not believing. sigh, sayon raman unta nano lisud lisoron...