Of course, this is highly fallacious thinking. To begin with, neither of us could be right; there are thousands of religions that contradict each other. Thus the chances of any religious choice being "right" is minimal, since none of them have any evidence. In fact, there could just as likely be a "god" that uses the ability to reason logically as a test, thus Mahony will end up being punished, not us. Ooops!
Furthermore, if we are right, and this is the only life we have, Mahony will have wasted his by devoting it to following nonsense. I suppose, compared to the possibility of eternal punishment, this seems a bad bet; but since there is no way to determine or guarantee what, if anything, will avoid that possibility, I'll stick with reason instead of blind fear and faith in superstitions.
Of course, no one KNOWS a god doesn't exist, anymore than we KNOW purple unicorns don't. However, logic dictates the sane choice of "no belief without proof."
BTW, the strength of a faith is no evidence of its quality or validity; millions of Nazis, Communists, and believers in other religions died having a strong faith in their beliefs. Since all except the Nazis weren't even Xians, I rather doubt Mahony would claim their faith was a good thing. Playing semantics games isn't likely to earn respect on this list, and ignorance of the intent behind calling his a "poor faith" would earn even less.
Morality means there's a god?? What planet did this come from?? If anything, morality is simply human beings treating each other with respect, not scamming them with religious power plays and absurd claims. If there was a god, there would be no need for morality; in fact, the concept is absurd if there's an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being in charge. Nothing can or will ever happen without its knowledge and consent. What point morality?
For that matter, what point in repeating the same unsubstantiated claims (scientists proving JC lived, 515 witnesses, etc.)??? Throwing mud at the wall again? Or am I getting repeated duplicate messages? Is this deja vu? BTW, how can writers born twenty years after the events the Babble claims happened be considered independent witnesses??? Hell, he might as well cite Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell!
Of course, coming from a psychic power who can "sense" responses to facts, though he never offers any, perhaps he's got a mental connection to these ancients.
Brent Yaciw The views I present are still...only at their birth. Do not therefore take them as universally accepted or definitive. What I am putting before you are suggestions rather than affirmations. My principle objective is not to convert you to ideas which are still fluid, but to open horizons for you, to make you think.
-- Teilhard de Chardin