Originally Posted by Vlerchan
And this is a major problem I hold with religion: when one chooses to abide to a certain set of religious dogma - Christianity; Hinduism; Islam; Judaism; whatever - they're automatically deferring their morality to some supposed higher power. Now, I'll admit that some - such as you - do it to a (much) lesser degree that others, but it still stands that when one adopts a religion they're no longer - to some degree or another - continuing to think and make choices for themselves. It gets worse when you adopt my POV, and come to the conclusion that it's not a Supreme Being(s) or God(s) that Theists defer their morality to, but rather an individual - or set thereof - who wrote, whilst what is an undeniably amazing piece of literature which was certainly ahead of its time, a popular book.
I am, anyway, a Gnostic Atheist. Whilst the burden of proof may rest on me to provide evidence of a lack of existence of X God, I find the chances of such existence to be so slim they're negligible, and hence don't identify as Agnostic.
: Though, let me add, I've debated with one highly religious individual and it's is positively scary what he was coming out with, least amongst it I being certainly destined for Hell.
Science has yet to come up with a decent theory of abiogenisis, can't comprehend the details of basic cell division, can't explain why there is something rather than nothing, can't prove the multiverse (needed to atheistically explain fine tuning), can't explain in any way p-consciousness, hasn't been able to demonstrate non-guided evolution from non-living matter to us and so on and so forth, and your opinion is there is presently "negligible" chance of there being a Creator? That amazes me.
Your comment about deferred morality neglects that we theists have a personal relationship with God, we don't just mimic what we read thoughtlessly, we are on a walk with a living God.