A classic example of this are some of the Southern Pentecostal churches that handle poisonous snakes. When the snakes don’t bite them, it reinforces their faith. If they get bitten and don’t die, it still doesn’t shake their belief. If they get bitten, and do die, it’s no bigge…well, to the others, anyway. One Pentecostal preacher was asked about the latter situation, and as he succinctly put it: “Well, some of us are just not worthy to die for the Word.”
JZ
Why not be an agnostic? It seems to me that being an atheist is as irrational as being religious. You can’t deduce from premises you can’t assert. The truth behind the universe is probably so much weirder than what most people believe (or have the capacity to understand) that arguments either for or against a “God” becomes silly because words become incredibly blunt objects to describe any potential truth. So as an atheist are you saying “I don’t believe in the guy with the white beard?” or are you saying “I don’t believe in some primary force of will that makes the amoeba first extend it’s pseudopod?” So as someone who doesn’t believe in God, what exactly do you mean?
But… doesn’t everyone have to cope with this knowledge? We’re all going to die. And regardless of any beliefs we may hold, death is a final departure from all we’ve known.
I guess I find it hard to believe that religious people actually believe with any real confidence in an afterlife.
KidC, I stopped calling myself an agnostic when I relized that some people took the word to mean “person who is unsure of the truth/falsity of the Christian God, the Bible, Jesus died for our sins, etc.” These are not points on which I’m unsure. I don’t believe that people need to be “saved”. I don’t believe in a personal God. I don’t believe the universe is being run by a being that cares what sex acts I commit.
Before I realized it was misleading to do so, I’d been calling myself an agnostic because I have no idea how the universe came to exist. It may, for all I know, have been brought into being by some force beyond our comprehension. But I do not buy the notion that he, she, it, or they have been described by any human religion. And I see no reason to suppose that, after starting things rolling, he, she, it, or they would have stuck around. If the universe is being run, supervised, or observed by somebeing or beings, why would it be the same person or comittee as the one(s) who started things?
What does “cope” mean? There are a few moments left and however you feel or act will make no difference.
I, too, find the thought of death (i.e. not existing) terrifying. However, I have had an experience very similar to Sampiro’s. I was in a car that went out of control and was skidding sideways and backwards across a freeway at 70mph. Like Sampiro, I was perfectly calm and accepted that “this is it”. Also like Sampiro, I ended up totally unharmed, hanging from my seatbelt in an upside down car.
From this, I suspect (and hope) that I will cope with my final moments calmly.
There’re two brands of atheism, Weak and Strong. They both answer “no” to the question “Do you believe in God.” The Strong atheist answers “yes” to the question “Do you believe that there is no God,” the Weak atheist answers “no.” So while it might be arguable that the Strong atheist is being just as irrational as a theist (obviously the Strong atheist is going to disagree with this assertion), I don’t think that it’s possible to assert the same thing of the Weak atheist.
Ok then by your definition I’m an atheist as well. I suppose of the “weak” sort. See what I mean - words don’t even describe relatively effable concepts vert well.
I went through an agnostic stage during my teens and twenties, and I would often waver between that an a atheist. I guess the slur about an “agnostic was really an atheist without guts” applied to me during that time. I don’t think it applies to all agnostics; I‘ve read from many that I respected and admired. I do think that quite a few though, not being able to find any compelling proof for a God, find comfort in not knowing, or not wanting to know if it turns out the answers they have been getting are not very pleasing to them. While I can‘t claim with 100% certainly and say that it is absolute there is no God, it seems to me the world runs without any God running it. Most people that entertain theistic beliefs, are often holding out hope for some life hereafter with loved ones. Without that hope, I doubt religion would stand. If evidence ever came in to support some celestial Being as existing, I would certainly give it some serious thought and would change my mind if I thought the evidence was convincing, but I find the likelihood of that happening being slim to none. Any time someone gives God a definition and description, and starts talking about His or Her attributes, and benevolent character, it obvious to me that this kind of God doesn’t exist. The more they talk, the less convincing they become. As far as some celestial Granddaddy Being possibly lighting the huge firecracker that started the whole Big Bang and what not: Hell, it’s possible, but why bother or even care if such a Being like that even exists? It’s something that doesn’t even interest me unless there were some empirical proofs we could work with. I live my life as if God doesn’t exist. Do agnostics? Or do they not knowing, still watch their step, preferring to play it on the safe side? I can lead a good, decent, caring life without such thoughts of God. What do you mean by your agnosticism? And do you apply it to all of the known religions?
JZ
I guess I think that the word “God” is too vague to have any meaningful discussion about the possiblity of it existing or not. I sure as hell don’t believe in any Judeo-Christian God. I do wonder what’s at the center of 36 dimensions (if there really is a center). I do wonder what “first cause” is, though I’m sure that’s just not a viable approach to thinking about the truth.
^^^^if there is a truth.
Uh…I don’t understand why that would cause fear. I get into long fights with my husband over this. I’m an atheist, he could be described as a Deist. He’s not going to let go of his belief in God because he just can’t handle the fact that once he’s gone, that’s it. He ceases to be. No more Jaime.
But me? I don’t really care. There’s nothing I can do about it, no sense fearing it. I’ll just live the best I can and let the rest take care of itself.
I don’t know if I’m a "strong’ or “weak” atheist. I basically come down to “There may be a God, but if so, I don’t believe it’s any of the millions of Gods that’s ever been worshipped on this planet.”
Or that he requires or even desires worship.
Thanks for the replies… I enjoy this debate… next question:
What do you (each of you, not necessarily collective atheists) believe about Jesus? Isn’t there enough historical evidence that He did exist? I mean, just as much evidence as Socrates existing, or another historical figure? And If He said He was the Son of God, and wasn’t how do you explain the miracles he conducted?
[sub]I know you can’t tell the tone of a speaker from reading their comments, so let me assure you I am not antagonizing, just inquiring…[/sub]
You don’t have to doubt that Jesus existed to doubt he’s the son of god. As for the miracles - Do you know how many people think Benny Hinn makes miracles happen?
That first sentence is a doosey but you probably got what I meant.
I don’t really care. If he was a Historical Figure, so what? That doesn’t change anything. I don’t worship him anyway. Whether a Jewish guy named Jesus existed 2000 years ago doesn’t make any difference to me.
As for the miracles…we have a third hand account from 4 guys who weren’t even there and wrote about like, 90 years later. As far as I’m concerned the “miracles” were myths, and probably literay devises within the text. For all you know, I’ve conducted more miracles than he reportedly has. I’m here telling you right now, you don’t even have to wait 90 years for somebody who never knew me to give a second-hand account of what may have happened.
**
I don’t think it matters one way or the other if a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago and started a cult. Whoever that man was, we can only get a very distorted picture of him through the writings of his followers and the interpretations of the early church.
His “miracles” are a part of his legend and there is no need to explain them anymore than I would need to explain the mechanism by which Moses parted the Red Sea. It doesn’t take very much to convince a believer that a “miracle” has been performed, much less when that “miracle” is included in dogma.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to need more than some preacher’s word for these things.
I’m pretty much in the could care less column as well on whether or not he actually existed. If there was a historical Jesus, we really don’t know anything concrete about him. He wrote nothing. We know nothing about the authors of the four gospels, only that the names were added later. We also know that none of the authors writing, wrote any where close to the time of Jesus’ existence. If the Jesus Seminar scholars are correct, only 18% of what gets contributed to Jesus is authentic, with 82% being unauthentic. If the ex-Catholic priest and scholar Joseph McCabe is correct, the miracle stories were also added later. So none of it is impressive to me.
JZ
As far as extra-Biblical evidence is concerned, there is no contemporary confirmation for the existence of Jesus and only a couple of passing references within the first century after his death. (Tacitus, Josephus) Neither of these Roman historians say anything about miracles (although 2nd century Christian forgers did interpolate a “resurrection” into Josephus).
So the evidence for a historical Jesus is pretty scant but circumstantially supportable. The evidence for miracles is non-existent. I concur with all of the posters above me that even if Jesus did exist, it is virtually impossible to know anything substantial about him, and that his mere existence would not be proof of divinity. He was not the only person of his era to be deified after his death. The emperor Augustus would be a prime example.
How is it that you are making the leap from “Jesus was a real person” to “Everything in the Gospels is true”? Have you seen the film “Amadeus”? Mozart and Salieri were actual historical figures, but in the movie, Salieri is responsible for Mozart’s death. In real life, he was not responsible for Mozart’s death. In other words, having a “real” person in a story does not automatically make the story 100% true.
Yeah, like when he’s chasing some woman who’s in her underwear, but it’s all sped up, and there’s this sax music playing…
Oh, sorry, I thought you said Benny HILL.