The obvious difference is that you know (or at least you have good reason to believe) you will emerge from that state refreshed and rejuvenated in a few hours time.
Notthing to add, just wanted to say that’s a very commendable attitude 
Why would non-existence be anything to fear? It is not anything that can be experienced as such. It is nothing at all. What was it like before you were born? Death is the same.
The main similarity, however, is the lack of consiousness.
Yes, but before I was born I had no experience of consciousness and as such didn’t have anything to lose. Death is different because, unless life has truly dealt you an atrocious hand, consciousness is preferable to endless oblivion. I am not worried about what I will or won’t feel when I die, I am worried that I will never feel again.
If you have ever underwent general anesthetics, you wouldn’t have any consciousness either.
Hmmm. Never having read Parson Weems, I believe you, but I always heard it as the Potomac. Just goes to show how stories mutate into miracles.
—The obvious difference is that you know (or at least you have good reason to believe) you will emerge from that state refreshed and rejuvenated in a few hours time.—
Maybe. I have no real guarantee that it’s the same me that emerges (or indeed if I will wake up), or even moment to moment.
Indeed, in some sense, the consciousness of a future or past me is really as foriegn to the “me” now as anyone’s elses consciousness is. I can’t experience it: I can only theorize about what it might be.
—I am not worried about what I will or won’t feel when I die, I am worried that I will never feel again.—
But, if you never feel again, you wont be around to worry about it.
How so? Your story about your MIL’s escape is hardly evidence of divine intervention. Why couldn’t God have stopped him before he attacked her? Why didn’t the attacker end up dead in return for doing this to her?
I beleive there are certain things that humans should not do to each other eg murder, rape, theft. I would not like these things to be done to me and so I would not like to do them to other people. Compassion, my conscience and the selfish assumption that doing this to others may make them do it to me.
See the above, why can’t we all just get along
If I could meet your god and see heaven, angels and a few miracles being performed then that would be evidence for me.
This would imply that some evidence has been presented to unbelievers. The fact is, that no evidence has ever been presented. I think a lot of atheists would be more than happy to reconsider if they could be presented with even a hint of real proof.
I must say, without there being any proof I believe there is ample circumstantial evidence of a man, named Joshua - son of Mary and Joseph, brother of James et al, (likely) husband of Mary (Magdalene) who was a Jew, a humanist, and perhaps a socialist, living c. 7BCE-35CE and causing much ado about something.
Now that is not say that was not a man known as Buddha, a man known as Zeus, or etc. as well.
But anyway, as far as religion goes, you might as well believe in the tooth-fairy. (Oh dear God, if you disagree, show me no sign!) I mean really. WTF?!? Oh yeah we beseach ye… whatever.
A malevolent ‘God’ is worthy only of contempt. A benevolent ‘God’ has not been doing her job, and hence is worthy of nothing.
I rather choose to believe that we - humanity, and the other forms of life with which we share our home - are those responsible for our collective lives, and not any other being which may or may not (probably not) exist. And I think ‘responsible’ the apt word.
But wasn’t there a man named Guatama Sidhartha who became known as the Buddha?
I don’t think there are strong and weak atheists. Either you believe in the existence of god, or you don’t. There’s no “I’m not sure” or “I’m almost sure god doesn’t exist”. If you believe 1%, you believe, period.
Agnosticism is something different. It has to do with the fact of being able to prove either answer. Agnostics think you can’t prove it (existence or lack thereof), whereas non-agnostics think you can prove the existence/non-existence of god.
Or in other words, there are 4 categories:
1- believers-agnostics: believe in god and that god is not provable (most believers are here, even if they don’t like it)
2- believers-gnostics: believe in god and he’s provable (most believers /think/say/ they’re here)
3- atheists-gnostics: don’t believe in the existence of god
4- atheists-agnostics: don’t believe in god, and think it’s impossible to prove his non-existence (most atheists chose to say they’re here, it’s more socially accepted than (3))
I accept that category 4 exists… but I think it’s a rather unsupportable claim to say that the existence of god is unprovable. How could you know THAT?
That IS the original meaning of agnosticism of course, but a “weaker” definition has become more commonplace as well: simply: “lacking knowledge of God” (as opposed to asserting that such knowledge is impossible)
The distinction isn’t that weak atheists “aren’t sure,” it’s that they do not actively assert that there is no god. “I believe that there is no god” is a different assertion than “I do not believe in god.”
Chance/Coincodence/Luck doesn’t exist. Things just happen. There is no reason behind what goes on in life, it’s just life moving at it’s own pace.
You may call something coincodental, but it isn’t.
Your mother-in-law was saved simply because someone walked into the store. It wasn’t luck. It wasn’t divine intervention, it wasn’t coincodence, et al.
It just happened. And we’re all glad to know that.
Sin sits in religious circles as breaks in their moral requirements. I follow the moral requirements of my society. If I break those laws, I don’t sin… i just get carted away for some time in jail. 
I don’t think you’ll find an athiest alive (that has a reasonably sound mind), that would say it’s okay to murder as many people as possible. It’s not an issue of morality… it’s an issue of humanity. Most humans, even without being told it’s wrong to kill, still wouldn’t kill. We have some natural deterent.
The biggest thing about religion is all the hypocrits. Be good to your neighbor, etc. Yet back in the day, they used to rap your knuckles with the edge of a ruler if you disrespected someone. now, I believe in punishment for deeds done, but no child deserves to have their knuckles cracked with a ruler. Religion is cruel, and shows no kindness towards those that don’t believe.
I have very few religious friends, simply because I abhor having their religion pushed upon me simply because they think I’m wrong. :smack:
I can show you more proof of evolution then you can show me proof of God. Only proof religious people have is a book and blind faith. And it is nothing but blind faith.
Sorry for the lack of consistency. I’m not a writer. I’m a geek.
That would make you agnostic.
—I have very few religious friends—
It’s no wonder that you don’t, with your attitude.
—That would make you agnostic.—
Actually, an atheist agnostic. While some find it useful to use the “strong and weak” thing, an atheist broadly is still what both strong and weak atheists have in common: no belief IN a god.
Actually, it’s not my attitude at all, contrary to popular belief.
The attitude mostly sits within the ranks of those that are True Thumpers.
Those friends I do have that are religious happen to be deeply so, but don’t see an athiest as some lower sub-species of worthless flesh. I’ve met far to many religious nutcases that can’t accept different views.
I’ll go so far as to say those same people are the most narrow minded of all. I believe in myself, and they believe in their God. Doesn’t make them better, does it? I hope not, otherwise I suppose I am slime!
Yes, I’m opinionated, but within reason. Not all thiests are nutcases. Those who can accept my view without criticism gain my respect. Those who do nothing but criticize, gain my painfully obvious dislike.
Being open is good thing. I do have some things I’m closed-minded on. Religion is one of them. I’ll never respect a thiest that doesn’t respect an athiest.
Those are the rules of my game. Respect me, I respect you. The end.
See, I don’t really think I am an agnostic. I went through the agnostic phase, and it didn’t sit well with me. I don’t believe or worship any God that’s ever been invented or created by men, nor do I personally believe there is a higher power. Therefore, atheist. I worded my sentence poorly. I don’t believe any God exists, and I really don’t believe that if a God exists, It is in one of the forms currently worshipped on this Earth.
Isn’t the agnostic stance more of a There’s no way of knowing either way, so while I think there is a chance for a God to exist, I don’t worship he/she/it.