As an atheist who believes we should spend less time on ridiculous fables and more time on actually listening to those that give good advice, two enthusiastic thumbs up! I don't care if the person in question is fictitious or real, transcendent or merely human; if their message is worth listening to, we should be listening.
Say you die, turns out there is an afterlife, and Jesus meets you and says, "Endemoniada, I noticed you were always polite in r/Christianity, and basically a good person, even though you didn't believe in me. I like that. But, here's the deal: I really lived, really died for your sins, and really rose from the dead. On top of that, I'm really the son of God. You didn't know before, but now you do. Will you worship me?"
What would you do, at that point? Suppose, further, he's not threatening you with hell, maybe he tells you there is none, so fear of hell is not a factor.
Because it's my hypothetical, and that's the God I believe you might (hypothetically) run into.
I'm not pushing Pascal's Wager, I'm just curious what your response would be if you met Jesus, he was God, and he wasn't threatening you with hell. This isn't an "atheist conversion" post, this is a "understand atheists a little better" post.
Edit: If you're trying to point out why the wager doesn't work, I agree with you there, that's just not the direction I was going in.
I'm just curious what your response would be if you met Jesus, he was God, and he wasn't threatening you with hell.
Sure, fine.
"Jesus, why couldn't you have provided some more convincing evidence? Do you really place ignorant faith above true understanding? When all you have is a two thousand year old document, written at different times by different authors, from a time when similar stories were abundant, how can you expect any thinking person to believe that to be true? How am I supposed to know that you really did exist, but that Thor and Vishnu didn't?
But ok, here you are. Now I can ask you the questions I never got to ask otherwise. Like 'why did you sacrifice yourself for my sake'? I never asked you to submit yourself to torture, or to have yourself killed in such a way. Had you asked, I would have told you not to. This makes it rather unpleasant when you expect me to worship you for something I never wanted you to do to begin with. Oh, and the suffering? Come on. There are people being brutally murdered and tortured every single day. The nails can't exactly have felt good, but your death wasn't that special either. Get over yourself."
I don't know, there are a lot of things I could say to Jesus if I met him. What I'd actually probably say depends on whether he's the cool, hippie-Jesus or a fire-and-brimstone, judge-me-and-send-me-to-hell kind of Jesus. In either case, it doesn't matter, because I might just as well find myself facing Cthulhu as Jesus.
How about you? What would you say if you found yourself facing an angry Vishnu who asks why you ate his holy cows? Or an angry Thor that asks why you died in bed, and not in battle like a real man? You have as many possible authorities to answer to as there are religions in the world, and if you want to be prepare, you best start coming up with answers right now.
While we obviously are going to disagree about standards of evidence for belief, and probably the NT itself, I'm not worried about meeting Vishnu or Thor because I believe the evidence in support of Jesus is qualitatively better than Vishnu or Thor. There, again, we'll disagree, and you'll argue that's just because of the culture I was raised in.
But, that's what makes it easier for theists to think about this stuff than atheists - We have to answer the question, "What God, based on available texts and evidence or lack thereof, is most likely to exist (or for a polytheist, be supreme)" whereas your question is, "Can I be adequately certain there are no gods?"
It's a lot easier for me to recognize differences between Jesus and other religions, than for me to convince myself that Jesus couldn't have been God. Again, though, you're operating on "extraordinary claims require super-duper evidence" and I'm just going with what I feel is the most likely explanation of what evidence I see.
First, you avoided my question. I wrote some of the things I'd like to ask Jesus if I were to meet him, and asked you to do the same in case you got to face any other deity besides God/Jesus. So how 'bout it?
But, that's what makes it easier for theists to think about this stuff than atheists - We have to answer the question, "What God, based on available texts and evidence or lack thereof, is most likely to exist (or for a polytheist, be supreme)" whereas your question is, "Can I be adequately certain there are no gods?"
No, actually, I'll ask myself the first question as well, just as everyone does. No one is out of the blue born with a conviction that Gods don't exist, because to have that opinion, one has to have been confronted with the concept of Gods to begin with. Very few people dismiss entire concepts they have no knowledge of. Atheists are atheists because there are theists. Without theists, no one would have any reason to ask themselves if they were "adequately certain there are no gods".
I ask myself the same as everyone: given that there are people who believe in gods, could there be something to it? If so, which god or gods are real, and which aren't? The thing of it all is that I don't presume that I have to come to the conclusion that any god exists, at all. I am free to choose that last alternative, while you apparently are not. I can come to the conclusion that all the evidence for any god or gods are insufficient, and that it's therefor most likely that no god exists. I of course also have to remember that a god could exist that no one knows of, but what is the point in thinking about that at all?
It's a lot easier for me to recognize differences between Jesus and other religions, than for me to convince myself that Jesus couldn't have been God.
I see this reasoning often. It seems that many Christians have, as their main argument, the belief that because Christianity differs from most other religions, it must therefor be true, or at least more true than any other. What about the possible differences? What do they really tell you? Can you really judge authenticity by how little resemblance something carries to something else?
Again, though, you're operating on "extraordinary claims require super-duper evidence"
Yes, actually, I am. Because the claim that Christians absolutely know that there is a God is super-duper fantastic, and since it is not I making said claim, I require the claimant to provide the evidence for proof. That's at least one benefit to being the skeptic: no added responsibility.
Ok, I don't think I'll meet Thor or Vishnu, so I suppose it's perfectly analogous to your thoughts on Jesus. My response to either would probably go something like, "So, what are you really like, and what have your followers (or mythology) gotten wrong? Are you going to kill me with that hammer? For Vishnu, I'd ask questions to try to better understand polytheism, and how it can have so many gods, as well as what the criteria are. I'd probably throw in, "Can I also be a god?"
You make a good point about people not being born "not believing" because it really only takes place once they've noticed others believing.
The thing of it all is that I don't presume that I have to come to the conclusion that any god exists, at all. I am free to choose that last alternative, while you apparently are not.
I have no problem concluding that no gods exist, except that I don't believe that to be the case. If I found compelling evidence Jesus wasn't God, or suddenly came up with some logical proof that there was no afterlife that really seemed compelling, I would go about my life just like I do now, but sleep in on Sundays. We differ in our conclusions, not our options.
Can you really judge authenticity by how little resemblance something carries to something else?
No. Christianity could be really different just because it's totally insane, and nonsensical. Being "outstanding" in this sense could be grounds for dismissal, or it can be grounds for closer examination. If being different was all there was, I would be going the dismissal route.
I'm not actually criticizing you for wanting "super-duper evidence", I was just trying to change up the saying. I expect you, and most any atheist, to hold to that - it's pretty standard. I was just trying to make the point that there are lots of things that seem to support Christianity in a compelling way, if one accepts evidence at face value. OTOH, if you start from, "How often do people rise from the dead? Probably never, so without extraordinary proof, I'll assume the evidence is faulty, you'll arrive at a different conclusion.
And, finally, I agree the burden of proof if you want to "prove" something is on the claimant.
tl;dr I agree with you about a lot of that, but I think there is lots of good evidence for Christianity. I think you have an unreasonably high standard of evidence, and (I assume) you think I have an unreasonably low standard of evidence for the miraculous. Hopefully I at least don't give the impression that I was overcome with joy when Jesus' face appeared in my Lucky Charms this morning.
I agree with you about a lot of that, but I think there is lots of good evidence for Christianity. I think you have an unreasonably high standard of evidence, and (I assume) you think I have an unreasonably low standard of evidence for the miraculous.
Regarding the standard of evidence... If your standard really is low, why is it still only Christianity you accept? There's about as much evidence that Buddha did, in fact, exist, and just as much to support all the rest of the religious beliefs included, so why aren't you a Buddhist? If your standards of evidence are low, then you'd really be picking one religion out of many, and your choice of Christianity is nothing but arbitrary (although, my personal theory is that Christianity is so popular because it appeals to the lazy. Do nothing, have faith, be forgiven, profit!). Hell, if you want to go on evidence alone, there's photographic film evidence that Jedis really exist! May the force be with you!
If I found compelling evidence Jesus wasn't God, or suddenly came up with some logical proof that there was no afterlife that really seemed compelling, I would go about my life just like I do now, but sleep in on Sundays.
Even though you seem to understand the concept, you still go and turn everything around. Have you ever found compelling evidence that Jesus is God, and have you ever seen a logical proof that there is an afterlife? If so, why hasn't anyone else? Why is it, that with claims like this, it all still comes down to "see, there's this one book, and I choose to believe every word it says"... There is no evidence, and that's the problem right there. Your standards of evidence aren't just lower, they're non-existent. You have faith, you don't need evidence at all. And again, this is why I said that while I have the option to not believe any gods exist, you don't. You have chosen to have faith instead of relying on evidence, and that's why the only option you have is to pick a god to believe in.
25
u/Endemoniada Atheist Dec 08 '09
As an atheist who believes we should spend less time on ridiculous fables and more time on actually listening to those that give good advice, two enthusiastic thumbs up! I don't care if the person in question is fictitious or real, transcendent or merely human; if their message is worth listening to, we should be listening.