Oxnard said:
::: No, not a challenge to your disbelief, but a challenge as to how you can act so nonchalant about death.
:: Same thing. Do you want me to explain why?
: How is it the same?
Now we're getting somewhere. Most of the time when people make statements like yours about being nonchalant about death, or about pretty much anything else, they mean to imply that the one they're questioning is somehow deficient for being nonchalant. They imply that the one being questioned does not really have a good basis for being nonchalant, and so is rather stupid. That is certainly a challenge to a person's disbelief.
: Okay, I can accept the fact you are an atheist.
You haven't been listening. I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic.
: You've done the research, believe it is valid, and therefore accept it and adjust your beliefs to what they are now. Okay, that I understand.
Right. But remember that I claim that my beliefs are based on plenty of researched facts, and that I can present reams of information about most things on which I hold a definite opinion. I can present a link to a website, if you want to do a lot of reading. Most importantly, I can argue for my positions and support the arguments with lots of source references.
: But that doesn't explain a carefee attitude toward something many people take very seriously.
See, this kind of language is highly prejudicial, and illustrates how your statements contain strong and judgmental implications -- even if you're not overtly aware of it.
How do you know my attitude about death is carefree? In fact, it's far from carefree. It's just that I've accepted death as a natural part of life, and that I can do nothing whatsoever about it. People have been dying ever since they came into existence, just as their animal ancestors have and as everything today dies. So my attitude is one of calm acceptance of the inevitable.
Conversely, the concept of a resurrection goes against everything I know about logic and the world. I believe the notion in Genesis is true -- "dust you are, and to dust you will return". Therefore there is no such thing as a disembodied soul, spirit or whatever you want to call it, that animates people. Before you came into existence, there was nothing of you, and after you die and your body decomposes, there is again nothing. Of course, this is very JW-like, but no one has yet given me any evidence to the contrary. I don't believe this because of Genesis, but because of much other evidence. Thus, a resurrection would have to involve God's making a clone, and then he would have to 'download' a personality and memories into the clone. But the clone would not be you. Now, if God exists, he knows this perfectly well, and so for someone to state in the Bible or any other religious book that there will be a resurrection implies that God is a moron or a liar. None of it makes sense; thus the proper conclusion is that no such thing as a resurrection exists.
: Just because the evidence points toward something to be true doesn't mean it's going to lead to peace and security.
So what? The desire for peace and security does not create things like "the resurrection". That desire creates nothing of substance at all.
: See, I'm not questioning your belief, I'm curious about your attitude toward one issue.
Well I hope you understand it better now.
: I mean, I could be an atheist and fear death, right?
Of couse, and many do. But what does that have to do with the price of pork bellies?
AlanF
