What are /r/agnostic's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

It’s simple. There’s no evidence anywhere in the world that any human being has been brought back from the dead after being dead for three days. The Bible is a claim, not evidence. Why would anyone believe that Jesus was resurrected? You would have to prove it first to claim there’s no argument against it.

This book might give you some good perspective.

How Jesus Became God : the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061778192/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_rSL8CbN6DVTPZ

>In my research I found evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ,

What is the evidence you found? Is it for Jesus the man only, or for also Jesus the Christ? A person just shared this book chapter with me about proof of Jesus.

>It was the most incredible feeling of peace and unconditional love I'd ever felt.

Was this a one time thing? Was it in conjunction with something else that may have gone down (e.g., big life event, feeling light-headed)? Was it the book itself, or a specific chapter or verse?

It's hard for me to believe a chapter inside a book (Bible, not John) you don't find overly legit would "speak" to you. But doesn't mean it couldn't.

On the subject of being "spoken" to by John, have you never had that experience when reading other literature? I've had it happen to me. Other than the Bible, I recall a book on Neuropsychology "speaking" to me and making me overwhelmed with admiration at the central nervous system. I would consider a comic book as "speaking" to me when giving me fits of laughter and joy. Or read any biography of suffering and you will surely be "spoken to" with sadness and sympathy, maybe even empathy.

All this to say, examine it as closely as you can. I bet the real answer will come to you.

> are there other people who enjoy reading and/or studying scripture for what it tries to teach

Sure. But the same can be said of any book that stands the test of time and I don't think it has anything particularly unique or insightful to say compared to (say) Plato.

There are lessons to be learned from Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Aesop and so on. The trouble with the Bible is that many people consider it to be divinely inspired. They treat it as the final arbiter rather than the opening question. With the Bible, people pull their philosophical punches. Because of the religious baggage, they excuse the inexcusable in a way they would not do with any other book.

One example of this is a study by George Tamarin (mentioned in The God Delusion), where Jewish school children judged a biblical story both in its original form and in a form where the characters and towns were replaced with Chinese names. They judged the story differently in each case.

When people read other ancient books, they ask questions. What is the author trying to say? Do they make a sound argument? Does the argument hold up today in the light of 2000 years of philosophical examination? Does it apply to my life? Should it?

These other authors do not have the shield of divine inspiration to protect them from critical analysis.

Heaven & hell are absolutely manmade inventions. They come from the ancient Zoroastrian religion, then the idea spread to christianity and islam. Bart Ehrman is a bible scholar, he wrote a book all about the history of the idea: https://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Hell-Afterlife-Bart-Ehrman/dp/1501136739

I know it's scary, but it gets better. After you process the sense of loss that comes with leaving a religion, you'll realize that you've gained freedom.

Interestingly enough I was listening to the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius earlier today, and he has similar ideas about existence as a collective--we are all essentially part of each other, and part of everything else.. Whether or not we were created by God or just puttered out from maths and matter we come from the same source.

She was a monster. She fetishized suffering, and was the cause of so much of it that it's unfortunate that there's no hell for her to suffer in. Although she probably would love it.

The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice by Christopher Hitchens

There are some interesting theories about this. Many argue that humans are predisposed to believe in supernatural things. There is also some evidence that a group that believes a common set of supernatural things may be more highly cohesive and therefore more likely to thrive and survive. (I just finished The Righteous Mind, which is absolutely fabulous, and it talks about this.)

Don't get your hopes up, this kinda end-time prophesying has been going on literally since the dawn of Humanity. For example, check out the last sentence of the passage that Evening Honey quotes:

>I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass from the scene until all these things take place.

This is Jesus literally telling his disciples that the apocalypse will come before Jesus' / the disciples' own generation has died. In other words Jesus himself prophesied the end times would happen during his lifetime...and yet the world went right on turning, as it always does. If you read the Pauline letters, you'll notice that one of the topics that his congregations were increasingly worried about was the apocalypse...or rather, the continued lack of apocalypse. Paul had promised them a soon-to-be end and ascent to heaven when they converted from paganism, and when it kept not happening they got more and more disappointed. Rather than admit that Jesus had been totally wrong, christians eventually decided to combine unrelated passages of the Torah and the NT in order to turn Matthew 24:32-34 into an open-ended 'prophecy' that christians have been playing number games with ever since.

Every few years a christian conman comes out with a new prophesy, like 88 Reasons the Rapture Will Be in 1988...and like the one Evening Honey is pushing.

Hi Crumsie!

I followed you from your comment in r/Christianity. I thought this document would be highly useful for you re: questioning the validity of Christianity.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f6ZewV_Ro5HLixACGE_wgJrnlFNVKVxTfuVALqARNEs/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

Four years ago I was in a very similar situation. I went to a Christian college right after high school. I was young (17) and far from home. The Christians were very welcoming of me and constantly invited me to parties, church and bible study, which I was very glad to attend. I guess you could say I 'drifted' into my "faith." I went to church for two years and drummed in the band. I really tried to embrace Christianity. But in the end I was unable to put aside all my doubts and really truly believe, with all of my heart and soul.

I guess what I'm saying is lots of us have been in your situation. It can be quite scary - I, for example, have lost most of my former friends - but in the end, admitting and accepting your doubt is better than living a lie.

Or maybe it's the other way around?

The Oxford English Dictionary has always had this:

Atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods..

So by that exact definition, someone who has formed no beliefs on the matter is technically a (weak) atheist. Though of course no one to whom that applies would ever self-label as 'atheist', simply because the very act of adopting a label implies affirmation of a belief relating to that subject. But congratulations, you just added a bunch of babies, raised-by-wolves kids, and utterly witless people to your ranks!

Now let's consider the corresponding definition of agnostic (which you'll note is listed as a noun first, before the mention of it as an adjective):

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic > agnostic

> noun A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

So anyone who holds the belief that the question is unanswered is an agnostic. Period, end of sentence. Such people do not lack a belief on the topic, nor do they engage in disbelief; therefore, they are not atheists.

Arghh jesus christ, this is as bad as talking to the people who argue that "evolution is just a theory" and completely misunderstand the two definitions of the word theory. You guys are really worried about losing that strawman definition of atheist to attack aren't you?

Atypical - not typical

Asexual - not sexual

Apolitical - not political

Atheist- not a theist.

Next you should probably go argue that 'gay' is defined as happy and thus all non-gay people must be unhappy.

Sorry, but faith and belief do have christian meanings in the english language, which evolved in a christian country and was largely invented by a christian king forming his own church in england to break away from the pope, when translating the bible. When we are talking about 'faith' and 'belief' in the religious sense, we are implicitly presuming a god to have faith or belief in. Otherwise you're discussing the naturalistic sense, which is an entirely different definition, and is not covered in concepts such as "freedom of belief" and "different faiths".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=belief

> Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (a sense attested from early 13c.).

^ There's some etymology for you.

I try and study/read!

You might try Heaven and Hell by Bart Ehrman

And the history of hell by Alice Turner

Maybe for a laugh. Or to sharpen up your counter-apologetics skills. It’s pretty bad. Super basic apologetics. And like all apologetics, they’re not aimed at an audience of non-believers. They’re for doubting believers. To shore up against the ever-rising tide of apostacy.

Read some of the reviews, and the books that refute it. Like The Case Against the Case For Christ

Years ago, I was over at my folk’s house visiting, and I saw an Amazon box sitting on my mom's counter. I asked her what book she bought (this was around the time where Amazon still mostly sold books) . I picked up the box and saw that it was The Case for Christ. She looked at me in a serious way and said, “I bought that for you”. I told her that I had already read it but thank you. What I didn't tell her is that my then young teenager would probably be able to easily refute it. Awkward.

Book: The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It presents a strong case for a secular view and discusses the basic underpinnings of a skeptical mindset with a bit more subtlety than can be found in works by other famous atheist authors.

Book: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. This book has nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism; in fact is was written by a Mormon. But it does provide some principle centered practices that are useful to people, particularly if you are feeling rudderless in the absence of a religious moral code.

If I argue for the idea of a higher power involved with the lives of individual men and women, the only evidence I refer to, aside from the polls I've just referred to, is the body of research compiled about the near-death experience. I don't have the expert knowledge of prehistoric life it takes to discuss evolution intelligently. The polls don't tell us what the theist-evolution arguments are. We hear about "evidence" from the 6-Day believers all the time. I don't know whether or not to take any of it seriously.

I at least understand the questions of NDE research. When a neurologist says that there was consciousness he can't explain because the EEG showed a flat line and a skeptic says, "Maybe the machine didn't tell you enough," I understand the question. One study (Parnia, 2012) came up with an out-of-body experience that went on for about 3 minutes after cardiac arrest, according to the patient's hearing a timing mechanism in the ER. The brain goes flat line in 20 to 30 seconds.

By the way, I thought I'd mention a topic that's related to religion, though not religious - therapy based on traditional Buddhist meditation. It's Buddhist only in the sense that the Buddha discovered it. There's been literally hundreds of studies devoted to Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction. It's been shown to help people cope with serious illnesses. There's a program from the Univ of Massachusetts Medical School on YouTube, "How mindfulness can change your life." Jon Kabat-Zinn, founder of MBSR is interviewed. Books by JKZ - Full Catastrophe Living, audiobooks Mindfulness for Beginners, Mindfulness Meditation for Pain Relief. Of course, I'm not suggesting that this is meant to replace conventional treatment for cancer, but it's a safe, low-cost complimentary treatment that you can consider.

Mindfulness in Plain English. It is a buddhist book about how to think objectively and clearly. It is very insightful and I know people are recommending atheist books so here is your religious book recommendation. Even though it focuses more on how to think properly and objectively more than anything else. I accidentally ordered an extra copy and would be willing to ship it to you, under the stipulation that you have to ship it or recommend to someone else on /r/agnosticism to read it, that is if you like it.

Edit: You gave me a topic idea! Thank you!

You dont seem to understand the difference between meaning of life & meaning in life. These are two separate things. The following book goes indepth into these concepts.

https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Life-Thaddeus-Metz/dp/0198748019

WLC parrots the same apologetic argument just to checkmate the hard atheist crowd. These binary arguments of meaning=god, no god = no meaning are only used by fundamentalist religious types. Seems you only know these binary arguments.

As I said there are tons of other philosophers, spiritually inclined people, some atheists and agnostics, some believers in god etc that have dived deeper into the topic of meaning. Its a very nuanced topic. But its clear your mind is already made up so what they argue for is irrelevant.

Who decided that it was sin?

Do you really think unerring divine truth has so much supporting evidence for having been rewritten and edited?

Do you really think Josiah "found a book of laws" that just so happened to support his religious reforms solidifying his power?

Don't listen to people who use the name and idea of 'God' vaingloriously to enrich themselves.

While this sub is dedicated to the idea that certain things are unknowable, other things are imminently known.

One is that this universe does not have a single absolute correct frame of reference in space and time.

That design detail might be happenstance in a universe without design, but if there was an intelligent designer, then the laws of nature are a more direct reflection of that designer than pontificating over royal propaganda fabricated by a despot three millennia ago.

While divinity might be immeasurable if it exists, it's not hard to see that it couldn't possibly be completely contained within the pages of a book written when humanity was peeing on its hands to clean them and staring up at the stars thinking they were tiny holes in rotating domes.

You have more at your fingertips than the people writing those tired words could have possibly imagined.

Find your own truth over chasing the ramblings of the long departed.

You might enjoy “Did Jesus Exist?” By Bart Ehrman. It just goes over the historical proof, both biblical and otherwise, about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

“Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman

I'm sorry, but I can't let that go.

I don't mean this in the vitriolic way it's going to sound, but when someone recommends really bad apologetics, like The Case for Christ, or I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, it's hard to take them seriously. These aren't serious works. Strobel wrote this book decades after his "investigation". There's no evidence that he was an theist, or that his wife was ever a non-believer. The book is marred with circular logic, poorly documented interviews, a very narrowly selected dataset, an other suspicious elements. This isn't to say that there are no well-thought, robust, apologetic works. There are. But The Case for Christ* is not one. It's laughably bad. A child could refute the results of his "journalism". Unfortunately, this is a carefully crafted narrative. Designed, like most apologetics, not to convince the unbeliever, but to assure the doubting Christian. To give believers something to help make their beliefs seem reasonable. To shore against the ever rising tide of apostasy. And, of course, to make money. Strobel is worth over $8M*

Don't buy into the narrative. Maybe read some critical responses to Strobel. Price's The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel is s good one.

*To be fair on that point. I've heard Strobel speak more than once, and got to briefly meet the man. He's as nice as can be, and I am very impressed how he approaches his personal wealth, as well as the workings of Saddleback.

We're atheists, so my son was raised on a non-religious environment. When he was about that age he had questions about hell, death, etc. from friends, schoolmates, and media. We, like others here, told him that no one knows what happens after death. But the time to believe something is when it's indicated by evidence.

This is a good time to start teaching children critical thinking. There are great books on it for kids of all ages, like <em>Maybe Yes, Maybe No</em> by Dan Barker.

Our jobs as parents isn't to teach them what to think, but how to think. With a good epistemological toolbox, kids are more prepared for the real world.

Learn to read:

http://www.reddit.com/r/agnostic/comments/2k9osn/very_well_said_david_mitchell_explains_his/clqmkxw

This is what I wrote:

> Well, that's have it's been defined by reputable dictionaries: > > Oxford Dictionary > > Atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This was your reply:

> If you look at the full definition in the OED, you'll see that it specifically treats atheism as the positive denial of god's existence.

The definition from the Oxford Dictionary, IS PART OF THE OED BRAND, which you are SO DAMNED focused on, and you have no clue and what it is. Even after I have pasted information directly from the OED itself, you are being willfully ignorant and repeating the same stupid statements.

I have already pointed out to you the usage of these two. The OED is a historical dictionary, which is irrelevant to our context. But what is relevant is how the Oxford Dictionary currently defines atheism without the historical baggage that we don't need.

Theism/atheism has nothing to do with religion. Some forms of Buddhism are religious but do not believe in god(s).

So, there are the following:

1. People who believe in god(s), can have a religion.

2. People who do not believe in god(s), can have a religion.

3. People who do not believe in god(s), don't have to have a religion.

4. People with a religion can believe in god(s).

5. People without a religion can believe in god(s).

6. People without a religion don't have to believe in god(s).

It seems that you do not have a religion, nor do you believe. You concede that there may be a possibility, but that does not mean that you believe, you still lack belief, you would be a non-believer. That's the definition of atheism: lack of belief in the existence of god(s.).

On the right side of this subreddit, it states what usage of theism/atheism and agnosticism:

Remember

• Agnostic/Gnostic deals with knowledge

• Atheist/Theist deals with belief

Depending on what you mean by, there could be a higher power, you would be an agnostic, and by you being a non-believer, that would make you an atheist.

> disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Oh yeah? Well the 2012 Encyclopedia Britannica defines it as "literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God".

>>Are you trying to say that an argument for atheism would succeed if it proved the non-existence of some god?

>No, that's not what not guilty of existence means.

If we prove that the accused isn't guilty of the crime, we prove that they didn't commit the crime. The only way to interpret what you wrote is as I stated, a successful argument for atheism would prove that at least one god doesn't exist.

Let's visit another relevant authority, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in their article on atheism, in the section "What is Atheism?" we read "Atheism is the view that there is no God." The author then goes on to list the main strategies used to argue for atheism.

>It would show theism has not met the burden of proof.

No, that wouldn't be an argument for atheism, it would be a response to an argument for theism.

>>How about an argument for agnosticism, if it were to succeed, what would it prove?

>If it were to succeed, it would be that the individual has no knowledge on whatever they are agnostic about.

So, let's try a search, without even opening the links we read things like this: 1. Agnostics do not know whether or not God exists. Theists surmise they're reprobates. Atheists suppose they're cowards. 2. Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism, 3. Debate Argument: atheism vs. agnosticism, etc.

Here's a great short read (<5 minutes) on the differences between morals and ethics. Whatever your political stance, this is a great read.

https://raddle.me/wiki/morality_vs_ethics

I will not claim to have an answer (I'm just a teenager like you), but your question is one that I struggled with like no other a few years ago when I left the Christian faith after a very sheltered religious upbringing and a great deal of devotion.

Our friend Neil DeGrasse Tyson expressed some thoughts about our universe, and - call me an impressionable idiot or whatever - I don't think I would be who I am today if I hadn't ever heard them. I'm not saying this is a be-all-to-end-all, but it's a damnably beautiful video.

NDT- Most Astounding Fact http://youtu.be/9D05ej8u-gU

Here's more NDT, and links to other great thinkers putting in their 2c.

http://www.openculture.com/2012/11/neil_degrasse_tyson_answers_the_big_enchilada_question_does_the_universe_have_a_purpose.html

Yes. It evidently is used that way.

I think it's hogwash that you're either a theist or not. It's a continuum, not a binary.

Also that it may only be used that way. Most people use it as disbelief, not lack of belief. Internet atheists, who could use the commonly accepted term "agnostic" for their alleged position seem to be obsessed with identifying as "atheists" which is just confusing to most of us, then whine because people don't understand their use of an obscure definition.

How about calling yourself an agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Seems to fit.

> ... I like to get high ...

And I like to drink. Welcome to adulthood! 🤝

> ... self sabotage by wondering about the cosmos ...

How exactly is wondering about the cosmos a form of self-sabotage?

> ... there's constant questions in my mind I can't ask anyone, and frankly don't think anyone has answers to.

If you send me a chat message with an email address you can access, I'll ship you a free digital copy of <em>God Explained in 7 Pages</em>. I'd be curious to know how many of your questions those 7 pages address, and I'd love to hear any and all of your burning questions that you don't think can be answered.

> If you can give advice on how to go about your day and motivate yourself everyday if you see no hope in the future, and find no meaning to life, that'd be swell

An atheist may tell you to identify something that gives you pleasure and do more of that. This should hopefully be pretty straightforward. In my atheist days, I recall plenty of ways to enjoy life (e.g., sports, games, app development, reading).

And now I find even more meaning to life, as someone who chooses to believe in a conditionally promised afterlife.

I read a great book called Nonzero. It argues that evolution is great at finding "good tricks," like wings or eyes. Another good trick is mutually beneficial cooperation, known in game theory as "nonzero sum interactions" .If you have something I want, and I have something you want, we can trade and we are both better off. That's a nonzero interaction. (If you have something and I just take it, that's zero sum.)

Non-zero argues that evolution has discovered many good non-zero interactions. Symbiotic relationships are common both between and within species. Much of what we think of as morality actually makes great sense in game theory. You are nice to me when I need it, and later I am nice to you when you need it. That's great! On the other hand, if I — instead — forget that I owe you a favor, then I'm a cheater. Next time you won't do me a favor and we both lose out.

Daniel Dennett wrote a book called Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. My take-away was that it's pretty tricky to understand what free will actually is. Also, it takes less free will than you might imagine to give you the "elbow room" that you actually want.

First off, no on e deserves to be a saint. The very concept of sainthood is immoral nonsense.

That said, Mother Theresa should not be on the pedestal we've put her on. She caused untold suffering because she fetishized it. When one looks for the dangers of religious thought, you need not look any further.

The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

Here is the law Barbara Free a witch from Scotland teaches, path of the Old ways ' Do as you will, but harm none' https://www.amazon.com/Scottish-Witchcraft-Complete-Authentic-Folklore-ebook/dp/B07MY98285/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&amp;keywords=witchcraft+druid&amp;qid=1615608576&amp;sr=8-2

I think witchcraft is related to Scottish and Irish, Scottish Druidary I saw things like this https://www.amazon.com/Scottish-Witchcraft-Complete-Authentic-Folklore-ebook/dp/B07MY98285/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&amp;keywords=witchcraft+druid&amp;qid=1615608576&amp;sr=8-2

I am sure there is much more, it's a form of Paganism I am not well versed in it myself, it is very interesting

Maybe read some self-help books or just generally do things which you enjoy.

How I learned to cope? Much like some kid mentioned below, do what you want, do what makes you happy. The world is your oyster. Make that move, think about that thing you want, that person you want, that experience you want, that satisfaction you want and go out and get it!

https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118

There're many books like this. I haven't read this one, but I'm going to start soon probably.

All the best in your journey!

In my experience, the key has been to become aware that I'll likely never fully find or receive the answers that I'm seeking, and subsequently become comfortable with that fact.

You may enjoy these: Full Catastrophe Living by Jon Kabat-Zinn, or The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle.

Eww I have a book and video for you. The video uses the book as a reference. It's a super easy read and informative.

Book: http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563

Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=21vPrlX6Yx4

In my experience, the key has been to become aware that I'll likely never fully find or receive the answers that I'm seeking, and subsequently become comfortable with that fact.

You may enjoy these: Full Catastrophe Living by Jon Kabat-Zinn, or The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle.