"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

[wynn]

Your replies to me have always been rhetorical questions. What do you believe in, wynn? Do you believe in an afterlife?

This is what was my comment to you here:

I tend to agree with Austin Cline on the matter. It’s also an appeal to force fallacy.

The question is why do atheists interpret it that way.

What's rhetorical about it?


I actually have some ideas as to how come atheists feel attacked by theists and theism in general, but I was interested to see what the atheists here would have to say.

Really? Because studies and polls indicate that we are the most distrusted and hated minority group. John Locke promoted religious toleration, with atheism being the one notable exception, and from what I can tell, it hasn’t changed much. American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t really extend to atheists.

“Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God.” ~John Locke

“I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true church. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.” ~John Locke

Locke was living in a time and place where tolerance was seen as a privilege, as a favor the stronger/right/superior one does to the weaker/wrong/inferior one.

But recently, tolerance has been propagated as a need, as an obligation.

That changes the terms of interaction.

[wynn]

Really? Where do you live? Google "atheists the most hated minority" and just for shits and giggles, try wearing an atheist T-shirt around for awhile.

Try being a vegetarian among meat-eaters!

[Trooper]

The question is why do atheists interpret it that way.

We feel that Pascal’s wager is an appeal to force simply because it is.

Here are some ways in which we sometimes see the appeal to force used in arguments:

You should believe God exists because, if you don't, when you die you will be judged and God will send you to Hell for all of eternity. You don't want to be tortured in Hell, do you? If not, it is a safer bet to believe in God than to not believe.

This is a simplified form of Pascal's Wager, an argument often heard from some Christians. A god is not made any more likely to exist simply because someone says that if we don't believe in it, then we will be harmed in the end. Similarly, belief in a god is not made any more rational simply because we are afraid of going to some hell. By appealing to our fear of pain and our desire to avoid suffering, the above argument is committing a Fallacy of Relevance.

I actually have some ideas as to how come atheists feel attacked by theists and theism in general, but I was interested to see what the atheists here would have to say.

I've had personal experiences, but the thing is, wynn, it doesn’t really matter. The feelings of alienation or persecution, does not strengthen either position.

Try being a vegetarian among meat-eaters!

Touché!

[Syne]

Can focusing on an afterlife devalue the one life that actually does exists? You do realize that some religions promote suffering, right?

"Some" does not justify your hasty generalization.

Personally, I am happier as an atheist and I’m not entirely convinced that religious people are any happier. I don’t need other people’s input to validate my position, realty does that. I explore the world with intellectual curiosity and seek to understand it through scientific discipline. Sure, I have been isolated from some of my old Christian friends, but then again, that means they were not true friends. Besides, that’s why I feel it’s important to wear your atheism on your sleeve, to gain tolerance, dispel the stigma, and to reduce such isolation.

Just as you say, and it sounds, a personal issue.

I wasn’t comparing atheist to theist. I was thinking of transformative leaders, who have made a difference. Ones who were void of idiot compassion, which has a lot more to do with our own expectations, self-image and desires than fulfilling a real need. They didn’t do it for rewards or any other superficialities that pervade the religious culture. They did it because they had no choice because they were driven to do what they thought was right.

People being driven to do what they feel is right is not solely the province of the secular. Most religions differentiate the superficial motivations from a true desire to do what is right.

[Balerion]

I actually have some ideas as to how come atheists feel attacked by theists and theism in general, but I was interested to see what the atheists here would have to say.

And I'm sure they're all ill-considered and entirely off-base. But you've never let that stop you before, so why would you now?

The reason atheists feel threatened by theism is that theism--particularly the Abrahamic religions--threatens society. Consider the teaching of the Christian creation myth in biology class. I am sure you have heard this appeal before, but try to let that wash over you; a creation myth is being taught as a biological event in science classes in the United States in 2012. This is not some trifling matter.

Also consider the impact on medicine, a prime example of which was the HPV vaccine "controversy" stirred by Evangelicals and Catholics who spoke against the potentially cancer-preventing measure because it, according to some, did not properly discourage premarital sex.

And this is just in the US. There are many examples of priests and clerics lying to their followers about vaccines and prophylactics all around the world.

To borrow a line from Christopher Hitchens, religion really does poison everything.

[wynn]

We feel that Pascal’s wager is an appeal to force simply because it is.

Pascal's Wager is just words printed on paper, sitting somewhere in some old book.
Why don't you dismiss it with an idle hand gesture?
Why think about it, why take it seriously?

And if some people are using Pascal's Wager in an effort to gain personal advatange over you, then, if you are upset, the problem isn't Pascal's Wager, but your overal outlook on life, the Universe and everything.


If one is upset by things such as

You should believe God exists because, if you don't, when you die you will be judged and God will send you to Hell for all of eternity. You don't want to be tortured in Hell, do you? If not, it is a safer bet to believe in God than to not believe.

this suggests that one's personal philosophy is not able to contextualize it and diminish its psychological and emotional effect on one; ie. one's personal philosophy is not actually superior.

I've had personal experiences, but the thing is, wynn, it doesn’t really matter.

It does matter; it matters at least as an illustration of your personal philosophy.

The feelings of alienation or persecution, does not strengthen either position.

Who said it would?

In the language of business psychology: Why do you fall for it?

[wynn]

The reason atheists feel threatened by theism is that theism--particularly the Abrahamic religions--threatens society.

What society?
The one the vast majority of which are "religious," per your assessment?

Freedom has a price.


The US is (at least nominally) a pluralistic democracy build on a voting system.

A voting system is based on the principle that the majority gets to have the say.

Right now, it is the fact that policies are chosen by a voting system, that you should be attacking.


But you'd rather have a pluralistic democractic electoral political system in which everyone chooses the same option, right?

[aaqucnaona]

What society?
The one the vast majority of which are "religious," per your assessment?

Freedom has a price.


The US is (at least nominally) a pluralistic democracy build on a voting system.

A voting system is based on the principle that the majority gets to have the say.

Right now, it is the fact that policies are chosen by a voting system, that you should be attacking.


But you'd rather have a pluralistic democractic electoral political system in which everyone chooses the same option, right?

Woah! Reading comprehension or red herring, either way I am surprised that your retort to a point made about the inherent intolerant aggression of the great monotheisms was a reference to anarchy and anti-democracy.

[keith1]

Because Pascal is primitive, and not privy to more current thought, he misses the concepts he needed to complete his thoughts: what it is like to contemplate an infinite condition. He resorts eventually in his discussion, to surrendering, and heading to the comfortable arms of oblivious nothingness, as if it be a "normal" course of action, as further he rationalizes as his only "safe" course of action.
He did not have the data to realize a zero-point dynamic to nothingness, but this is only one detail to his misunderstanding of things.

I return to his examination of "infinite understanding", which he begins to relate, and fashion as the realm of a supreme intellect, which he has deduced he is forced to wager a belief in, as to secure the safest outcome.

His logic correctly rationalizes a particular natural assumption of method to "conceptualizing a future act of realization" to use to observe an infinite condition.
Example: A person who has the accumulated experiences of a fifty-year-old observer, would have the abilities to estimate what it would be like to be 100 years old, simply by calling up the totality of being fifty, and doubling that entry in the imagination, to come as close as possible to realizing the hundred-year-old experience.
Pascal furthers then that one cannot continue this process ad infinitum, which without the knowledge of entanglement, would be a natural conclusion for his life and times/level of understanding of the issue.

...In 1993, Charlie Bennett at IBM's Watson Research Center in New York State and a few pals showed how to transmit quantum information from one point in space to another without traversing the intervening space.

The technique relies on the strange quantum phenomenon called entanglement, in which two particles share the same existence. This deep connection means that a measurement on one particle immediately influences the other, even though they are light-years apart.
Bennett and company worked out how to exploit this to send information. (The influence between the particles may be immediate, but the process does not violate relativity because some information has to be sent classically at the speed of light.) They called the technique teleportation...

Armed with this current quantum phenomenon, one should be able to confidently settle on a prediction of infinite aspects and dynamics, thereby negating to doubt, Pascal's wager conclusions.

These thoughts I have discussed here should further bolster my former posts relating to an "allowed after-life domain available to observation without a supreme being necessarily present" scenario.

[Balerion]

What society?
The one the vast majority of which are "religious," per your assessment?

Freedom has a price.


The US is (at least nominally) a pluralistic democracy build on a voting system.

A voting system is based on the principle that the majority gets to have the say.

Right now, it is the fact that policies are chosen by a voting system, that you should be attacking.


But you'd rather have a pluralistic democractic electoral political system in which everyone chooses the same option, right?

As aaqucnaona said, this response is either a red herring, or something far more embarrassing. In any event, it has nothing to do with what I've said, and does not deserve a serious answer.

Should you decide to have a go at responding to the points I actually did make, then I'll be here waiting. But I'm not responding to this garbage.

[Jan Ardena]

I guess it depends on your location but atheists in America have been made to feel isolated.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

I've read many stories from lonely atheists but maybe you're right. Perhaps, the isolation of American atheists is just an illusion.

Erm, I think you just may be on to something.

Atheists rule (even if they claim religion), one only has to look at the
the way the world is today.

Remember, one must actually be atheist, to be an atheist, and one must
actually be religious, to be religious. Lip service means nothing.

jan.

[Trooper]

Erm, I think you just may be on to something.

Atheists rule (even if they claim religion), one only has to look at the
the way the world is today.

Remember, one must actually be atheist, to be an atheist, and one must
actually be religious, to be religious. Lip service means nothing.

jan.

I think that both wynn's and your conviction is nothing more than a depreciating accessory. Like most believers, your replies are a product of interpolation and indolence, but hardly benign.

[wynn]

I think that both wynn's and your conviction is nothing more than a depreciating accessory. Like most believers, your replies are a product of interpolation and indolence, but hardly benign.

What I find absolutely fascinating, and extremely hurtful, is how incorrect the assessment of me and my beliefs by many atheists are.

You don't bother to get to know me, to hear me out, to actually have a conversation with me. No. You just assume, project, and judge. You try to fit me into some preconceived label of yours.

If you actually knew me - and it would be very informative that you look up some of the threads I've started in the religion and philosophy section - it would be clear to you that I feel lightyears away from theism and theists.

But several atheists here rather accuse me of denial and a number of lowly things, instead of making an effort to place themselves in my shoes.


Talk about conviction, depreciating accessory, interpolation and indolence!

[Trooper]

You're right. I'm sorry.

[Balerion]

What I find absolutely fascinating, and extremely hurtful, is how incorrect the assessment of me and my beliefs by many atheists are.

You don't bother to get to know me, to hear me out, to actually have a conversation with me. No. You just assume, project, and judge. You try to fit me into some preconceived label of yours.

If you actually knew me - and it would be very informative that you look up some of the threads I've started in the religion and philosophy section - it would be clear to you that I feel lightyears away from theism and theists.

But several atheists here rather accuse me of denial and a number of lowly things, instead of making an effort to place themselves in my shoes.


Talk about conviction, depreciating accessory, interpolation and indolence!

You have been given plenty of opportunities to elaborate upon your beliefs, and have failed to do so upon every occasion. I have read along while others practically pulled their own hair out while trying to pin down whatever it is you believe, and even gone through the rigors myself, to no avail.

Do not play the victim now. If anyone here is ignorant to your beliefs, it is your own fault.

And who are you to talk about being judged? Do I have to comb through your posts and show you the numerous examples of your snide quips made at the expense of those who made the mistake of trying to have a conversation with you? Let me know, because I will do it if need be.

[Trooper]

He does have a point.

What do you believe in, wynn? Do you believe in an afterlife?

[aaqucnaona]

Erm, I think you just may be on to something.

Indeed He is - confirmation!

Atheists rule (even if they claim religion), one only has to look at the
the way the world is today.

Lovely use of Atheists = everything bad and religion = the only solution. But tell me Jan, arent you about 7 years too late in using that argument?

Remember, one must actually be atheist, to be an atheist, and one must
actually be religious, to be religious. Lip service means nothing.

Neither do your evaluations - only the actions, or rather the outcomes of those actions matter - reguardless of everyrthing else.

[aaqucnaona]

What I find absolutely fascinating, and extremely hurtful, is how incorrect the assessment of me and my beliefs by many atheists are.

You don't bother to get to know me, to hear me out, to actually have a conversation with me. No. You just assume, project, and judge. You try to fit me into some preconceived label of yours.

If you actually knew me - and it would be very informative that you look up some of the threads I've started in the religion and philosophy section - it would be clear to you that I feel lightyears away from theism and theists.

But several atheists here rather accuse me of denial and a number of lowly things, instead of making an effort to place themselves in my shoes.


Talk about conviction, depreciating accessory, interpolation and indolence!

Then please tell us about where you are on a/theism and what your thoughts/beliefs are. Its just that you come across as baised towards theism and sometimes desperately dishonest.

[wynn]

Then please tell us about where you are on a/theism and what your thoughts/beliefs are. Its just that you come across as baised towards theism and sometimes desperately dishonest.

I've have been discussing my stance on theism/atheism all along. But apparently, only a few posters are able to relate.

It's not like I am talking about something strange - it's standard topics in Western philosophy.

What do you believe in, wynn? Do you believe in an afterlife?

He does have a point.

And if I reply by asking what you mean by "afterlife" and "believe," I tend to get accused of dishonesty, evasion, etc. ...