"Choosing" to Go to Hell (punishment, choice, atheist)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Ronald, I can no more mock God than you can mock the Invisible Pink Unicorn. One can neither mock nor fear that which they do not believe exists.

It is not God that you mock but the people who believe in God. Your argument is logically sound but the condescension is distressing...

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Ronald

I seem to remember many times, that Pah finds fault with those who profess a "rightness" in numbers, does this mean Pah is changing sides?

Oh no, not changing sides - but I heard that argument so many times there must be truth in it - right?

[Ronald]

Originally Posted by pah

Oh no, not changing sides - but I heard that argument so many times there must be truth in it - right?

Right, the Christian Right thinks that is so! But my redeemer says "Many are called, but few are chosen."

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by lilithu

It is not God that you mock but the people who believe in God. Your argument is logically sound but the condescension is distressing...

I don't think there is any intentional condescension on Mr. Spinkles part. I just don't hear it in his comments. Could you elaborate?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I don't think there is any intentional condescension on Mr. Spinkles part. I just don't hear it in his comments. Could you elaborate?

"The Invisible Pink Unicorn wants us to brush her long, flowing mane and tail., etc, etc."

If you don't hear the condescension in that, then you don't hear it. I don't know what I could say that would allow you or Spinks to understand how it feels from the perspective of those who love their god(s) if you can't already.

But no matter... I am out of line to expect that you might wish to do so.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by lilithu

It is not God that you mock but the people who believe in God.

Please, I'm not mocking anyone. This is a debate forum, and I am challenging the validity of an argument that *some* theists propose. In the debate forum, it is important to be able to distinguish between an attack on an argument and an attack on those who propose it. The purpose of the Invisible Pink Unicorn analogy was to allow believers to critically examine an argument from the perspective of a nonbeliever. If it sounded condescending I sincerely apologize--I was trying to make a point, one with which, I think, you agree.

[Sunstone]

If I correctly understand Spink's point, then it is this (stripped of the Invisible Pink Unicorn analogy): "In order to choose to go to hell, one must first believe in hell. For if one does not believe in hell, then how can one choose to go to hell." But to put his point like that looses some of the nuances. Especially, the nuance that belief in hell might not be a possibility for some people.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

The purpose of the Invisible Pink Unicorn analogy was to allow believers to critically examine an argument from the perspective of a nonbeliever.

I understand the perspective of a nonbeliever, Spinks. You think that God is a made up thing - a superfluous explanatory construct on the objective level and an emotional crutch on the personal level. You think that the argument that we can't objectively measure God is just a contortionist way to hold on to this emotional security blanket in the face of objective reality. Hence, the invisibleness of the pink unicorn. And you think that the only basis in reality is the material world. Hence the analogy to a magical, external, physical (but invisible) entity. And maybe you're right.

But you could have gotten your point across just as effectively without refering to the invisible pink unicorn and especially without refering to brushing manes and tails and shoveling manure. In fact, I believe it would have been more effective had you not, since in general alienating your target audience is not conducive to getting them to try to see things from your perspective.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

If it sounded condescending I sincerely apologize--I was trying to make a point, one with which, I think, you agree.

As I said, your argument is logically sound. If, in the unlikely event that it does turn out that there really is a supernatural being who demands worship in a particular way on pain of everlasting torment, I will be there in hell along with you. I'll buy you a beer.