Atheists, I Hope You Know What You're Doing: Threat or Concern?

[shoinan]

I've been watching a lot of The Atheist Experience (Texan public access call-in TV show which I heartily recommend) recently, something which has made me keen to learn more about religion and discuss it more. One of the things I've noticed about the show is the instant offence taken by the hosts when a Christian caller signs off after the debate by saying something along the lines of "Well, I hope you know what you're doing by being an atheist because if you don't..."

The TAE hosts immediately become enraged, accusing the caller of threatening them with eternal torture for not beleiving in God, whereas the caller will simply say he or she is concerned about the hosts' and what happens to them in the afterlife. My question, then, is whether or not it's valid for atheists to come down so hard on Christians who apply it. Yes, it's essentially Pascal's Wager and it's unlikely to convince an 'established' atheist of anything, but isn't the sentiment one of concern, even as a warning? If a Chrsitian beleives that he or she should do what he or she can to save people and as long as it's not done in a harassing way, is there all that much wrong with it? Or, since it's an extension of what atheists perceive as the fearmongery of Christianity, should it be attacked for being a cheap tactic? I'm obviously coming at this from an atheist perspective, so I'd also be keen to know whether or not Christians on the forum feel saying something like this is a valid statement of concern for a non-beleiver, or if you try to avoid saying it.

 

[LuisDantas]

The form was probably exagerated, but the complaint is nonetheless essentially the same.

 

[waitasec]

I've been watching a lot of The Atheist Experience (Texan public access call-in TV show which I heartily recommend) recently, something which has made me keen to learn more about religion and discuss it more. One of the things I've noticed about the show is the instant offence taken by the hosts when a Christian caller signs off after the debate by saying something along the lines of "Well, I hope you know what you're doing by being an atheist because if you don't..."

The TAE hosts immediately become enraged, accusing the caller of threatening them with eternal torture for not beleiving in God, whereas the caller will simply say he or she is concerned about the hosts' and what happens to them in the afterlife. My question, then, is whether or not it's valid for atheists to come down so hard on Christians who apply it. Yes, it's essentially Pascal's Wager and it's unlikely to convince an 'established' atheist of anything, but isn't the sentiment one of concern, even as a warning? If a Chrsitian beleives that he or she should do what he or she can to save people and as long as it's not done in a harassing way, is there all that much wrong with it? Or, since it's an extension of what atheists perceive as the fearmongery of Christianity, should it be attacked for being a cheap tactic? I'm obviously coming at this from an atheist perspective, so I'd also be keen to know whether or not Christians on the forum feel saying something like this is a valid statement of concern for a non-beleiver, or if you try to avoid saying it.

it's insulting. using a fear mongering tactic as a reason to believe in a "loving" god is insulting. pure and simple.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't take offense when a believer tries to save me or to get me to think about my position. Granted, it gets annoying when it's the same ol' thing I've heard since de-converting from Christianity so many years ago, but I try to remember a few things:

1) Some people are genuinely trying to help -- they genuinely believe that if you don't believe what they do that you will suffer for it. I can respect that, as long as they're not annoying about this concern by simply repeating it over and over.

I get that it's annoying because so MANY people say it, but you can't really get mad at the next guy for something the previous guy said.

2) Some believers have no idea that atheism can be an intellectual position. They may be under the impression that atheists are simply uninformed; or worse they might buy into the historic propaganda that atheists are just grumpy people who don't want to believe because it's inconvenient for them. I don't mind correcting such people once.

I think if a believer says, "Well I hope you know what you're doing, because if you're wrong, X will/might/can happen to you" that it's something of a huge overreaction to respond with "are you threatening me?!" and that such does all atheists a disservice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've been watching a lot of The Atheist Experience (Texan public access call-in TV show which I heartily recommend) recently, something which has made me keen to learn more about religion and discuss it more. One of the things I've noticed about the show is the instant offence taken by the hosts when a Christian caller signs off after the debate by saying something along the lines of "Well, I hope you know what you're doing by being an atheist because if you don't..."

I don't think this would really be a worry in a culture that isn't heavily immersed in one religion. IMO, it's based on a false dichotomy.

If the atheists are wrong, maybe the Christian God will come down and torture all of us. If the Christians are wrong, maybe Allah will send them to hell for worshipping the Trinity. No matter what you believe, I'm sure we can find someone somewhere who says that horrible things will happen to you because you believe it.

At the end of the day, what we all have to do is try to figure out what's true as best we can and then act on that.

The TAE hosts immediately become enraged, accusing the caller of threatening them with eternal torture for not beleiving in God, whereas the caller will simply say he or she is concerned about the hosts' and what happens to them in the afterlife. My question, then, is whether or not it's valid for atheists to come down so hard on Christians who apply it. Yes, it's essentially Pascal's Wager and it's unlikely to convince an 'established' atheist of anything, but isn't the sentiment one of concern, even as a warning?

It's as appropriate for polite conversation as it would be for an atheist to tell a Christian that he's wasting his life with his religion "out of concern".

If a Chrsitian beleives that he or she should do what he or she can to save people and as long as it's not done in a harassing way, is there all that much wrong with it?

Is there anything wrong with Christians praying for youth to be "delivered from Islam"? (BTW - Sunstone: thank you for turning me onto that blog. It kicks butt)

Or, since it's an extension of what atheists perceive as the fearmongery of Christianity, should it be attacked for being a cheap tactic?

One thing that occurs to me: I do see a certain trend among many theists to project their wishes and desires onto their deity. In that context, "God's going to send you to Hell", really means "I think you should go to Hell". I think some of the offense might be based on this realization.

But yes, it is a cheap tactic, and it shows the difference in treatment of atheists vs. other groups. I mean, even the average Christian would think there was something wrong with phoning up a Hindu call-in show and ask them if they worried that bringing people to Krishna would make them incur the wrath of Jesus.

I'm obviously coming at this from an atheist perspective, so I'd also be keen to know whether or not Christians on the forum feel saying something like this is a valid statement of concern for a non-beleiver, or if you try to avoid saying it.

Personally, I don't think it's a valid statement of concern. On the one hand, there's the (IMO highly unlikely) potential for a very high future cost of rejecting a religion. On the other hand, there's the great certain and immediate cost of following one... which isn't necessarily meant to mean that religions are inherently harmful - just that for anyone who has sincerely and honestly come to an atheistic viewpoint, theism means the huge intellectual compromise of basing your life on something that you don't believe is true; this is a significant cost regardless of whether the religion itself constitutes net harm or benefit.

 

[Penumbra]

I've been watching a lot of The Atheist Experience (Texan public access call-in TV show which I heartily recommend) recently, something which has made me keen to learn more about religion and discuss it more. One of the things I've noticed about the show is the instant offence taken by the hosts when a Christian caller signs off after the debate by saying something along the lines of "Well, I hope you know what you're doing by being an atheist because if you don't..."

The TAE hosts immediately become enraged, accusing the caller of threatening them with eternal torture for not beleiving in God, whereas the caller will simply say he or she is concerned about the hosts' and what happens to them in the afterlife. My question, then, is whether or not it's valid for atheists to come down so hard on Christians who apply it. Yes, it's essentially Pascal's Wager and it's unlikely to convince an 'established' atheist of anything, but isn't the sentiment one of concern, even as a warning? If a Chrsitian beleives that he or she should do what he or she can to save people and as long as it's not done in a harassing way, is there all that much wrong with it? Or, since it's an extension of what atheists perceive as the fearmongery of Christianity, should it be attacked for being a cheap tactic? I'm obviously coming at this from an atheist perspective, so I'd also be keen to know whether or not Christians on the forum feel saying something like this is a valid statement of concern for a non-beleiver, or if you try to avoid saying it.

I don't become enraged or insulted by almost anything in a debate, threats of hellfire included.

But, when a theist plays the "or else" card, I immediately think less of them and their beliefs. It is ignorant and immoral on so many levels.

 

[TJ73]

I think it is subject to the intent. I for sure believe what I believe. I have family that are staunch atheist. If they ask I tell. I won't make them Muslim, Allah will if He wills so. And when a JW or Morman comes to my home, I can't help but appreciate the fact that they invested time and effort because they want me saved. I can never know their intention, but I rather think positive and we share and Allah knows best. Intention, that's the key, so me thinks

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to respond to this directly:

The TAE hosts immediately become enraged, accusing the caller of threatening them with eternal torture for not beleiving in God, whereas the caller will simply say he or she is concerned about the hosts' and what happens to them in the afterlife.

I watch the show myself (actually, I listen to the podcast), so I think it's worth pointing out something: this show has been on the air for more than a decade. While I think it's a great show most of the time, one thing I've noticed is that they can sometimes have a tendency to fall into a bit of a script: "He's giving me Pascal's Wager? Okay, I'll give him my standard response to Pascal's Wager." This sometimes creates situations where the response is a bit out of proportion to the what the caller actually said, and where they fall into the trap of arguing against what the caller "was going to say" instead of what the caller actually said.

Also, I think they've had a tendency lately (which they've talked about on the show and IMO are now consciously working to fix) where they get a bit impatient after they've heard some bad argument dozens of times before... but they've started to recognize that any particular caller probably doesn't realize that what they're arguing had already been hacked to death earlier in the month... and every month before. The hosts have said that they're now trying to make a more concerted effort to be patient with these sorts of callers, and to give fuller responses.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think it is subject to the intent. I for sure believe what I believe. I have family that are staunch atheist. If they ask I tell. I won't make them Muslim, Allah will if He wills so. And when a JW or Morman comes to my home, I can't help but appreciate the fact that they invested time and effort because they want me saved. I can never know their intention, but I rather think positive and we share and Allah knows best. Intention, that's the key, so me thinks

I agree with this.

 

[Penumbra]

I care little for the intent, and find it deplorable either way. Sure, if someone's intent is to save rather than threaten, it may be slightly better, but it's still terrible.

The problem is not in the delivery of the statement itself. It's in the religions and the believers that believe their god will wrathfully kill or even endlessly torture people based on belief (or anything, really). It's the people that claim to love a god that will do these things. Whether they intend their statements to be to save or threaten people is rather irrelevant to me since they've claimed to love and follow such a religion. In doing so they reveal their personality.

 

[TJ73]

I care little for the intent, and find it deplorable either way. Sure, if someone's intent is to save rather than threaten, it may be slightly better, but it's still terrible.

The problem is not in the delivery of the statement itself. It's in the religions and the believers that believe their god will wrathfully kill or even endlessly torture people based on belief (or anything, really). It's the people that claim to love a god that will do these things. Whether they intend their statements to be to save or threaten people is rather irrelevant to me since they've claimed to love and follow such a religion. In doing so they reveal their personality.

I agree and disagree. I still hold onto intent, but that is just me and how I interrupt God. But I also get the feeling from some people that they aren't just trying to introduce the idea that their is a Creator that cares what you think, it's more what they think and THEY want you to be punished.Kinda like, judgment day comes and a bunch of people stand there saying" see I told you so, ha"!
But I think it is worth mentioning,from what i understand about many faiths with followers that may say these things, God alone is in charge of judgment and can forgive who He will. So there is the possibility of damnation, temporary hellfire or complete forgiveness. We can't make any assertions, as believers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't take offense when a believer tries to save me or to get me to think about my position. Granted, it gets annoying when it's the same ol' thing I've heard since de-converting from Christianity so many years ago, but I try to remember a few things:

1) Some people are genuinely trying to help -- they genuinely believe that if you don't believe what they do that you will suffer for it. I can respect that, as long as they're not annoying about this concern by simply repeating it over and over.

I get that it's annoying because so MANY people say it, but you can't really get mad at the next guy for something the previous guy said.

I realize that many people who use this argument are sincere, but I don't see anything wrong with gentle correction (or even firm correction, if the situation warrants it).

If I don't like something and don't do anything about it, I don't expect it to change. If I can get the message across that there's something wrong with what they're saying, maybe they'll stop and think about it before the next time. But if I don't express my offense, or at least displeasure, they'll probably never ask themselves what it was about what they said that bothered me.

I agree and disagree. I still hold onto intent, but that is just me and how I interrupt God. But I also get the feeling from some people that they aren't just trying to introduce the idea that their is a Creator that cares what you think, it's more what they think and THEY want you to be punished.Kinda like, judgment day comes and a bunch of people stand there saying" see I told you so, ha"!

Yeah - that's where I'm most prone to take actual offense from this sort of behaviour.

But I think it is worth mentioning,from what i understand about many faiths with followers that may say these things, God alone is in charge of judgment and can forgive who He will. So there is the possibility of damnation, temporary hellfire or complete forgiveness. We can't make any assertions, as believers.

But doesn't someone have to throw out this idea to engage in proselytizing in the first place? If you really do think that God will save or damn who he wants to, what's the point of going door-to-door trying to win converts?

 

[Eliot Wild]

I care little for the intent, and find it deplorable either way. Sure, if someone's intent is to save rather than threaten, it may be slightly better, but it's still terrible.

The problem is not in the delivery of the statement itself. It's in the religions and the believers that believe their god will wrathfully kill or even endlessly torture people based on belief (or anything, really). It's the people that claim to love a god that will do these things. Whether they intend their statements to be to save or threaten people is rather irrelevant to me since they've claimed to love and follow such a religion. In doing so they reveal their personality.

I agree completely with the above. I don't think intent is even that relevant. If someone believes in such a warped system of divine justice, and willfully chooses to worship the executioner of that justice, a system wherein an innocent soul who simply has failed to satisfy to its own satisfaction a belief in God, or at least a belief in a very specific god, then I certainly don't see where I should let them slide just because they feel sorry for me.

And furthermore, I personally believe that such 'faith' is dangerous. It is based on fear, mostly, not a desire to do that which is right, a true personal desire to please God, if He exists. Even the way it is phrased, for the most part, is bothersome. "We must be saved." Isn't that putting the emphasis in the wrong place? Isn't that backwards? "We must please God." That seems more likely to me. Getting 'saved' is for those who fear losing the material, who fear a physical threat of Hell. Pleasing God, regardless of what salvation is offered, seems to be a more appropriate goal.

 

[TJ73]

But doesn't someone have to throw out this idea to engage in proselytizing in the first place? If you really do think that God will save or damn who he wants to, what's the point of going door-to-door trying to win converts?

Good point. Personally I would still advise someone because I believe it is good. I believe God is the Creator and worthy. Just like campaigning for a politician ( bad analogy, I'm setting this one up!,lol) But you know, I would campaign because of the good I would like them to bring to my community. I get the impression, and I could be wrong, that some religious institutions simply want "converts" just for the sake of having more people on their side and the money they will bring with them. But with pure intention, I would think people proselytize because they want you to have the good they have, like sharing your wealth, or food or anything else good with other people.
And granted,not everyone is good at it. They can be so absorbed they don;t realize they are having a negative effect, but I forgive them too because I know not everyone is socially proficient.

 

[ellenjanuary]

My question, then, is whether or not it's valid for atheists to come down so hard on Christians who apply it.

Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, belief in hell is the worst sin.

 

[waitasec]

i've gone around the block a few times to get a good idea which language i get from the fear mongering type or the sincere type.
i don't think it's the believer threatening you, it's using the fear mongering tactic that i find offensive. as if i will cave in to these tyrannical principles. i have and continue to fight off fear. i have seen how it can destroy life which is why i am sensitive to it. imo, when people say, "you better believe in my god and in my religion or else you will damned", i find it to be insulting. i know they think they are trying to help, but then again so am i and i never resort to fear mongering, so why should they, unless of course that is the premise of their faith.

 

[shoinan]

Thank you for all the replies, it's very useful to see a range of thoughts on this.

It's as appropriate for polite conversation as it would be for an atheist to tell a Christian that he's wasting his life with his religion "out of concern".

That's an interesting reversal. I'm not sure if I quite equate the two, but certainly it makes me think about the intent behind and language used in such a situation. I'm more than happy to challenge a Christian (or anyone religious) on his or her belief, but going as far as to say the above? I doubt I ever would "in poilte conversation".

I care little for the intent, and find it deplorable either way. Sure, if someone's intent is to save rather than threaten, it may be slightly better, but it's still terrible. The problem is not in the delivery of the statement itself. It's in the religions and the believers that believe their god will wrathfully kill or even endlessly torture people based on belief (or anything, really). It's the people that claim to love a god that will do these things. Whether they intend their statements to be to save or threaten people is rather irrelevant to me since they've claimed to love and follow such a religion. In doing so they reveal their personality.

I absolutely agree. Like another poster mentioned, I don't really find the warning, whatever intent there may be, threatening. I don't beleive in the god or the hell, so the threat isn't there to me. But the fact that the person worships the being who sends me to this terrible place for not doing something I presently am unable to do (I do not choose to disbelieve, I simply cannot believe)... yeah.

But it's the people who know deep down that it's immoral and still say that an atheist deserves hell because 'God said so', they're the ones that get me upset and frustrated. I have one such friend who I used to discuss religion with a lot, but when we got to this sticking point I lost a bit of respect for him. To worship a deity even when you disagree with him on something so morally important is cowardly.

 

[Kathryn]

As a Christian, I don't use this approach, because I think it's one of those things that "goes without saying" if I am in a debate with an atheist. It does absolutely NOTHING to further my cause, and in fact it can alienate or offend either or both the debator and the audience.

That brings me to another point - the difference between a "discussion" and a "debate." In a debate, the goal is not to win over the other debator - it's to convince the audience. I think this particular "or else" line adds absolutely no value.

In a discussion - well, things can become more personal, more one on one, and (in my case anyway) more "from the heart." In a discussion, both parties are more likely to actually LISTEN in order to UNDERSTAND the other person's perspective. In this scenario, I might - MIGHT - use a phrase like that. But never as a parting shot - because I don't consider such a phrase a weapon.

The only context I would use it in would be from genuine concern. In that case, I doubt there would be any confusion on the part of the other person. I think it would be obvious that I said it from the heart rather than in a condemning way.

But - to be honest - I'm having a hard time even thinking of a conversation in which I would use that sort of maneuver. It's just not a very effective tool in my opinion.

 

[Copernicus]

...My question, then, is whether or not it's valid for atheists to come down so hard on Christians who apply it. Yes, it's essentially Pascal's Wager and it's unlikely to convince an 'established' atheist of anything, but isn't the sentiment one of concern, even as a warning? If a Chrsitian beleives that he or she should do what he or she can to save people and as long as it's not done in a harassing way, is there all that much wrong with it? Or, since it's an extension of what atheists perceive as the fearmongery of Christianity, should it be attacked for being a cheap tactic? I'm obviously coming at this from an atheist perspective, so I'd also be keen to know whether or not Christians on the forum feel saying something like this is a valid statement of concern for a non-beleiver, or if you try to avoid saying it.

I don't buy into the presupposition that atheism defines a coherent social group. Atheism is a philosophical position like theism. It is not a specific doctrine, and there really is no set of behaviors that we all ought to subscribe to. Just as there are many different types of theists, there are also many different types of atheists. If an atheist behaves badly, I do not really see that as a reflection on me. On the other hand, I do recognize that we all have a tendency to stereotype others. I try to resist thinking of "Christians" as a homogeneous group of people, but I still find myself making sweeping generalizations from time to time. Atheists exist as a "community" only in a very loose sense of the word. They come together on rejection of belief in gods.

I have not seen the Austin show, so I cannot really draw conclusions about their behavior. What I would say is that I'm glad that they are proselytizing atheism, even if they are not behaving up to my own personal standards. I think that we need a vibrant public exchange of ideas, and we should get used to the fact that both theists and non-theists can be putzes from time to time. I do not think that Christians have gotten such a bad impression of atheists in the past from their encounters with atheists. I think rather that they have not been exposed to enough different atheists to get a sense of how diverse the community of atheists can be.

 

[shoinan]

I don't buy into the presupposition that atheism defines a coherent social group. Atheism is a philosophical position like theism. It is not a specific doctrine, and there really is no set of behaviors that we all ought to subscribe to. Just as there are many different types of theists, there are also many different types of atheists. If an atheist behaves badly, I do not really see that as a reflection on me. On the other hand, I do recognize that we all have a tendency to stereotype others. I try to resist thinking of "Christians" as a homogeneous group of people, but I still find myself making sweeping generalizations from time to time. Atheists exist as a "community" only in a very loose sense of the word. They come together on rejection of belief in gods.

I have not seen the Austin show, so I cannot really draw conclusions about their behavior. What I would say is that I'm glad that they are proselytizing atheism, even if they are not behaving up to my own personal standards. I think that we need a vibrant public exchange of ideas, and we should get used to the fact that both theists and non-theists can be putzes from time to time. I do not think that Christians have gotten such a bad impression of atheists in the past from their encounters with atheists. I think rather that they have not been exposed to enough different atheists to get a sense of how diverse the community of atheists can be.

Yeah, I agree, there's a fair bit of careless presupposition and generalization in my post. Not intentional, just bad wording.

As a Christian, I don't use this approach, because I think it's one of those things that "goes without saying" if I am in a debate with an atheist. It does absolutely NOTHING to further my cause, and in fact it can alienate or offend either or both the debator and the audience.

That brings me to another point - the difference between a "discussion" and a "debate." In a debate, the goal is not to win over the other debator - it's to convince the audience. I think this particular "or else" line adds absolutely no value.

In a discussion - well, things can become more personal, more one on one, and (in my case anyway) more "from the heart." In a discussion, both parties are more likely to actually LISTEN in order to UNDERSTAND the other person's perspective. In this scenario, I might - MIGHT - use a phrase like that. But never as a parting shot - because I don't consider such a phrase a weapon.

The only context I would use it in would be from genuine concern. In that case, I doubt there would be any confusion on the part of the other person. I think it would be obvious that I said it from the heart rather than in a condemning way.

But - to be honest - I'm having a hard time even thinking of a conversation in which I would use that sort of maneuver. It's just not a very effective tool in my opinion.

Nice to get a reply from a Christian, and a reply from the Islamic poster above too. Thanks It's a debate setting when it surfaces on the TAE show, and is often the parting shot :/