The majority of the LGBT community doesn't want you to see this!

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ironton-oh/T8KSPFU2V5FJB862E/p8

"Portland, I've been pondering something. In your atheist or agnostic point of view, I wonder if you believe that we all have a soul or whether you believe that once we die, that's just all she wrote? We're all just D.R.T.(dead right there). And if you're right, the people that have believed in a deity will be in the same shape your in, dead.

And supposing you're wrong about the deity? Not only have you followed the wrong path, you've fervently attempted to drag others down that road with you. Which would presumably be worse than if you kept your views to yourself, and let people choose their own paths.

You know... on the off chance that you might have some explaining to do."

Atheist, bro... Atheist.
Agnostics are more or less "on the fence."

Do I believe that we have a soul? What is your definition of "soul?" - A piece of ghostly god-flesh carved from the bosom of Yahweh? If you mean that, then no. I think that an individual, as a personality, is a collection of their experiences, a collection of their brain data, so to speak. Have you ever watched the anime Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex? People in that scenario have figured out how to create intelligent life in the form of the Tachikoma tanks. They have their own personalities, like Chappi or Johnny 5. Also people themselves have found a way to implant their "ghost" into cyber bodies.

"And if you're right, the people that have believed in a deity will be in the same shape your in, dead."

Well, I have no real scientific reason to believe in an afterlife, or a God. Sorry.

:(

"And supposing you're wrong about the deity? Not only have you followed the wrong path, you've fervently attempted to drag others down that road with you. Which would presumably be worse than if you kept your views to yourself, and let people choose their own paths."

Oh lawds, this is Pascal's Wager... what's amusing is that the people who are obsessed with one specific religion like Christianity, or Islam, or whatever the frak - don't apply this wager to the religion that they see as their enemy. What if >YOU'RE< wrong, and the real God is actually Allah? Hey, may as well boost your chances by believing in every single God that's ever been invented. Oh wait, nevermind, they all hate each other and only want you to worship them and them alone.(Or at least that's what the people who made them up say).

Here's another thought, what if there is an alien race out there somewhere and they have their own religion and creation story? Are you going to bully them into converting to Christianity, or are you going to convert to their religion? Maybe they'll subjugate and forcefully convert >US< like we did the indigenous people of this continent (North America -- see "Trail of Tears" lol).

VVVVVV

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
..........

Pascal's wager is an argument based on probability theory and game theory as for why one should live as if God exists, even though this cannot be proved or disproved through reason. It was formulated by Blaise Pascal.

Pascal's original formulation of the wager was written down as a fairly short paragraph in Pensées amongst several other notes that could be considered "wagers".[1] Its argument is rooted in game theory and that the best course of action is to believe in God regardless of any lack of evidence, because that option gives the biggest potential gains. Pascal's original text is long-winded and somewhat convoluted philosophy-speak,[2] but it can be distilled more simply:

1: If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.

2: If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever: thus an infinite loss.

3: If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus a finite loss.

4: If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus a finite gain.

The gains and losses associated to outcomes 3 and 4 can be thought of as the opportunity costs of feigning belief and living in accordance with religious norms, since these are typically more restrictive than secular laws. These costs are finite because of human mortality. Mathematically, a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss as would be incurred during an eternal afterlife. Therefore, Pascal concluded that it was a much better choice to believe in God rather than not. The Wager can also be seen in table form and it becomes clear that belief gives you a reward or (practically) nothing, while disbelief gives you punishment or nothing.

There are many problems with the reasoning in Pascal's Wager, as well as the unsavoury theological assumptions it makes. Like most arguments for the existence of God, it seems more about reassuring existing believers than converting non-believers. This is because in order to convince a non-believer, a theological argument must both prove that the god it argues for is the One True God and disprove all other possibilities. People lacking a belief can see the potential for multiple gods existing, in fact an infinite number, but believers are constrained by their existing view that there is their god or no god. Only in this latter case does the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager make any sense.

In Bayesian terms, this can be stated as saying non-believers attribute uniform prior probabilities to the existence of any particular god; all equal, and all infinitesimal. Pascal's Wager alone cannot update these probabilities as the reasoning applies only to the One True God out of an infinite number of possible gods. Without any further information to whittle this down, the odds of inadvertently worshiping the wrong god is a practical certainty. Only when the probability of a particular god existing increases does Pascal's Wager become useful, i.e., if one god could be assigned even a mere 1% chance of being the One True God, Pascal's Wager would present a clear benefit. Hence for anyone constrained by a bias towards a particular god, the Wager is far more clear cut and supportive of their belief.

The biggest irony of Pascal's Wager as far as Christian apologetics go is that even if it was otherwise completely sound it should then suddenly become a huge disincentive for convincing an unbiased party to worship YHWH specifically. By definition worshiping the Judeo-Christian God requires the worshipper to actively reject the existence of every other deity or potential deity thanks to the intolerance that is the First Commandment.