Can an Atheist get into heaven

[Gawen]

Objection, Your Honor: irrelevant.

It's a simple question.  If you do, or you gamble, do you go in expecting to win?  The many people I know go in expecting to lose and go so far to plan their limit to lose...they go in knowing the odds are against them and go anyway.  That's all I was getting at, Your Honor.  Sometimes they win, but most times they lose.  Proof?  Casinos make $$ and lots of it, even though some win.

So what you're saying is Christians like yourself have the view that they are going to lose, knowing the odds are not with them to win.

[AnimatedDirt]

Objection, Your Honor: irrelevant.

It's a simple question.  If you do, or you gamble, do you go in expecting to win?  The many people I know go in expecting to lose and go so far to plan their limit to lose...they go in knowing the odds are against them and go anyway.  That's all I was getting at, Your Honor.  Sometimes they win, but most times they lose.  Proof?  Casinos make $$ and lots of it, even though some win.

So what you're saying is Christians like yourself have the view that they are going to lose, knowing the odds are not with them to win.

No.  Heh.  Good one though.

If you're going to look at it that way, the bible is clear, "wide is the gate and broad is the road...but small is the gate and narrow the road..."  

[Davin]

Where did you get the idea that I said anything about god wanting people to believe in heaven? I wrote nothing even close to that.

The claim that heaven even exists. The claim that a god exists and only wants people to believe in it.

If you need some OJT on basic grammar and/or clear writing skills, I can help.

I doubt you can help even with basic grammar and/or clear writing skills if you can't properly read and comprehend the sentences that you're replying to.
The first is a sentence is very simple, when added into the context of the question that you asked, it means that you had claimed that heaven exists.
The second sentence is just a little more complex by mentioning that you claimed that a god exists and that this god wants people to believe in it ("it" in this context means the the god mentioned at the start of the sentence).

So anyone can just make anything up and every one is good with that? Ok, atheists and everyone else who doesn't believe in things without evidence are allowed into heaven, while those who do believe in things without any reasonable evidence go to hell.

Since you cannot see an assumption or two is made in the question asked, (not that the question affirms the assumption) then I suppose I can't help you...no one can.

Without providing the evidence and reasoning that lead to your conclusion, what you state is mere conjecture, so my mere conjecture holds equal weight to your statement.

It seems that you're having difficulty following this conversation and the order in which the conversation is occurring.

...which was a response to you and your gravity evidence of which you can't see.  Already at this point we had sidetracked.  If you can't see that, I can help.

Aye, but you said I was the one to bring up evolution in the previous post ("This answer was in regard to you bringing up evolution...if you can't see that, I can help."), which was wrong because you brought evolution into the discussion.

I used the gravity as an example to make a point that you obviously missed. You stated that, "True, but to have the knowledge the Atheist seems to require for belief is the kind of knowledge only God has. None of us have absolute truth or knowledge and base our beliefs on our own experiences, limited knowledge, and environment." So I replied by stating that even though we don't have absolute knowledge of gravity, we still accept the theory of gravity as true, which is counter to your assumption that atheists require absolute knowledge. Because you missed this simple example, I again doubt that you can help me with anything.

Yes Thomas was given proof, if you can't see that he was not blessed for asking for proof while those who believed without the proof were blessed, then I think any conversation with you is very useless.

What you can't see is that he WAS blessed with physical proof.  His belief was based simply in touching hands.  Could yours?  Blessed are they that receive no proof, yet believe.  Blessed if their faith is proven true later.

The bible did not say that Thomas was blessed for demanding proof, yet those who believed without proof were blessed. This clearly shows that people are blessed for believing without evidence while no one is blessed for requesting evidence.

I couldn't help but notice you avoided; Is absolute proof only absolute proof once proven?  Or more simply put, is truth only truth once proven?
Is the earth only a sphere-shape once proven to be?

I couldn't help but notice that I did not avoid those questions, because you never asked me anything similar to those questions.

[AnimatedDirt]

Davin wins.

[tymygy]

Davin wins.

I'm not surprised.

But are you trying to imply with this post?

[DropLogic]

DAVIN CAN GET INTO HEAVEN!!!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just because you say it's contorted and so nonsense doesn't make it so.

"I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken," declares the Sovereign Lord.  [Emphasis added]

Fast forward a few millenia:

Your whole belief system is tied to the knowledge-base of your time, and you believe what you do.

The objective epistemology has a history of at least 2500 years that we know of, so this claim, too, is wrong.

Why would God confuse and give the spelling of something not yet understood?

To show knowledge not in possession of his prophets.

Wouldn't that just make them OF THAT DAY think God just a crazy person in their head?

I agree with this, with the caveat that this analysis of god(s) holds true today.

You have a high standard of evidence, yet the probabilities of ideas most people that don't believe in God are astronomical....

I'm unsure whether you're speaking of other world religions (which I also regard as bunkum), or the scientific method which has developed the computer you're using to make these posts. Perhaps you could be more specific?

...but you tell me your standard of evidence is high?  Doesn't this work against you somewhat?

Not so, when one understands how to collate and measure evidence.

Once again, you asked for a bit of information and I gave it to you...exactly what you wanted.  But since you don't believe, you dismiss even when you're given what you ask for.

The faulty premise in this line of reasoning is that you're assuming your "evidence" is evidence for your god.  When multiple explanations for a phenomenon are available, the one with the least assumptions, and the least-farfetched assumptions, is more likely.

I don't have a chip...I know I'm not quite up to par in this forum.  It's not a chip, it's reality on my part.  I'm simply acknowledging what others and maybe you seem to think.  See the Why must I be plagued by idiots? thread.

You'll notice that not once in that thread did I say or imply that believers must be idiots.  Again, please direct your ripostes at their proper targets.  The only Christian I mentioned in that thread was one who professed understanding the murder of atheists for their lack of belief.

If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't engage in discussion with you.  I'd either make fun of you, or ignore you.

Round sky?  Where do you see round sky?  It reads, "circle of the earth".

The horizon has two elements: earth, and sky.  Without either, the concept collapses.

Since when does earth=sky?

A matter of which element one wishes to accentuate.

You want prophecies of "holocaust"?  How about prophecies of the order of "world" (then known) empires?

You mean like the one about Tyre, above?

Have a gander at the book of Daniel.  Then if you're not understanding what you're reading, google Nebuchadnezzar's dream or the image of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and iron and clay.  Certainly there's some inconsistencies, but more consistent than inconsistent.

When a prophecy is received from a perfect god, what need might there be for interpreting inconsistencies so that they are made to fit?  This merely shows the willingness of someone to retain a specific belief. eta:  Also, the simpler explanation for this "concordances" is ex post facto writing. Can you exclude a later Christian writing these into the Bible?

According to the "tale", Satan thought he outwitted God when Christ was nailed to the cross.  Little did he know the cross was the bridge for man to cross over to God while yet a sinner.  In the same way, men may "outwit" God, but like I asked before, is truth only truth the moment it is proven?
Are you telling me you believe that reality is subjective?  If so, we'll need to end this discussion.  I can tolerate blind faith, but I find nonsense like solipsism to be enervating.  Are you telling me that the Philippines didn't exist before you learned of them?  Get real.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here other than probably affirming the point that absolute truth doesn't become so only after it's proven.  It always was.  I'm losing what my train of thought may've been here with the "outwit" part.  Probably due to my low IQ...I'm sure you'll remind me or I'll get the "ah-ha".  

Here's that straw-man again.  Please link to the post where I asserted that you have a low IQ, or otherwise impugned your intelligence.  This is the last time I shall lodge this protest.  After that, you will lose this interlocutor.

If you were raised in it, then you understand that no one will "escape" the conclusion.  You simply deny evidence and even those of the day that witnessed the miracles even denied.  Who's to say that if God were to come down and show you a miracle, you wouldn't deny anyway?

Your god is claimed omniscient.  How could he present evidence expecting to change my mind, knowing that it would fail?

Haven't most of people that are Atheist said that they would never worship a "selfish" God?  So even a miracle wouldn't convince you.  Knowledge wouldn't convince you.  (a general you to Atheists).

You are here confusing knowledge with worship.  I could be convinced that the Christian conception of god might exist.  My ethical and moral sensibilities, however, preclude me from ever worshiping such a monster.

That's why the Bible says, blessed are they that have not seen yet believe.

Glad to see you've finally come around to the point I was making that Christianity esteems the blindly faithful more than the skeptic.

Honestly, would it really convince you to fall and worship God if you witnessed Him restore a severed arm or better an arm that never was?  What if He completely healed a person with Progeria?  I don't think so.

As noted above, you are confusing acceptance and worship.  I might accept that such a god exists.  I would never worship him if he is accurately described by the Bible.

The problem is not information, the problem, as I see it, is unwillingness to admit God is.  You require information, God requires only your heart, your heart in the sense of how you would devote to someone that has given you everything.  If God is, then everything you have is of God.  Now sin, that which has caused pain and suffering, but that's a whole lot more that I cannot simply put in a line or two other than to say as the bible states:

I form the light and create darkness,
    I bring prosperity and create disaster;
    I, the LORD, do all these things.

Take a look at Commencement of suicide and specifically at Karadan's post on the second page about half way down.  Then take another look at the passage above.

I'm unsure what your point is.  Bad things happen to Christians too.

Also, you can shout all you wish about my intentions and desires, of which you are ignorant, but you don't know me.  Caveat emptor.

And then he blesses those who aren't skeptical.  We can clearly see where his intent lies.

And no, this atheist would gladly accept evidence of a god were it presented in an objective manner.  Unfortunately, the only "evidence" offered is a collection of writings two to four millenia old which is so riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies as to be useless.

See above.  Many things in life are riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.  Take eye-witnesses to any crime.  Are there not inconsistencies in what they see?  Yet they are watching the same act from different angles, and from different perspectives of beliefs on how life is, how life works, some like cops, some hate cops...

Certainly.  But a videotape from a liquor-store robbery trumps all of those eyewitness accounts.  In short, physical evidence.

History, Archaeology, the writings of those of the time(s) collected into one book(s).  Ok.  You don't need to.

No concurrent historian wrote of miracles performed by a wandering, self-proclaimed messiah.  Please show your archaeological evidence of your god; that would be interesting.  And appealing to the "writings of the times" falls prey to your "movie" objection above.  This is one more instance of special pleading.

I apologize if I've done so.  Seriously though, I *think I know what you're saying here, but if I may ask, could you explain it a bit lower for me.  I don't want to miss and do it again and again.  Honestly.

Fair enough, I've misread enough posts -- and people -- in my day.  Just please talk to me, and not some stereotype you hold in your head.

Explained by natural processes?  Certainly a hypothesis or theory of natural processes, none of which have been, nor can be, proven...at least with the chances given by science at 10^?? for many things taken for granted.

Actually, stuff like stellar formation, exoplanetary systems, earthquakes, lightning, and such have been explained by the scientific method with a high degree of credibility.  If you're looking for "proof", you must look to mathematics and logic; "proof" doesn't lie in the realm of the physical sciences.  Scientific knowledge is, and must remain, tentative and subject to correction.  When science abandons correction, it becomes dogma.

Do you go to Vegas?

Objection, Your Honor: irrelevant.

It's a simple question.  If you do, or you gamble, do you go in expecting to win?  The many people I know go in expecting to lose and go so far to plan their limit to lose...they go in knowing the odds are against them and go anyway.  That's all I was getting at, Your Honor.  Sometimes they win, but most times they lose.  Proof?  Casinos make $$ and lots of it, even though some win.

It's an irrelevant point.  The Universe is, no matter what I do.  The odds of that are approximately 1:1.

[AnimatedDirt]

DAVIN CAN GET INTO HEAVEN!!!

He certainly CAN...

[AnimatedDirt]

Fair enough, I've misread enough posts -- and people -- in my day. Just please talk to me, and not some stereotype you hold in your head.

Thank you for this.  I'll certainly do my best.  I must say, however, that I am human and as passioned as I am with the topic, I may fall.  I will do my best to keep in line.

You'll notice that not once in that thread did I say or imply that believers must be idiots. Again, please direct your ripostes at their proper targets. The only Christian I mentioned in that thread was one who professed understanding the murder of atheists for their lack of belief.

If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't engage in discussion with you. I'd either make fun of you, or ignore you.

Thx.  

I suppose including, "...what others and maybe you seem to think." was implying you.  I apologize for that.  In my mind it was in context of a Christian's belief in what you conclude has no evidence and so is "idiotic" as the threads OP apparently thinks.  I didn't mean to say YOU think we are idiots and of low IQ.  That is left to the OP of that thread.  I've conceded that I am of low IQ.  I read and read and yet I still have difficulty retaining that which I find interesting.  I find myself rereading material over and over.  I would certainly test low on the scale of IQ.

Here's that straw-man again. Please link to the post where I asserted that you have a low IQ, or otherwise impugned your intelligence. This is the last time I shall lodge this protest. After that, you will lose this interlocutor.

See above.  I was being honest, the wink, was for the "ah-ha" remark, but again in line with what I mention above.

I am enjoying this talk with you.  There are others that are simply throwing snide remarks and the like.  I'm trying to ignore them.  

Fast forward a few millenia:

Too many words to put here to read.  Read Tyre: A Place For Fishing Nets at your leisure.
There are other sections on that page, but one entitled, "Tyre: A Place For Fishing Nets"

I'm unsure whether you're speaking of other world religions (which I also regard as bunkum), or the scientific method which has developed the computer you're using to make these posts. Perhaps you could be more specific?

Simply the mathmatical probability of chance and the myriad of coincidences of life springing up from nothingness.  If gravity was off by this much, we could not exist...if the sun was closer or farther by this much...if the earth's tilt wasn't this...if the moon was closer or farther by... Just to name the easy ones I remember.

The faulty premise in this line of reasoning is that you're assuming your "evidence" is evidence for your god. When multiple explanations for a phenomenon are available, the one with the least assumptions, and the least-farfetched assumptions, is more likely.

If I'm understanding you, I respectfully disagree.  You asked for a bit.  I gave you a bit.  It was a bit of information that they didn't necessarily understand, yet we can see the full implications of those words today.  The earth being a sphere is not a phenomenon that is not understood, nor is the atmosphere which protects the earth (and us).

The horizon has two elements: earth, and sky. Without either, the concept collapses.

I agree.  If the point is speaking of the horizon itself.  However when one is above the earth, there is no horizon where both earth and sky are seen.  If one is high enough, the earth is simply seen as a sphere/circle.

...is ex post facto writing.

Are not all historical writings ex post facto writings?  Even if you write down things immediately, it remains written "after the fact".  The book of Ezekiel predates Tyre by a few hundred years.  Maybe I'm not understanding.  Would you elaborate for me plz?

Your god is claimed omniscient. How could he present evidence expecting to change my mind, knowing that it would fail?

I have two kids.  One 20 and the other 14.  When the 20yr old was young, about 3 or 4 we had the darndest time convincing her she had her colors wrong.  "That ball is red." "No it's not, it's yellow."  Is my point to say that you cannot understand or that you lack the ability to?  No.  My point is simply that sometimes it doesn't matter the details, but the fact that it's a ball is enough.  If you haven't had kids yet, the fun part is agreeing with your child and giggling with your spouse and winking at your friends when the child does these things they will eventually grow out of.  My daughter is in her 3rd year of college right now, and although she's a great person and she's doing well, I do wish to have those days back and the "bliss" of not caring that she adds wrong, gets colors mixed up...seeing the world though the eyes of a child is actually eye-opening to many adults.

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them.  And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

The point is not to be "dumb", but to humble self as a child does to their parent.

You are here confusing knowledge with worship. I could be convinced that the Christian conception of god might exist. My ethical and moral sensibilities, however, preclude me from ever worshiping such a monster.

We may be confusing 'worship'.  It doesn't mean to fall to your knees and moan or groan unitelligible words or constantly bowing or serving non-stop, fanning a large banana leaf (?) to cool the king.  It may include falling to your knees simply to acknowledge that if God is who He says He is, then everything given you/us is from Him.  Life eternal is through Him.  When we look at the life of Christ on earth as a man, we see Him healing, spending time with friends at parties...  Worship is not being in church.  Worshipping something or someone is putting that something or someone first and most important.  Many men and women are said to worship their spouse.  Is that because they are bowing constantly?  Love causes you and I to do many things from our heart...and when it's done from the heart, it's worship.

I might accept that such a god exists. I would never worship him if he is accurately described by the Bible.

I believe He is.  If He is who He says He is, then to take life inconsequentially or haphazardly in our eyes, if He's able to return life really doesn't mean a whole lot from that perspective.  If He takes life due to His own nature of Holiness, then it is like the verse I quoted you earlier..."I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster..."

As a child, I used to build model cars for fun.  Some I built and my friends and I would put firecrackers all over it to blow it up.  Sometimes I'd go and buy that same model again to build and keep on the shelf.  Now in context of God, (I know this fails in human perspective) but in regard to His ability to do anything...what consequence is it if some die, to be made new again at a later time?

If He's not that God, then you're right, He's a monster.

I'm unsure what your point is. Bad things happen to Christians too.

Simply as Karadan put it.  Without the bad, we wouldn't know what good is.  The, "I form light and create darkness" paradox.

Also, you can shout all you wish about my intentions and desires, of which you are ignorant, but you don't know me. Caveat emptor.

Again, I apologize.  That's not my intention.

[Sophus]

It's a simple question.  If you do, or you gamble, do you go in expecting to win?  The many people I know go in expecting to lose and go so far to plan their limit to lose...they go in knowing the odds are against them and go anyway.  That's all I was getting at, Your Honor.  Sometimes they win, but most times they lose.  Proof?  Casinos make $$ and lots of it, even though some win.

Pascal's Wager?

[Gawen]

So what you're saying is Christians like yourself have the view that they are going to lose, knowing the odds are not with them to win.

No.  Heh.  Good one though. If you're going to look at it that way, the bible is clear, "wide is the gate and broad is the road...but small is the gate and narrow the road..."  

It really doesn't matter. If you're a Calvinist, which I suspect, doctrine says those that are going to Heaven are already picked. When the rapture comes, be sure to post on this board to let us know you're still in our company. Why do I ask? Well, here's the requirements of believers to get into Heaven:
•   Abandon all your Earthly ambitions.
•   Forsake your Earthly family and give your loyalty to God and your fellow believers.  
•   Sell everything you own and use the money to do good works.  
•   Avoid receiving any Earthly reward for your good works.  
•   Follow Mosaic Law, both the letter and the spirit of it.  
•   Abstain from all sin, inside and out;
•   Abstain from covetousness
•   Abstain from anger
•   Abstain from lust.
•   Abstain from adultery.  
•   Do WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO to abstain from lust.  
•   Practice strict nonviolent pacifism.
•   Do not resist evil.
•   Do not strike back.
•   Do good to those who hate you.  
•   Practice mercy and forgiveness and peacemaking.
•   Do not judge others; Judgment Day will come soon enough.  
•   Seek to purify your own character, strive to "be perfect, even as your father in Heaven is perfect."
•   Over-fulfill the Law seeking to follow the spirit of it as well as the letter.
•   Practice forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, and peacemaking.
•   Kill those that do not believe.
•   Abstain from swearing false oaths.

If you ask me, either heaven will be a very small place or a resort town with no inhabitants.

[VallartaPete]

The passage you are referring to is found in Revelation 14:9-12

WOW thank you very much ... I have not returned here for 2 months but WOW I got my question answered ...

[KebertX]

Think of it this way:

Christians say No, because you need to accept Jesus as your lord and savior.
Atheists say No because Heaven doesn't exist.

Looks like we're not getting into heaven.

I'm sure oblivion is just as interesting.