Happy Atheist Forum

Now clearly I am an Atheist but I am one who says I could be wrong ... .001% chance of it BUT it is not a chance worth getting anyones panties in a bunch over.

I do however get into discussion on FB with hard nosed Christians about that .001% chance.

In my constant web search to biblical challenges I make or receive I once came upon a bible passage regarding Atheists being able to get into heaven if such a place did exist and we are all wrong. The passage was based around the premise that so long as you never worshiped the beast (devil) or prayed to it or followed its lead then you would be allowed in regardless of your lack of worship of God.

Not that it matters to me because I feel that if I am wrong and someone would not let me in because I did not kiss his ass and beg for mercy then I would not want in anyhow. I would rather burn in a hell then spend eternity with someone that stuck-up and self-centered.

The question is more for me to throw it back at them as to defer the argument. And maybe get under their skin.

Peter Hardy aka VallartaPete

Can you point out that bible passage? I would love to see it.

Oh ya that was really my question  .... Doh .... I had set the page aside but then accidentally closed it never to find again.

I really want it back ...

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

9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

As you can see, this says that anyone who worships the beast will be wind up in Hell, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It does not say that those who do not worship the beast, though, will go to Heaven.

As far as whether or not an atheist can go to heaven, I believe they can, though I am in the minority on the matter. I believe the Bible teaches that once a person is saved, their salvation can never be lost. Consider 2 Tim. 2:11-13

11Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; 12if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; 13if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Notice that if we are faithless--if we don't have faith--He will still be faithful in His promise to save us. Further, John 3:16 says that the one who believes will never perish but has everlasting life. If I can lose my salvation, then this verse lies, because then I would perish and it would turn out that my life wasn't everlasting in the first place.

Those who have trusted Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone for their salvation can know for 100% sure that they are saved. That doesn't mean that if you were baptized as a child you can know you were saved. It doesn't mean that if you walked an aisle or raised your hand or went to church or cried because you did something wrong then you can know you are saved. It says that if at any point in your life you put your faith in Jesus Christ to save you, that you threw yourself on His mercy and grace, completely apart from any works on your own, then you were saved then and even are today, even if you later went on to become an atheist.

We are saved through our faith, not through our works. Once you are saved, you are just that: saved. God doesn't kick you out of the lifeboat back into the water and ask you to "get saved again."

My recommendation, then, is to put your faith in Jesus. He promised that if you trust Him then He would raise you on the last day into everlasting life (John 6:40; 11:24-27). Those who don't are already condemned (John 3:18). The question is really very simple. Did Jesus tell the truth, or did He lie? I think He told the truth, and so long as He is right, I've no doubt where I'm going to spend eternity, and that, regardless of what I end up doing in the future--including if I were to fall into disbelief.

How does that work with "he will disown us" though? It never specifically refers to what god is being faithful about. Plus, in what context is faithfully really being used. It's a word of many meanings.

CAN an atheist get to heaven..?

No. Why? Because there is no such thing based on the evidence at hand.

COULD an atheist get to heaven if there was one..?

Yes if that atheist met the minimum entry requirements.

Quote from: "Sophus"How does that work with "he will disown us" though? It never specifically refers to what god is being faithful about. Plus, in what context is faithfully really being used. It's a word of many meanings.

The word "disown" is better translated "deny." The idea is in direct response opposition to enduring and reigning. It is fairly well established in Christian doctrine that those who are faithful will be rewarded in heaven moreso than those who are not. Thus, those who endure reign; those who do not endure, but deny Him, will be denied by Jesus, not of their salvation, but of their right to rule with Him. This is clarified in the final clause, that even if we are faithless (that is, we go on to deny Him), He Himself is not faithless, but faithful. Faithful to what? To the promise to save us (John 3:16, etc.), and why, because if He went back on His word like we do, then He would be denying Himself, which He cannot do. There is much more we could say about the saying, but I think this answers your question directly enough.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The word "disown" is better translated "deny."

So the Bookâ,,¢ is poorly translated..? And yet people bother to read it as factual?

Why?

In its original language, does it say "disown" or "deny"? Any one knows?

We're mixing and matching meanings of the words "faith" and "deny". It's totally different to deny the existence of something than it is to say, deny someone friendship, just as it's completely different to faith in unicorns than it is to have faith in your wife.

Knowing how the god of the bible behaves...would you really want to go to his house for all eternity?  Personally it sounds like hell.

Why would you want to go to the Christian heaven? It's full of self rightious pricks and nobody fun or interesting ever gets in.

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that Jac is saying I'm going to heaven, but with his views, that would be more of a punishment than hell.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Jac3510"The word "disown" is better translated "deny."

So the Bookâ,,¢ is poorly translated..? And yet people bother to read it as factual?

Why?

In its original language, does it say "disown" or "deny"? Any one knows?

Most people read it according to a translation because they don't take they time, or were never taught, to read Greek and Hebrew. It's a sad state of affairs, I think. I don't blame non-Christians for not taking the time necessary to learn the languages, but Christians, especially Christian parents, have absolutely no excuse. Those who raise their children in Christian homes ought to either teach their children Greek and Hebrew, or they ought to make sure their children are taught it by someone who knows it.

For my own part, I read NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew. I refer to English translations from time to time. I view them primarily as commentary, but anyone who is bilingual will tell you that translation from one language into another is never perfect. To give you only two examples:

1. The NIV renders 1 John 2:5, "But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him." The NASB renders it, "but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected."

We can see two issues in these translations. First, look at the phrase "God's love" and "love of God." This is a classic problem with translation. The Greek is agape tou theou (αγαπη Ï,,οÏ... θεοÏ...). Agape refers to "love." Theou is a genitive word meaning "God," and we are taught in first year Greek to look at genitives as showing possession, which is true from a simplistic point of view, and so it is translated "of God." So we see the reasoning behind the NASB's very literal rendering, and even why the NIV treated it like it does, putting in in easier English. The problem is that the genitive can express a lot more than just possession. I'll spare you the literally dozens of categories it could be, but two in particular come up in this verse. It could be an objective or a subjective genitive. In other words, is the idea:

"The love that belongs to God" (i.e., "God's love") OR "My love for God"

We have this same issue in English. If I say "the love of a women," am I talking about the way a woman loves or the love a person may have for a woman? Context decides, and the way you interpret that is very important. As a matter of fact, I think the NIV has it wrong here, and that we are not talking about the love that belongs to God, but rather our love for God.

Second, look at "obey" in the NIV vs. "keep" in the NASB. Here we are translating the word tereo (Ï,,ηρέω, or in the actual text, inflected, Ï,,ηρῇ). It's basic meaning is to guard or to watch over, but it's semantic range also includes obeying.  I think John has both meanings in view as he very much likes to choose words that can have a double meaning, both of which apply, but the point is that, in English, we either have to choose one meaning or the other. We don't have a word that means both (and for what it is worth, this fits fantastically into Hebrew thought, because the Hebrew word shamar has the same range of meaning: that is, it can mean both keeping or obeying - John was expressing here a very Jewish, Old Testament idea!).

All this is just to demonstrate that translation is always imperfect. With that said, English translations are hardly bad. I usually compare then to a nine inch black and white screen to a fifty-two inch high definition. The picture is the same, but the one is just contains a much, much deeper level of clarity. In any case, when we are looking at a passage, we should always compare multiple translations if we are using the English Bible, for the simple reason that no translation can get everything. Different translations have different philosophies (i.e., formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence) and, I am very sad to admit, profit is an issue. Publishers are loathe to translate popular verses differently than they have always been read, even if modern scholarship challenges the traditional reading. To take but one example of that, John 3:16 usually opens up in most translations as "For God so loved the world . . ." which was perfectly appropriate in Victorian English. But the word "so" has changed meaning so that we read it as if it means, "For God loved the word so much that . . ." In fact, a better translation recognizing the way English is used today is, "For this is the way God loved the world:" If you look at the traditional rendering with that idea in mind, you can see how that idea could well be expressed.

So, a long answer I know, but that's why I bother to read it as factual. Or, better, why mistranslations don't bother me in terms of factuality. It's just the nature of translation from one language to another. The Bible just wasn't written in English.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Sophus"We're mixing and matching meanings of the words "faith" and "deny". It's totally different to deny the existence of something than it is to say, deny someone friendship, just as it's completely different to faith in unicorns than it is to have faith in your wife.

Sure, in English, but the English isn't what is in question here. The issue is what the Greek says. The English is only important to the degree that it properly represents the Greek.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Tanker"Why would you want to go to the Christian heaven? It's full of self rightious pricks and nobody fun or interesting ever gets in.

I'm sure we can think of several reasons. I like the idea of permanent bliss much more than eternal torture. More philosophically, the idea of perfect goodness being expressed in everything is something I look forward to, whereas the complete negation of any goodness is something I would dread most deeply. Beyond that are the obvious theological reasons - I could want nothing more than to spend eternity with a God who did the work for me , as in Christianity, rather than asked me to do the work for Him, as in most religions. As a father myself, I can relate to that. Then there's the basic gratitude of saving me from my sin. Then there's the fact of being able to fully experience what I was actually designed for. Thump once pointed out that God knows us better than we know ourselves. I agree with him there, and if God knows me better than I know me, then He knows what will make me happy far more than I do. I'm looking forward to what He has in store.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "PoopShoot"My biggest problem with the whole thing is that Jac is saying I'm going to heaven, but with his views, that would be more of a punishment than hell.

I hope you do wind up in heaven, sir. I hope you did believe the Gospel earlier in life, because if you did, you are as heaven bound as I am. And when we are both standing in glory, you'll be absolutely overjoyed and relieved that you are not suffering the same fate as those in Hell, as will I be. And we'll both be praising and thanking God for saving us from such terrible consequences.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"My biggest problem with the whole thing is that Jac is saying I'm going to heaven, but with his views, that would be more of a punishment than hell.

I hope you do wind up in heaven, sir. I hope you did believe the Gospel earlier in life, because if you did, you are as heaven bound as I am. And when we are both standing in glory, you'll be absolutely overjoyed and relieved that you are not suffering the same fate as those in Hell, as will I be. And we'll both be praising and thanking God for saving us from such terrible consequences.

Given the cross section I've met of each location's probable population, I'll take my chances in hell.  I don't really have a problem with who god supposedly is, but his fan-club is really starting to piss me off.

Sure, PS. You'd agree with Ghandi, who as you know said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." The good news is that Christians will be raised, the same as you (assuming, again, that you believed the Gospel), with a body like Christ's, meaning that in heaven they will be like Him. That expression of pure goodness will be then what it ought to be now and very few actually even give a real attempt and trying today.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Sure, PS. You'd agree with Ghandi, who as you know said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." The good news is that Christians will be raised, the same as you (assuming, again, that you believed the Gospel), with a body like Christ's, meaning that in heaven they will be like Him. That expression of pure goodness will be then what it ought to be now and very few actually even give a real attempt and trying today.

Great, they will have eternal bodies, but their essence (according to you) will be the same, so they will still be assholes.  Regardless, you've yet to demonstrate or support any of your points and you are expressing mutually exclusive points, so you're about as convincing as my my wife was when she tried to reassure my kid that the tooth fairy is real when he caught her with her hand under his pillow.

Quote from: "Tanker"Why would you want to go to the Christian heaven? It's full of self rightious pricks and nobody fun or interesting ever gets in.

He's makin a list
He's checking it twice
He knows who's been naughty or nice.

Santa's workshop, Noddy's Toyland, whoever's heaven, they are just imaginings.
You can't get there from here.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Great, they will have eternal bodies, but their essence (according to you) will be the same, so they will still be assholes.  Regardless, you've yet to demonstrate or support any of your points and you are expressing mutually exclusive points, so you're about as convincing as my my wife was when she tried to reassure my kid that the tooth fairy is real when he caught her with her hand under his pillow.

Everyone gets an eternal body. The question is what your experience in that body will be. Those in heaven will experience participation in perfect goodness, since they are united with God, where as those in Hell will experience absolute disconnect from goodness, since they will have rejected Him. Again, our essences will be precisely the same as they are today. The only thing that will change is the degree to which we participate in goodness. That is an accidental property, not an essential one, just as much as whether or not I have hair is accidental to my essence. I've demonstrated this before, without comment from you. If our experience of goodness is essential to who we are, then we cannot logically say that a good man turned bad or a bad man turned good are the same people to the extent that we cannot attribute good or bad actions to the same people. To give a very concrete example, if today I lie to my employer without any justification whatsoever beyond personal gain, that is clearly wrong; but if I then go home and treat my wife to a splendid evening for no other reason than the fact that she is my wife and I want to treat her, that is clearly good. Yet if the goodness I experience is essential who who I am, then we cannot say that the person who lied is the same person who treated, since the former would have experienced less goodness than the latter.

We see, then, that the level of goodness you experience is accidental to your essence, both in this life and the next.

As far as demonstrating the mutually exclusive points, it seems that we are crossing threads here. I've said here that an atheist who at some point in his life believed the Gospel will go to heaven. This, of course, assumes that the Gospel is true, but the entire question about heaven, at least the Christian heaven, presupposes the Christian Gospel anyway. Since those who believe in Jesus have everlasting life right now, then if you have ever believed in Jesus, you still have everlasting life (otherwise, if you had lost it, it would not have been everlasting life that you had in the first place).

Concerning the raising of people with good bodies, I've generally argued for that in the discussion on Hell. Again, if God is good as I and classical theism has defined Him, then heaven and hell as I have described them are, I think I've argued correctly, necessary logical corollaries. So the only issue is whether or not God exists and if He is really good.

And concerning that, I've argued briefly in the Hell thread as well that the moral argument for God's existence proves it. If objective morality is only found in God, and if morality is objective, then God exists as a perfectly moral being, from which everything else follows we've discussed. We've discussed whether or not morality can be objective without God, and I believe it's rather apparent that a non-divine morality is subjective any way you look at it, being rooted either in personal or societal value preferences, whatever the origin of those preferences may be. Is morality objective? The very fact that we all condemn Hell is really evil if it is punitive I think proves that we all really do think morality is objective, because if it were mere preference, then we couldn't say such a Hell was really evil in the first place. We could only say that we don't approve, as if that had any argumentative merit.

So whether or not you've found my arguments persuasive, and I realize you haven't, I have offered the connection between the points. It's just a matter of deciding at what point(s) you disagree.

--------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "MP"He's makin a list
He's checking it twice
He knows who's been naughty or nice.

You do realize that on Christianity, being naughty or nice doesn't decide whether or not you go to heaven or hell, right?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:16-18, NIV)

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€"not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV)

QuoteI've demonstrated this before, without comment from you.

I'm sorry, where was this?  You've not demonstrated that good is incidental to a being whose existence is in question.

As for your argument of a guy lying to his employer but being good to his wife: the former means that the man was detrimental to his employer for personal gain, which is detrimental to the company and to society as a whole via the economy, he has damaged his species for personal gain and has acted like a parasite in that instance.  The man treating his wife well is beneficial to his marriage, which bolsters the family unit.  This is neutral to society as a whole, but if he has children he is teaching them how to benefit their family while being neutral to society, so he is negating future drains on society in the form of abusive families.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "MP"He's makin a list
He's checking it twice
He knows who's been naughty or nice.

You do realize that on Christianity, being naughty or nice doesn't decide whether or not you go to heaven or hell, right?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:16-18, NIV)

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€"not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV)

Ye well that's just great, it must make recruitment so much easier.
Thank you for validating my antipathy for your religion.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

QuoteI've demonstrated this before, without comment from you.

I'm sorry, where was this?  You've not demonstrated that good is incidental to a being whose existence is in question.

As for your argument of a guy lying to his employer but being good to his wife: the former means that the man was detrimental to his employer for personal gain, which is detrimental to the company and to society as a whole via the economy, he has damaged his species for personal gain and has acted like a parasite in that instance.  The man treating his wife well is beneficial to his marriage, which bolsters the family unit.  This is neutral to society as a whole, but if he has children he is teaching them how to benefit their family while being neutral to society, so he is negating future drains on society in the form of abusive families.

In my first point to you in this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=85171#p85171).

Let's save the discussion on hell for the hell thread? I'll respond to this in addition to your other comments there later today.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "MP"Ye well that's just great, it must make recruitment so much easier.
Thank you for validating my antipathy for your religion.

Actually, you'd be surprised (or perhaps not) just how many it offends. People want to do something to save themselves. People, even many Christians I know, are deeply offended by the notion that God saves by grace or not at all.

But I can't do nor would I try to do anything about your antipathy for Christianity. God did everything for you so that all you have to do is trust Him to save you. He made you a promise. If you trust Jesus for eternal life, you'll have it. What you do with that is up to you. If it angers you that much more that God would make it so easy, then ok.

Quote from: "Jac3510"In my first point to you in this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=85171#p85171).

You didn't demonstrate anything there, you merely made bald assertions.

QuoteLet's save the discussion on hell for the hell thread? I'll respond to this in addition to your other comments there later today.

If you wish.  I plan to be around.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Jac3510"In my first point to you in this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=85171#p85171).

You didn't demonstrate anything there, you merely made bald assertions.

QuoteLet's save the discussion on hell for the hell thread? I'll respond to this in addition to your other comments there later today.

If you wish.  I plan to be around.

I do wish.

Since the rules for getting into heaven are so clearly outlined in the bible  , how does a god-fearing Christian know if he's made the cut?  According the rules I know of...it's impossible to get into heaven just by being human.  
Further more, why do you worry so much about what happens when you die?  Our time here is very short...make the best of it.

Quote from: "DropLogic"Since the rules for getting into heaven are so clearly outlined in the bible  , how does a god-fearing Christian know if he's made the cut?  According the rules I know of...it's impossible to get into heaven just by being human.  
Further more, why do you worry so much about what happens when you die?  Our time here is very short...make the best of it.

They're perfectly clear cut. See John 3:16 and Eph. 2:8-9, or Acts 16:31. If you trust Jesus to save you from Hell, He does. That simple.

So what are these other "rules" you know of?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "DropLogic"Since the rules for getting into heaven are so clearly outlined in the bible  , how does a god-fearing Christian know if he's made the cut?  According the rules I know of...it's impossible to get into heaven just by being human.  
Further more, why do you worry so much about what happens when you die?  Our time here is very short...make the best of it.

They're perfectly clear cut. See John 3:16 and Eph. 2:8-9, or Acts 16:31. If you trust Jesus to save you from Hell, He does. That simple.

So what are these other "rules" you know of?

Oh..I thought original sin and thought crime was grounds for eviction?
That's amazingly simple though...just have to trust a man who might have lived 2000 years ago...Know anyone who has confirmed this theory?

Quote from: "DropLogic"Oh..I thought original sin and thought crime was grounds for eviction?
That's amazingly simple though...just have to trust a man who might have lived 2000 years ago...Know anyone who has confirmed this theory?

No, original sin doesn't keep you out of heaven. Again, look at John 3:16-18. It's a simple matter. Trust Jesus to save you from Hell and you have eternal life. And I do know someone who has confirmed the theory. His name is Jesus, and He confirmed it by starting the Resurrection. If you stick around a couple of weeks, we'll get into those issues. In the meantime, I'm discussing the whole Hell concept in another thread.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "DropLogic"Oh..I thought original sin and thought crime was grounds for eviction?
That's amazingly simple though...just have to trust a man who might have lived 2000 years ago...Know anyone who has confirmed this theory?

No, original sin doesn't keep you out of heaven. Again, look at John 3:16-18. It's a simple matter. Trust Jesus to save you from Hell and you have eternal life. And I do know someone who has confirmed the theory. His name is Jesus, and He confirmed it by starting the Resurrection. If you stick around a couple of weeks, we'll get into those issues. In the meantime, I'm discussing the whole Hell concept in another thread.

:hmm:

I'm not going to argue with a condescending crazy person.  There can be no argument, because we live in different realities.  
In case you were not aware though...rights and wrongs are not determined by god...they are determined by the current governing body mixed with social acceptability.  The rights and wrongs of the biblical era are vastly different than today's versions.

Quote from: "DropLogic":hmm:

You believe while you are alive, and then when you die physically, you live with Christ in heaven until the Resurrection.

QuoteI'm not going to argue with a condescending crazy person.  There can be no argument, because we live in different realities.  
In case you were not aware though...rights and wrongs are not determined by god...they are determined by the current governing body mixed with social acceptability.  The rights and wrongs of the biblical era are vastly different than today's versions.

Just to make sure I am following you . . . I'm condescending because I pointed out where the Bible says salvation is by faith alone, and that this is historically verified by Jesus' resurrection? And yet you started this conversation by saying you "know" of "rules" that keep a person out of heaven (which you didn't back up), respond (with what appears to be a tinge of sarcasm) that Jesus might have lived and ask for verification, and then finally call me condescending, crazy, imply I don't live in reality, and challenge whether or not I am aware of your particular view of social morality, and moreso, as if your view is the only possibility without even considering what philosophers of ethics are suggesting? You do all that, and somehow, I'm the condescending one.

Okay.

Oh, I almost forgot:  ;)

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "DropLogic":hmm:

You believe while you are alive, and then when you die physically, you live with Christ in heaven until the Resurrection.

QuoteI'm not going to argue with a condescending crazy person.  There can be no argument, because we live in different realities.  
In case you were not aware though...rights and wrongs are not determined by god...they are determined by the current governing body mixed with social acceptability.  The rights and wrongs of the biblical era are vastly different than today's versions.

Just to make sure I am following you . . . I'm condescending because I pointed out where the Bible says salvation is by faith alone, and that this is historically verified by Jesus' resurrection? And yet you started this conversation by saying you "know" of "rules" that keep a person out of heaven (which you didn't back up), respond (with what appears to be a tinge of sarcasm) that Jesus might have lived and ask for verification, and then finally call me condescending, crazy, imply I don't live in reality, and challenge whether or not I am aware of your particular view of social morality, and moreso, as if your view is the only possibility without even considering what philosophers of ethics are suggesting? You do all that, and somehow, I'm the condescending one.

Okay.

Oh, I almost forgot:  ;)

Where you get it wrong is the the bible is not a book based on facts...only faith.  HUGE distinction.
And no..you're condescending because you told me to stick around, suggesting that you will in some way educate me.
I would hardly call the resurrection verified...it's a ghost story...The same as Santa, the same as the Tooth Fairy.
Asking for proof of your claims does not make me condescending...YOU have the burden of proof, I don't.
Parental and peer influence determine a person's morals.
And yes, I feel that people who believe without proof do not live in reality.
You're an atheist too...I just go one god further.

I have no interest of going to the heaven of any god/God who places belief in him/herself over the life lived by that person.

If somehow, and by somehow I mean that 0.000000001% chance that an omnipotent all powerful God exists complete with a heaven and a hell "realm" (sorry I'm giggling just entertaining the possibility) it seems to me that if belief in him or her trumps everything else and is a major deciding factor in entering heaven, then I want no part in that. I have lived a good and moral life. Better by a long shot than most christians I know. I have known them to do deplorable things, and many are hateful bigots. Hate in their hearts, rotten through and through as far as I can tell. If they are going to get into heaven simply because they believe even though they are nasty people, I want no part of it and I don't want to live there in eternity with them. Send me to hell with some like minded people. At least I'll have better company.

Quote from: "freethinkermommy"If somehow, and by somehow I mean that 0.000000001% chance that an omnipotent all powerful God exists

Methink you missed a few zeros... How about 1x10^-34..?  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "freethinkermommy"If somehow, and by somehow I mean that 0.000000001% chance that an omnipotent all powerful God exists

Methink you missed a few zeros... How about 1x10^-34..?  

1^100^1000
A giggity google..

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "freethinkermommy"If somehow, and by somehow I mean that 0.000000001% chance that an omnipotent all powerful God exists

Methink you missed a few zeros... How about 1x10^-34..?  

1^100^1000
A giggity google..

That there is like... ONE. (1^(10^5)=1)

Quote from: "VallartaPete"Now clearly I am an Atheist but I am one who says I could be wrong ... .001% chance of it BUT it is not a chance worth getting anyones panties in a bunch over.

I do however get into discussion on FB with hard nosed Christians about that .001% chance.

The question is more for me to throw it back at them as to defer the argument. And maybe get under their skin.

I realize you are not looking for an answer from a Christian, but answers you can throw back.  What is of interest to me is actual Christians that may have you believe that an Atheist has a chance of getting to heaven.  It's clear from the only written connection we have (we believe) from God, that there is only one way to get to heaven and that is through belief (putting faith, trust and our lives) in Christ and His death as payment for our sin.  So it is, in light of this, impossible for a non-believer to get into heaven.  God being omnipotent can't even go against His own law.  IMHO, the Christian you are in discussion with on FB or otherwise, really has little idea what they are promoting.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God being omnipotent can't even go against His own law.

Then omnipotent is not the right descriptor. Either you have the power to do anything or you don't.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God being omnipotent can't even go against His own law.

Then omnipotent is not the right descriptor. Either you have the power to do anything or you don't.

True...but I'm sure you've heard that the Christian God is limited by His nature in what His power can do.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's clear from the only written connection we have (we believe) from God, that there is only one way to get to heaven and that is through belief (putting faith, trust and our lives) in Christ and His death as payment for our sin.  So it is, in light of this, impossible for a non-believer to get into heaven.  

Very well, count me out; your god is not credible at all.

Say, we already have a fire, so I'll bring some marinaded steaks.  Who's bringing the beer and chips?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God being omnipotent can't even go against His own law.

Then omnipotent is not the right descriptor. Either you have the power to do anything or you don't.

True...but I'm sure you've heard that the Christian God is limited by His nature in what His power can do.

Who says this?  What is the basis of this scholarship?  What research has been conducted?  

In short, who knows a goddamned thing about your god?  

No, I mean knows.  Not thinks.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God being omnipotent can't even go against His own law.

Then omnipotent is not the right descriptor. Either you have the power to do anything or you don't.

True...but I'm sure you've heard that the Christian God is limited by His nature in what His power can do.

What limits would those be? Depending on the verse, or book, or chapter he's either either the most insane, blood thirsty, vengfull, hatful, murdering, vain sociopath imaginable or the source of all peace and love and goodness in the universe. Considering the absolutly polar oposits that been atributed to him any limits are self imposed and not regulated by anything. So again either omnipotent or not there is no grey area. "He's good because he's good" is not a good argument.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In short, who knows a goddamned thing about your god?  

No, I mean knows.  Not thinks.

To know is to be God.

Quote from: "Tanker"What limits would those be?

I cannot assume what limits He gives or has for Himself outside of our dimension, but the same limits I put on myself that I don't go out and start a killing spree of family, friends and strangers.  I'm not the murdering type.  The analogy ends there.

In no way am I an expert in debate on these matters, but I can give you my opinion/belief.  Do I have absolute proof?  No, if I did, you wouldn't be an Atheist.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In short, who knows a goddamned thing about your god?  

No, I mean knows.  Not thinks.

To know is to be God.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by the words "know" and "god".

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In short, who knows a goddamned thing about your god?  

No, I mean knows.  Not thinks.

To know is to be God.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by the words "know" and "god".

You were asking about my God weren't you?

Wait, wait, wait.  I swear I thought I was one of those "knowing" atheists that had an inkling about Christianity.  Are you (Jac and Animated) really saying that all you have to do it say "there's no place like..., I mean, I believe in Jesus" three times and you get into Heaven?  Even if you then go around killing babies (which of course is condoned in the Bible)?  I thought you had to repent or something?  Maybe I'm thinking Catholicism.

So...the worst hideous sinners (who happen to believe in Jesus) get into Heaven but even a person born of a remote village who has never heard of Jesus but only does good their entire life gets to burn in hell?  Holy crap, you've got to be kidding me.  I always thought those were straw man sort of arguments against Christianity.  But apparently those are REAL Christian opinions.  I'm going back to live under my atheist rock now.  Makes more sense down here.

Quote from: "madness"Wait, wait, wait.  I swear I thought I was one of those "knowing" atheists that had an inkling about Christianity.  Are you (Jac and Animated) really saying that all you have to do it say "there's no place like..., I mean, I believe in Jesus" three times and you get into Heaven?  Even if you then go around killing babies (which of course is condoned in the Bible)?  I thought you had to repent or something?  Maybe I'm thinking Catholicism.

So...the worst hideous sinners (who happen to believe in Jesus) get into Heaven but even a person born of a remote village who has never heard of Jesus but only does good their entire life gets to burn in hell?  Holy crap, you've got to be kidding me.  I always thought those were straw man sort of arguments against Christianity.  But apparently those are REAL Christian opinions.  I'm going back to live under my atheist rock now.  Makes more sense down here.

LOL...sometimes it seems like that's what Christianity is saying.  It seems Jac and I differ on details, but probably not the broad scheme of things.  While Jac may believe an Atheist can get into heaven, his position is what is termed in Christian circles, "Once Saved, Always Saved".  I believe in OSAS, however there is a small caveat that I hold to that Jac doesn't by his first post here in this thread.  I believe one can, just as one chooses to believe and so be saved, so can you change your mind and reject salvation after you've accepted.  The factor that determines this is simply your heart.  If you whole-heartedly accept, the gift of life is given.  If you accept and then have your mind changed and whole-heartedly reject God, He will abide by your wishes.  "I stand at the door and knock..."  Christ is a gentleman and only goes and stays where He is welcome.

While it is true that one only needs to believe/put faith in Christ, the Bible is clear that true belief or true faith has evidence and that faith alone is useless.  Faith/belief come first...and the declaration of righteousness through Christ is given at that moment.  However, given that very few people die the moment after they confess faith/belief in Christ as Lord and Savior, their life then must show evidence of that true faith/belief.  The most important evidence is love.  Loving enemies and praying for those who persecute you.  (loving doesn't mean liking nor does it mean trusting), "Love does no harm to its neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

We are never perfect or worthy of God's love and therefore salvation, but when we have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, we are covered by His goodness that IS worthy.

Quote from: "madness"then go around killing babies (which of course is condoned in the Bible)?

That is debatable, but not for this thread.

Quote

Quote from: "madness"then go around killing babies (which of course is condoned in the Bible)?

That is debatable, but not for this thread.

Yeah, that was a little snarky.

So I guess I don't get to go to heaven no matter what since I was never saved.  I hadn't heard of OSAS.  Interesting concept.  A lot of atheists could go to heaven then - especially if they live as "good" people after renouncing Christ.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You were asking about my God weren't you?

The Christian god has many more qualities posited than simple gnosis.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"However, given that very few people die the moment after they confess faith/belief in Christ as Lord and Savior, their life then must show evidence of that true faith/belief.  

Let me get this straight:  We humans, of limited knowledge, are damned to hell because we ask for evidence; but your god, whom you claim to be omniscient, needs evidence of our faith?

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this line of argument?

What omniscient being would need evidence for anything?  He already knows everything.

Quote from: "madness"So I guess I don't get to go to heaven no matter what since I was never saved.  I hadn't heard of OSAS.  Interesting concept.  A lot of atheists could go to heaven then - especially if they live as "good" people after renouncing Christ.

Yes, OSAS is an interesting topic.  As I've mentioned, there are two schools of thought for the concept.  It is my belief that one can lose/reject their place with God by simple choice or by the absense of the "works" that provide evidence of true faith/belief.  One can be bold enough to claim salvation, but one cannot claim any confidence in having "worked" enough for salvation.  It is the works that prove the faith, but it is the faith alone that saves.  How does one explain the apparent paradox?  It's difficult.  Maybe it's much like a marriage where both confess true love for each other and the love is freely and abundantly shone, but as time goes on, one may begin to lose that same love and so while the love may still be shone, the love is no longer from the heart, then the love shone dwindles and soon may be lost, but just as love is sometimes sparked back into place, so the believer is able to be sparked back into his/her faith.  If the spark never returns, then the love that binds is lost and so brings in divorce.

So then assuming an Atheist remains an Atheist, my conclusion is that neither Atheist nor Agnostics can get into heaven.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus "The Christian god has many more qualities posited than simple gnosis.

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.  All of which are limited.

If people of 1000 years back in history had been given the knowledge of today...what do you think they would've thought of it.  Man on the moon?  Impossible.  Without explanation, even knowledge is sometimes useless.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"However, given that very few people die the moment after they confess faith/belief in Christ as Lord and Savior, their life then must show evidence of that true faith/belief.  

Let me get this straight:  We humans, of limited knowledge, are damned to hell because we ask for evidence; but your god, whom you claim to be omniscient, needs evidence of our faith?

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this line of argument?

What omniscient being would need evidence for anything?  He already knows everything.

Let's say you're a member of a jury in a courtroom.  Little Johnny is brought in accused of murder.  The lawyers make their opening statements and then the judge says, "Well since I have the proof that Little Johnny is guilty, I hereby pronounce guilt and sentence Little Johnny to..." and drops the gavel.  NEXT!

What would you say, think and/or do?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"However, given that very few people die the moment after they confess faith/belief in Christ as Lord and Savior, their life then must show evidence of that true faith/belief.  

Let me get this straight:  We humans, of limited knowledge, are damned to hell because we ask for evidence; but your god, whom you claim to be omniscient, needs evidence of our faith?

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this line of argument?

What omniscient being would need evidence for anything?  He already knows everything.

Let's say you're a member of a jury in a courtroom.  Little Johnny is brought in accused of murder.  The lawyers make their opening statements and then the judge says, "Well since I have the proof that Little Johnny is guilty, I hereby pronounce guilt and sentence Little Johnny to..." and drops the gavel.  NEXT!

What would you say, think and/or do?

 That analogy would only make sense if the judge was omniscient.

Quote from: "Sophus"  That analogy would only make sense if the judge was omniscient.

Would it?  Would the word of one without proof be enough for you?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.  All of which are limited.

If people of 1000 years back in history had been given the knowledge of today...what do you think they would've thought of it.  Man on the moon?  Impossible.  Without explanation, even knowledge is sometimes useless.

Not absolute knowledge, just some rational evidence.

I don't believe in gravity because I have absolute knowledge of gravity, I believe in gravity because of the evidence for it. Surely another thing that is supposed to not only have created the universe but came down and talked to people and performs miracles would have something. Maybe that statistically Christians die less in natural disasters (they don't), that at least one person had a limb grow back (none have) or something else that shows even at least that there is something super natural.

I think a more realistic question is, Can an Atheist get into office?
Much like heaven...the answer is: probably not.

Quote from: "Davin"Not absolute knowledge, just some rational evidence.

I don't believe in gravity because I have absolute knowledge of gravity, I believe in gravity because of the evidence for it. Surely another thing that is supposed to not only have created the universe but came down and talked to people and performs miracles would have something. Maybe that statistically Christians die less in natural disasters (they don't), that at least one person had a limb grow back (none have) or something else that shows even at least that there is something super natural.

This is going to be difficult..."debating" two different themes here.  Proof of God and whether Atheists can go to heaven.

Something supernatural?  Supernatural from God would require belief that God exists!  Simply seeing a limb grow back would convince you?  It would take natural disasters and seeing "innocent" non-Christians dying left and right for you to "believe" in God?  I won't delve into this unless you can give me a concrete need or answer you would need in order to be convinced by the evidence that God exists.  God already, in the Bible, says the rocks will cry out...does this not point to order, does the complexity of the cell not speak of how much chance it takes to make one cell?  How about the fact that is not disputed by science...that being if gravity was either too strong or too weak by .0000000000000001 (more zeros, but I can't remember exactly the number) that the universe would not exist?  The enormous complexity of life is not evidence...evidence?  I'm not here to argue for ID, but I do believe ID is evidence based on the probabilities.

But that's another thread topic probably already in existence.  I have no proof of this, but the existence of this forum, thus the weight of probability is that I can assume so with great confidence.

Quote from: "DropLogic"I think a more realistic question is, Can an Atheist get into office?
Much like heaven...the answer is: probably not.

As odd as it may seem, I would much rather have an Atheist as president.  One willing to uphold the Constitution.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "DropLogic"I think a more realistic question is, Can an Atheist get into office?
Much like heaven...the answer is: probably not.

As odd as it may seem, I would much rather have an Atheist as president.  One willing to uphold the Constitution.
.
.

How about just settling for a good president? One that could start turning your country into something to look up to rather than sneer at..? There is some potential in he United States. That you don't use it, pretty much lands you in the exact same pile of dirt as Russia's been trying to get out of for the past two decades... And they still have at least as many decades to go for end-user level results.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "DropLogic"I think a more realistic question is, Can an Atheist get into office?
Much like heaven...the answer is: probably not.

As odd as it may seem, I would much rather have an Atheist as president.  One willing to uphold the Constitution.

How about just settling for a good president? One that could start turning your country into something to look up to rather than sneer at..? There is some potential in he United States. That you don't use it, pretty much lands you in the exact same pile of dirt as Russia's been trying to get out of for the past two decades... And they still have at least as many decades to go for end-user level results.

I guess I side-tracked the thread topic with my comment.  Apologies to all.  You're right, Asmodean.  I would like a good one.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"My biggest problem with the whole thing is that Jac is saying I'm going to heaven, but with his views, that would be more of a punishment than hell.

This is just the point I was making that Christ is a gentleman and does not force anyone to go against their will.  If a person chooses to not be/go with Christ, then even if they did at one point put faith in Christ, their current will is to deny Christ and Christ will honor that choice.  PoopShoot, if you don't want to be, you will not be forced.  It's your choice afterall.

I have just a quick question.  Did heaven exist before Jesus?  Where did all the people go before God sent Jesus to die so that we could get into heaven?  Hell can't have existed until Satan fell right?  Even if God has only been around for 6000 years...what was he doing for the first 4000 years?
If it sounds like I'm not making sense...that's the idea.

Quote from: "DropLogic"I have just a quick question.  Did heaven exist before Jesus?  Where did all the people go before God sent Jesus to die so that we could get into heaven?  Hell can't have existed until Satan fell right?  Even if God has only been around for 6000 years...what was he doing for the first 4000 years?
If it sounds like I'm not making sense...that's the idea.

Perfectly logical question.  No reason to think you're not making sense.

Unfortunately that question is answered by two schools of thought (that I know of) in Christianity.  I'll give you the quick answer and my take on the one side.  Hell is non-existent until the end of time...that being the time when Christ comes the second time (you'd have to have some knowledge of biblical eschatology...actually the "third" time) This is when all will be raised to face judgement (all the lost people) and when they will be thrown into hell to die the second death, the death to be feared.  Otherwise everyone that has died from the time of Adam until the 2nd coming are dead and in their graves...both saved and the unsaved.  There are a few exceptions as detailed out in the Bible, but that's not really relevant here.  This first is where my belief is.

The other school of thought is that there is 'Abraham's Busom' where the saved dead are/were kept prior to Jesus' death/payment for sin.  After His death they were released into heaven.  This then says that from Jesus' death on, every saved person that dies goes immediately to heaven and the unsaved into hell or a "limbo" of sorts awaiting judgement.  This latter belief relies on the belief that a person doesn't really die at death, but that their "immortal" soul lives on.  I may not have this thought perfectly layed out, but it should do.  I am not of this latter belief and therefore interpret that the dead are dead and "know nothing" and remain in their graves returning to dust as they await the resurrection day when Christ returns the second time.

Heaven did exist "prior to Jesus", assuming you mean prior to His human incarnation.
There is so much that would need to be mentioned to properly "indoctrinate" you on this, but I think this will suffice to answer your question.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tanker"What limits would those be?

I cannot assume what limits He gives or has for Himself outside of our dimension, but the same limits I put on myself that I don't go out and start a killing spree of family, friends and strangers.  I'm not the murdering type.  The analogy ends there.

In no way am I an expert in debate on these matters, but I can give you my opinion/belief.  Do I have absolute proof?  No, if I did, you wouldn't be an Atheist.  

Where in the Bible does it say he has put limit's on himself? Where does it say he's in an "outside" dimension, whatever that is? Acording to the Bible god has not always made this limitation of himself choosing not to do something is not the same as not being able to. There is no grey in the word omnipotent either you are all poweful or you aren't. Why would an all seeing being need to limit himself shouldn't he know all outcomes for all situations? Wouln't he then always choose the correct option.

I'm not asking for proof Im asking for why YOU say and believe these things? Faith is all well and good but only crazy people use faith as a catch all answer. "I can't prove it, but I know I was obducted by aliens" "I hear a voice in my head it must be god...he wants me to kill people" "I have no reason to believe that Nigerian prince but I take it faith that people are generaly good and he wants to give me millions" You must have reasons beyond faith for what you have been saying what are they?

Quote from: "DropLogic"I have just a quick question.  Did heaven exist before Jesus?  Where did all the people go before God sent Jesus to die so that we could get into heaven?  Hell can't have existed until Satan fell right?  Even if God has only been around for 6000 years...what was he doing for the first 4000 years?
If it sounds like I'm not making sense...that's the idea.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Unfortunately that question is answered by two schools of thought (that I know of) in Christianity.  I'll give you the quick answer and my take on the one side.  Hell is non-existent until the end of time...that being the time when Christ comes the second time (you'd have to have some knowledge of biblical eschatology...actually the "third" time) This is when all will be raised to face judgement (all the lost people) and when they will be thrown into hell to die the second death, the death to be feared.  Otherwise everyone that has died from the time of Adam until the 2nd coming are dead and in their graves...both saved and the unsaved.  There are a few exceptions as detailed out in the Bible, but that's not really relevant here.  This first is where my belief is.

So there's a waiting room?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The other school of thought is that there is 'Abraham's Busom' where the saved dead are/were kept prior to Jesus' death/payment for sin.  After His death they were released into heaven.  This then says that from Jesus' death on, every saved person that dies goes immediately to heaven and the unsaved into hell or a "limbo" of sorts awaiting judgement.  This latter belief relies on the belief that a person doesn't really die at death, but that their "immortal" soul lives on.  I may not have this thought perfectly layed out, but it should do.  I am not of this latter belief and therefore interpret that the dead are dead and "know nothing" and remain in their graves returning to dust as they await the resurrection day when Christ returns the second time.

Heaven did exist "prior to Jesus", assuming you mean prior to His human incarnation.
There is so much that would need to be mentioned to properly "indoctrinate" you on this, but I think this will suffice to answer your question.

You really believe everything you just wrote don't you.
You lay that all out as if you have seen it with your own eyes.
I believe you are the indoctrinated one.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Something supernatural?  Supernatural from God would require belief that God exists!  Simply seeing a limb grow back would convince you?  It would take natural disasters and seeing "innocent" non-Christians dying left and right for you to "believe" in God?  I won't delve into this unless you can give me a concrete need or answer you would need in order to be convinced by the evidence that God exists. God already, in the Bible, says the rocks will cry out...does this not point to order, does the complexity of the cell not speak of how much chance it takes to make one cell? How about the fact that is not disputed by science...that being if gravity was either too strong or too weak by .0000000000000001 (more zeros, but I can't remember exactly the number) that the universe would not exist? The enormous complexity of life is not evidence...evidence?  I'm not here to argue for ID, but I do believe ID is evidence based on the probabilities.

Rocks crying only points to crying rocks. The enormous complexity of life is evidence... evidence for evolution. Talking about evidence for god, then bringing up gravity, cells or the diversity of life... is a bit like saying that you can bend a spoon with your psychic powers, then using your hands:[youtube:4xvlc4o1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUxWdIQVT_c[/youtube:4xvlc4o1]

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"But that's another thread topic probably already in existence.  I have no proof of this, but the existence of this forum, thus the weight of probability is that I can assume so with great confidence.

Well, like the evidence that you claim exists, you could provide a link to it.

Quote from: "Tanker"Where in the Bible does it say he has put limit's on himself? Where does it say he's in an "outside" dimension, whatever that is? Acording to the Bible god has not always made this limitation of himself choosing not to do something is not the same as not being able to. There is no grey in the word omnipotent either you are all poweful or you aren't. Why would an all seeing being need to limit himself shouldn't he know all outcomes for all situations? Wouln't he then always choose the correct option.

I'm not asking for proof Im asking for why YOU say and believe these things? Faith is all well and good but only crazy people use faith as a catch all answer. "I can't prove it, but I know I was obducted by aliens" "I hear a voice in my head it must be god...he wants me to kill people" "I have no reason to believe that Nigerian prince but I take it faith that people are generaly good and he wants to give me millions" You must have reasons beyond faith for what you have been saying what are they?

First of all we must establish where you and I draw wisdom and understanding.  If I'm looking for scientific understanding and understanding of philosophy, then I look to works by man, however if I look for ultimate understanding (which doesn't necessarily need to include all scientific knowledge nor philosophical understanding) then I look to a collection of historical books put together and called the Bible.

Quote from: "Numbers 23:19"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Clearly God has set a limit here.  If He is truly Righeous, He cannot lie.  A limit of sorts, if you will.  Similar to the analogy about murdering at will above.

Quote from: "Proverbs 3:19-26"By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew.

My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight; they will be life for you, an ornament to grace your neck. Then you will go on your way in safety, and your foot will not stumble; when you lie down, you will not be afraid; when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.  Have no fear of sudden disaster or of the ruin that overtakes the wicked,for the LORD will be your confidence and will keep your foot from being snared.

Why does anyone believe what they believe?  Do you have perfect understanding of all knowledge therefore believing there is no God?  Do you base your belief on proof or evidence?  My belief is certainly, to some extent, a product of my environment, however as an adult having searched my own heart cling to the hope in Christ and the hereafter.  I believe it because to believe otherwise is to believe in nothing.  To believe that this mind that thinks, ponders, reasons, searches is the product of matter time and chance?  It's an old and tired saying, but "belief" in that is surely beyond comprehension and understanding...to the point of rediculous considering the many coincidences of our existence.  Don't you think?  Yet we are.  To have absolute proof of God is to remove choice.  Once again I repeat, "I stand at the door and knock..."  God is there, but one has to open the door and let Him in for His wonders to be known or the meager answers we have be enough for us to trust.

Quote from: "Tanker"I'm not asking for proof Im asking for why YOU say and believe these things?

There you have it.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Something supernatural?  Supernatural from God would require belief that God exists!  Simply seeing a limb grow back would convince you?  It would take natural disasters and seeing "innocent" non-Christians dying left and right for you to "believe" in God?  I won't delve into this unless you can give me a concrete need or answer you would need in order to be convinced by the evidence that God exists. God already, in the Bible, says the rocks will cry out...does this not point to order, does the complexity of the cell not speak of how much chance it takes to make one cell? How about the fact that is not disputed by science...that being if gravity was either too strong or too weak by .0000000000000001 (more zeros, but I can't remember exactly the number) that the universe would not exist? The enormous complexity of life is not evidence...evidence?  I'm not here to argue for ID, but I do believe ID is evidence based on the probabilities.

Rocks crying only points to crying rocks. The enormous complexity of life is evidence... evidence for evolution. Talking about evidence for god, then bringing up gravity, cells or the diversity of life... is a bit like saying that you can bend a spoon with your psychic powers, then using your hands

Who's arguing against evolution?  Again, we're getting into too many topics within this one about whether an Atheist can be saved/in heaven or not.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"But that's another thread topic probably already in existence.  I have no proof of this, but the existence of this forum, thus the weight of probability is that I can assume so with great confidence.

Well, like the evidence that you claim exists, you could provide a link to it.

That would be robbing you of your own ability to search out your own needs.  This thread is about Atheists in heaven.

Quote from: "DropLogic"So there's a waiting room?

If you understood what I wrote, the "waiting room" is the earth...6ft underground in a coffin or otherwise simply dead.  For the latter "waiting room", I suppose you'd have to ask someone of that belief or wait for someone to answer that for you.

Quote from: "DropLogic"You really believe everything you just wrote don't you.
You lay that all out as if you have seen it with your own eyes.
I believe you are the indoctrinated one.

Much like your indoctrination in Atheism, I suppose.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Rocks crying only points to crying rocks. The enormous complexity of life is evidence... evidence for evolution. Talking about evidence for god, then bringing up gravity, cells or the diversity of life... is a bit like saying that you can bend a spoon with your psychic powers, then using your hands

Who's arguing against evolution?  Again, we're getting into too many topics within this one about whether an Atheist can be saved/in heaven or not.

I have no idea who's arguing against evolution, is there a reason that you're asking this question? It seems to me that there are two appropriate kinds of actions that you could have taken in order to avoid going off tangent: provide the evidence that supports your positive claims or admit to not having any evidence.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"But that's another thread topic probably already in existence.  I have no proof of this, but the existence of this forum, thus the weight of probability is that I can assume so with great confidence.

Well, like the evidence that you claim exists, you could provide a link to it.

That would be robbing you of your own ability to search out your own needs.

I said you could, you choose not to, I'll remember this sentiment for later use.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This thread is about Atheists in heaven.

And like every positive claim, it requires evidence to support it.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So then assuming an Atheist remains an Atheist, my conclusion is that neither Atheist nor Agnostics can get into heaven.

I agree.  So, can certain religious people (you know who you are!) PLEASE stop talking about heaven as if it's meant for specifically good, decent people?  It's an (in my opinion fake impossible make believe) eternal after party meant for those who share similar beliefs, that's all.

And you know what?  Those parties are usually really lame.  So I don't even feel bad for not being invited.  I'm just tired of being told it has anything to do with how nice or good a person I am.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Rocks crying only points to crying rocks. The enormous complexity of life is evidence... evidence for evolution. Talking about evidence for god, then bringing up gravity, cells or the diversity of life... is a bit like saying that you can bend a spoon with your psychic powers, then using your hands

Who's arguing against evolution?  Again, we're getting into too many topics within this one about whether an Atheist can be saved/in heaven or not.

I have no idea who's arguing against evolution, is there a reason that you're asking this question? It seems to me that there are two appropriate kinds of actions that you could have taken in order to avoid going off tangent: provide the evidence that supports your positive claims or admit to not having any evidence.

Which claim?  Too many topics here.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This thread is about Atheists in heaven.

And like every positive claim, it requires evidence to support it.

You're right...there is evidence of many topics, however to stick with the topic heading...

Quote from: "pinkocommie"agree. So, can certain religious people (you know who you are!) PLEASE stop talking about heaven as if it's meant for specifically good, decent people? It's an (in my opinion fake impossible make believe) eternal after party meant for those who share similar beliefs, that's all.

It's meant for those that know they are not worthy and cling to that which is.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"And you know what? Those parties are usually really lame. So I don't even feel bad for not being invited. I'm just tired of being told it has anything to do with how nice or good a person I am.

They are wrong or you're not hearing correctly.  It's not how nice or good you are, it's in whom you place your trust/faith/belief.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Much like your indoctrination in Atheism, I suppose.

So many people seem to think that Atheism is a belief system or religion.  I have been an atheist for my entire life.  My parents were both religious, and sent me to Sunday school.  Not once did I buy the god myth.  I equated god to santa, or the tooth fairy.  And that's really all god is...santa for adults.  
You are an atheist too when it comes to the rest of the religions that have ever been.  I know it is overused...but it's beautiful in it's simplicity: We simply go one god further.

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Much like your indoctrination in Atheism, I suppose.

So many people seem to think that Atheism is a belief system or religion.  I have been an atheist for my entire life.  My parents were both religious, and sent me to Sunday school.  Not once did I buy the god myth.  I equated god to santa, or the tooth fairy.  And that's really all god is...santa for adults.  
You are an atheist too when it comes to the rest of the religions that have ever been.  I know it is overused...but it's beautiful in it's simplicity: We simply go one god further.

You presume you had understanding of 'god' the moment you exited the womb...but then again such is the logic of us all.

You're right though, I am an Atheist to all other gods.  

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This thread is about Atheists in heaven.

And like every positive claim, it requires evidence to support it.

I figured you knew the forum well since you've been here for 500+ posts.  If you want a link, here is one possible place. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5448)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You presume you had understanding of 'god' the moment you exited the womb...but then again such is the logic of us all.

You're right though, I am an Atheist to all other gods.  

And you presume still, that you have an understanding of god (which is impossible by your rules)...at least the god defined by the parameters of your sect of christianity.
Had my parents forced their religion upon me...then certainly, I might have been a Christian even to this day.  However, they asked me what I thought.  
You might argue that they could do this with any other topic.  If I didn't agree that plants make oxygen for us to breath, they could easily show me the error of my ways, and teach me about this fact.
You can't argue the case for god with "it is because it is".  That's called circular reasoning.  

Sorry to derail the thread.  Whether or not atheists can get into heaven doesn't matter to an atheist at all, and it shouldn't to you.

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You presume you had understanding of 'god' the moment you exited the womb...but then again such is the logic of us all.

You're right though, I am an Atheist to all other gods.  

And you presume still, that you have an understanding of god (which is impossible by your rules)...at least the god defined by the parameters of your sect of christianity.
Had my parents forced their religion upon me...then certainly, I might have been a Christian even to this day.  However, they asked me what I thought.  
You might argue that they could do this with any other topic.  If I didn't agree that plants make oxygen for us to breath, they could easily show me the error of my ways, and teach me about this fact.
You can't argue the case for god with "it is because it is".  That's called circular reasoning.  

Sorry to derail the thread.  Whether or not atheists can get into heaven doesn't matter to an atheist at all, and it shouldn't to you.

You're continual questions in this topic give evidence otherwise or could easily be construed as such.  The question only matters to me insomuch as it may answer some questions Atheists have on Christianity.  No more, no less.  When did I use the "it is because it is" reasoning?  There's at least one Atheist asking questions on the matter and unless that person is done, then I suppose you're not all together correct.  The only understanding of God, the Christian God, I have is simply that which we are told biblically.  "The heaven's declare..."  So one can assume that God can be known, or aspects of Him, in nature as well as other points brought up biblically.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Sophus"  That analogy would only make sense if the judge was omniscient.

Would it?  Would the word of one without proof be enough for you?

Of course not. Are you saying Yahweh is not omniscient?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"First of all we must establish where you and I draw wisdom and understanding.  If I'm looking for scientific understanding and understanding of philosophy, then I look to works by man, however if I look for ultimate understanding (which doesn't necessarily need to include all scientific knowledge nor philosophical understanding) then I look to a collection of historical books put together and called the Bible.

Well, my wisdom and understanding would that is where your problem lies.

Quote

Quote from: "Numbers 23:19"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Clearly God has set a limit here.  If He is truly Righeous, He cannot lie.  A limit of sorts, if you will.

Does God change his mind?
Exodus 32:14: "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10: ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.
See Genesis 18:23-33:, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed Sodom anyway.)
Is God good or evil?
Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to all."
Deuteronomy 32:4: "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
vs.
Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." See "Out of Context" for more on Isaiah 45:7.
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

Makes me wonder how one gains ultimate wisdom and understanding with verses like the above...
Let me make one other ultimate wisdom and understood quote:
 Does God tempt people?
James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

QuoteWhy does anyone believe what they believe?  

Let me guess...ummmm....you're afraid.

QuoteDo you have perfect understanding of all knowledge therefore believing there is no God?

No. I have no good evidence for the existence of your god.

QuoteDo you base your belief on proof or evidence?

I do not believe there is no god. I think. I think there is no good evidence for the existence of your god. When sufficient evidence comes forth, I will think about it and said evidence may or may not sway my thought processes.

Quote...however as an adult having searched my own heart cling to the hope in Christ and the hereafter.

Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Simply put, a delusion.

QuoteI believe it because to believe otherwise is to believe in nothing.

That is very short sighted; very un human. Precisely where Paul and Jesus would have you.

QuoteTo have absolute proof of God is to remove choice.

Old and tired and worn out Christian gobbledygook. Your God could manifest itself to all people on the Earth and every person would still have a choice whether to worship it or not.

QuoteOnce again I repeat, "I stand at the door and knock..."  God is there, but one has to open the door and let Him in for His wonders to be known or the meager answers we have be enough for us to trust.

Been there. Done that. I didn't fall for the delusion.

And since there is no good evidence for Heaven, I reckon no one is getting into it.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Sophus"  That analogy would only make sense if the judge was omniscient.

Would it?  Would the word of one without proof be enough for you?

Of course not. Are you saying Yahweh is not omniscient?

Exactly.  So it is for me too.  Your question is then answered.

Am I saying God isn't omniscient?  Not at all.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's meant for those that know they are not worthy and cling to that which is.

Wow, that's a weird vague statement isn't it?  Hahaha.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"They are wrong or you're not hearing correctly.  It's not how nice or good you are, it's in whom you place your trust/faith/belief.

I don't think I misheard people claiming that heaven is specifically for good people.  It's a pretty common misconception.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Exactly.  So it is for me too.  Your question is then answered.

Am I saying God isn't omniscient?  Not at all.

I'm still confused. If he's omniscient and omnipresent why does he need to have his own trial? He already knows and has seen everything.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Exactly.  So it is for me too.  Your question is then answered.

Am I saying God isn't omniscient?  Not at all.

I'm still confused. If he's omniscient and omnipresent why does he need to have his own trial?

Low self esteem.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"First of all we must establish where you and I draw wisdom and understanding.  If I'm looking for scientific understanding and understanding of philosophy, then I look to works by man, however if I look for ultimate understanding (which doesn't necessarily need to include all scientific knowledge nor philosophical understanding) then I look to a collection of historical books put together and called the Bible.

Well, my wisdom and understanding would that is where your problem lies.

I suppose it would've been wise of me to define "ultimate" understanding.  That would be the age-old-question of who am I, where am I, and where did I come from.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote

Quote from: "Numbers 23:19"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Clearly God has set a limit here.  If He is truly Righeous, He cannot lie.  A limit of sorts, if you will.

Does God change his mind?
Exodus 32:14: "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10: ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.
See Genesis 18:23-33:, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed Sodom anyway.)

Here's a link to a short point that probably does a better job of explanation.  If you don't agree, so be it.
When God Repents (http://www.icr.org/article/2169/)

Quote from: "Gawen"Is God good or evil?
Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to all."
Deuteronomy 32:4: "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
vs.
Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." See "Out of Context" for more on Isaiah 45:7.
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

Makes me wonder how one gains ultimate wisdom and understanding with verses like the above...

It's almost simple.  If God is in control, then it can be right to say, "I gave them..." which simply means it was allowed.  Why?  The last line gives the answer.

Quote from: "Gawen"Let me make one other ultimate wisdom and understood quote:
 Does God tempt people?
James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

The KJV is one that translates the Hebrew to "tempted", others translate the word to "tested".
See this Did God Tempt Abraham? (http://apologeticspress.org/articles/589)

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteWhy does anyone believe what they believe?  

Let me guess...ummmm....you're afraid.

True...fear is a factor, but to fear is also to respect, so I'd say both are true.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteDo you have perfect understanding of all knowledge therefore believing there is no God?

No. I have no good evidence for the existence of your god.

You miss the part of not having all knowledge, therefore you cannot be so dogmatic to insist there is no god.  You are then wrong in saying you're an Atheist, and rather should claim Agnosticism.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteDo you base your belief on proof or evidence?

I do not believe there is no god. I think. I think there is no good evidence for the existence of your god. When sufficient evidence comes forth, I will think about it and said evidence may or may not sway my thought processes.

That's encouraging.  

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote...however as an adult having searched my own heart cling to the hope in Christ and the hereafter.

Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Simply put, a delusion.

Have you seen love lately?  Love is something not seen, yet I'm sure you have faith that love exists.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteI believe it because to believe otherwise is to believe in nothing.

That is very short sighted; very un human. Precisely where Paul and Jesus would have you.

Short-sighted?  What exactly do you believe in?  Enlighten me.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteTo have absolute proof of God is to remove choice.

Old and tired and worn out Christian gobbledygook. Your God could manifest itself to all people on the Earth and every person would still have a choice whether to worship it or not.

He could...he has.  Let's say God appears to you.  How do you document the proof so that  2000 years from now, the proof still stands valid and trustworthy?

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteOnce again I repeat, "I stand at the door and knock..."  God is there, but one has to open the door and let Him in for His wonders to be known or the meager answers we have be enough for us to trust.

Been there. Done that. I didn't fall for the delusion.

That's ok for you.  You've chosen not to "fall" for it.  No harm, no foul.  It's your choice.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Exactly.  So it is for me too.  Your question is then answered.

Am I saying God isn't omniscient?  Not at all.

I'm still confused. If he's omniscient and omnipresent why does he need to have his own trial? He already knows and has seen everything.

If you take time to read the points, the answer is given already.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You miss the part of not having all knowledge,

No, I didn't miss it.

Quotetherefore you cannot be so dogmatic to insist there is no god.

I never say and did not tell you there was no god. I said the evidence is not good enough to support the existence of gods...and mention yours specifically.

QuoteYou are then wrong in saying you're an Atheist,

I lack a belief in god/s. I am not a theist. I am therefore an atheist.

Quoteand rather should claim Agnosticism.

Everything that has been written in this thread hinges on knowledge. If you do not have all knowledge of your god, let alone the other 2500 other gods, then you are wrong to call yourself a theist and rather should claim Agnosticism

QuoteHave you seen love lately?  Love is something not seen, yet I'm sure you have faith that love exists.

Wonderful argument...*slappin me forehead*....Love exists, therefore god exists.

QuoteShort-sighted?  What exactly do you believe in?  Enlighten me.

Another thread, perhaps.

QuoteHe could...he has.

I don't think so.

QuoteLet's say God appears to you.  How do you document the proof so that  2000 years from now, the proof still stands valid and trustworthy?

I don't document the proof. That would be for the psychoanalysts.

If you cannot give reasonable evidence of the existence of your God or Heaven or even Hell, how are we to know the existence of them? If you give arbitrary existence and attributes to your God and you don't have adequate evidence for them, how can you give place names of where the god lives, where believers go when they die and what they will be doing there?

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteHave you seen love lately?  Love is something not seen, yet I'm sure you have faith that love exists.

Wonderful argument...*slappin me forehead*....Love exists, therefore god exists.

*slappin u forehead too* Not an argument for God.  Simply an argument for things that exist that cannot be seen.  Wind...  If you insist its an argument for God, then it simply shows your inability to discuss and acknowledge things you cannot see, yet "believe" in.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteShort-sighted?  What exactly do you believe in?  Enlighten me.

Another thread, perhaps.

Oh, now you want another thread...I get it.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteLet's say God appears to you.  How do you document the proof so that  2000 years from now, the proof still stands valid and trustworthy?

I don't document the proof. That would be for the psychoanalysts.

All of a sudden you're not an expert in truth nor how to store it, yet you're quite sure of what IS truth.  I suppose then the evidence you "believe" to not exist is really the ramblings of others and not really your own thoughts or findings.  Great way of deflecting to answer a question you have no idea how to answer/do so you pawn the task off...further you pawn off the "seeing" to the psychoanalysts and you simply believe them.  Very interesting indeed.

Rape is wrong.  Is that an absolute truth?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.  All of which are limited.

If people of 1000 years back in history had been given the knowledge of today...what do you think they would've thought of it.  Man on the moon?  Impossible.  Without explanation, even knowledge is sometimes useless.

I'm not being intentionally obtuse when I write that this does very little to explain your original point -- it rather muddies the waters.  

I don't, however, wish to derail the original point of the thread.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.  All of which are limited.

If people of 1000 years back in history had been given the knowledge of today...what do you think they would've thought of it.  Man on the moon?  Impossible.  Without explanation, even knowledge is sometimes useless.

I'm not being intentionally obtuse when I write that this does very little to explain your original point -- it rather muddies the waters.  

I don't, however, wish to derail the original point of the thread.

Not really, IMHO.  What it does is clearly establish that certain knowledge may be too much to handle and so be ineffective in being relevant.  Take the knowledge of man on the moon.  Given this knowledge 2000 or more years ago, what advantage does that knowledge give them?  One can relay the knowledge, but without "proof", they would simply say these are the ramblings of a crazy person.

Which takes me back to another point brought up to another person here.  If God were to appear to you, how would you document the fact/truth so that 2000 years from now, your experience of truth remains truth and not heresay...leading back to the belief again that God doesn't exist or better, that no GOOD evidence exists that proves God exists?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Not really, IMHO.  What it does is clearly establish that certain knowledge may be too much to handle and so be ineffective in being relevant.

All you're really saying here is that your assertion cannot be falsified.

QuoteTake the knowledge of man on the moon.  Given this knowledge 2000 or more years ago, what advantage does that knowledge give them?  One can relay the knowledge, but without "proof", they would simply say these are the ramblings of a crazy person.

In that case, why does the Bible offer any prophecy at all?

QuoteWhich takes me back to another point brought up to another person here.  If God were to appear to you, how would you document the fact/truth so that 2000 years from now, your experience of truth remains truth and not heresay...leading back to the belief again that God doesn't exist or better, that no GOOD evidence exists that proves God exists?

Were I an omniscient god dictating my holy book, it'd be very easy: I'd include a bit of knowledge that would be incomprehensible in the science of the day, but understood later.  

Now, were I the scribe, I'd request this very machination so as to aid the propagation of my god's message.

(Of course, the veneration of blind faith is exactly designed to answer this stunning paucity of evidence; it's purpose is to make the Christian god unfalsifiable by asserting that he values faith and disparages those who require evidence).

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Take the knowledge of man on the moon.  Given this knowledge 2000 or more years ago, what advantage does that knowledge give them?  One can relay the knowledge, but without "proof", they would simply say these are the ramblings of a crazy person.

In that case, why does the Bible offer any prophecy at all?

If genuine prophecy exists, then who but an omniscient diety would know?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Which takes me back to another point brought up to another person here.  If God were to appear to you, how would you document the fact/truth so that 2000 years from now, your experience of truth remains truth and not heresay...leading back to the belief again that God doesn't exist or better, that no GOOD evidence exists that proves God exists?

Were I an omniscient god dictating my holy book, it'd be very easy: I'd include a bit of knowledge that would be incomprehensible in the science of the day, but understood later.

Quote from: "Isaiah 40:22"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
  He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Food rain - Exodus 16.  Notice Moses and Aaron attempted to keep the manna as proof...

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Now, were I the scribe, I'd request this very machination so as to aid the propagation of my god's message.

...and if the "maschination" disappears or someone that disagrees with you takes it/destroys it?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"(Of course, the veneration of blind faith is exactly designed to answer this stunning paucity of evidence; it's purpose is to make the Christian god unfalsifiable by asserting that he values faith and disparages those who require evidence).

Not true at all.

Quote from: "John 20:24-29"Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.  So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"  But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I have no idea who's arguing against evolution, is there a reason that you're asking this question? It seems to me that there are two appropriate kinds of actions that you could have taken in order to avoid going off tangent: provide the evidence that supports your positive claims or admit to not having any evidence.

Which claim?  Too many topics here.

The claim that all it requires to get into heaven is belief in the god you just so happen to believe in. The claim that atheists require absolute knowledge. The claim that heaven even exists. The claim that a god exists and only wants people to believe in it. If you need more help recognizing the claims you've made, I can help.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This thread is about Atheists in heaven.

And like every positive claim, it requires evidence to support it.

You're right...there is evidence of many topics, however to stick with the topic heading...

You claimed without anything other than stating it that in order to get into heaven, one must believe in a specific god (which luckily for you, happens to be the one you believe in), because I and several other atheists do not believe in god because there is no evidence of any god, then the evidence for what you're saying and the evidence for a god is directly related to the topic of the post.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"This thread is about Atheists in heaven.

And like every positive claim, it requires evidence to support it.

I figured you knew the forum well since you've been here for 500+ posts.  If you want a link, here is one possible place. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5448)

This doesn't cover the evidence that supports you stating that one must believe in the specific god that you just so happen to believe in, to be allowed into heaven.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"(Of course, the veneration of blind faith is exactly designed to answer this stunning paucity of evidence; it's purpose is to make the Christian god unfalsifiable by asserting that he values faith and disparages those who require evidence).

Not true at all.

Quote from: "John 20:24-29"Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.  So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"  But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So not blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed? He didn't say anything close to "blessed are those that sought to make sure what they believed in was true." He said "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed," meaning the same thing that Thumpalumpacus had stated: that your religion blesses those with blind faith over those seeking the truth. How can you say "Not true at all" then provide a biblical quote as evidence that it is true after all?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteHave you seen love lately?  Love is something not seen, yet I'm sure you have faith that love exists.

Wonderful argument...*slappin me forehead*....Love exists, therefore god exists.

*slappin u forehead too* Not an argument for God.  Simply an argument for things that exist that cannot be seen.  Wind...  If you insist its an argument for God, then it simply shows your inability to discuss and acknowledge things you cannot see, yet "believe" in.

I can stick my hand out the window to see if it's windy. I can stick my hand out of a moving car to see what wind the car generates. I can also detect air. And I can give very good evidence of both. You, however, can give no good evidence of heaven, hell or your god.

Quote

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteShort-sighted?  What exactly do you believe in?  Enlighten me.

Another thread, perhaps.

Oh, now you want another thread...I get it.

I don't wish to skew the thread any more than it already is.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteLet's say God appears to you.  How do you document the proof so that  2000 years from now, the proof still stands valid and trustworthy?

I don't document the proof. That would be for the psychoanalysts.

All of a sudden you're not an expert in truth nor how to store it, yet you're quite sure of what IS truth.  I suppose then the evidence you "believe" to not exist is really the ramblings of others and not really your own thoughts or findings.  Great way of deflecting to answer a question you have no idea how to answer/do so you pawn the task off...further you pawn off the "seeing" to the psychoanalysts and you simply believe them.  Very interesting indeed.[/quote]I've seen more sidestepping with your posts than mine. Just trot out your god, whisk me to heaven and let's have a good cup of tea with Jesus and the saints. The only stipulation is that everyone on this board is invited and it will take place in my house. O ye with a mustard grain's weight of truth and faith should be able to make this happen.

QuoteRape is wrong.  Is that an absolute truth?

Your god exists. Is that an absolute truth? Stop sidestepping the issues.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I have no idea who's arguing against evolution, is there a reason that you're asking this question? It seems to me that there are two appropriate kinds of actions that you could have taken in order to avoid going off tangent: provide the evidence that supports your positive claims or admit to not having any evidence.

Which claim?  Too many topics here.

The claim that all it requires to get into heaven is belief in the god you just so happen to believe in. The claim that atheists require absolute knowledge. The claim that heaven even exists. The claim that a god exists and only wants people to believe in it. If you need more help recognizing the claims you've made, I can help.

Atheists don't require absolute truth?  Oh that's right...just evidence.  Heaven can't be proven this side of life.  God doesn't want anyone to believe in heaven.  Where did you get that idea?  If you need help in what is being discussed here, I can help.

Quote from: "Davin"And like every positive claim, it requires evidence to support it.

Again, this is not the subject of THIS thread.  THIS thread is whether Atheists can get into heaven.  The question then assumes the existence of it for the sake of discussion.  If you can't understand the nature of the discussion, I can help.

Quote from: "Davin"You claimed without anything other than stating it that in order to get into heaven, one must believe in a specific god (which luckily for you, happens to be the one you believe in), because I and several other atheists do not believe in god because there is no evidence of any god, then the evidence for what you're saying and the evidence for a god is directly related to the topic of the post.

See reply above.

Quote from: "Davin"This doesn't cover the evidence that supports you stating that one must believe in the specific god that you just so happen to believe in, to be allowed into heaven.

This answer was in regard to you bringing up evolution...if you can't see that, I can help.

Quote from: "Davin"So not blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed? He didn't say anything close to "blessed are those that sought to make sure what they believed in was true." He said "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed," meaning the same thing that Thumpalumpacus had stated: that your religion blesses those with blind faith over those seeking the truth. How can you say "Not true at all" then provide a biblical quote as evidence that it is true after all?

If you can't see that Thomas was given proof, touched Christ...then I can't help your ignorance.  I can't help that.

Quote from: "Gawen"I can stick my hand out the window to see if it's windy. I can stick my hand out of a moving car to see what wind the car generates. I can also detect air. And I can give very good evidence of both. You, however, can give no good evidence of heaven, hell or your god.

So is what you're saying is that you trust your senses even though your senses can be imperfect?  Let's be honest here.  One argument the Atheist brings to debunk ID, for example, is the apparent flaws in the human body.  If this is true, what can you trust to be true even if you "feel" it, "see" it, or experience it?  With this in mind you're going to now tell me you can prove wind/air without actually seeing it?  How convenient it is for you to use a flawed system(s) for proof, yet a Christian cannot.

Quote from: "Gawen"I don't wish to skew the thread any more than it already is.

Yet who's the one that initiated a skew?

Quote from: "Gawen"I've seen more sidestepping with your posts than mine.

Glad you admit your own part.

Quote from: "Gawen"Just trot out your god, whisk me to heaven and let's have a good cup of tea with Jesus and the saints. The only stipulation is that everyone on this board is invited and it will take place in my house. O ye with a mustard grain's weight of truth and faith should be able to make this happen.

Maybe if you earnestly seek, He may oblige you.  However, I doubt you can earnestly seek anything you have no belief in...unless it's something of scientific value.  Even then, if you don't believe something, why seek to find yourself wrong?

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteRape is wrong.  Is that an absolute truth?

Your god exists. Is that an absolute truth? Stop sidestepping the issues.

Is absolute truth only absolute truth the moment it can be proven?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Which claim?  Too many topics here.

The claim that all it requires to get into heaven is belief in the god you just so happen to believe in. The claim that atheists require absolute knowledge. The claim that heaven even exists. The claim that a god exists and only wants people to believe in it. If you need more help recognizing the claims you've made, I can help.

Atheists don't require absolute truth?  Oh that's right...just evidence.  Heaven can't be proven this side of life.  God doesn't want anyone to believe in heaven.  Where did you get that idea?  If you need help in what is being discussed here, I can help.

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. You asked what you claimed, I provided some of the things you claimed.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And like every positive claim, it requires evidence to support it.

Again, this is not the subject of THIS thread.  THIS thread is whether Atheists can get into heaven.  The question then assumes the existence of it for the sake of discussion.  If you can't understand the nature of the discussion, I can help.

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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"This doesn't cover the evidence that supports you stating that one must believe in the specific god that you just so happen to believe in, to be allowed into heaven.

This answer was in regard to you bringing up evolution...if you can't see that, I can help.

Yes, this statement:

Quote from: "Davin"Rocks crying only points to crying rocks. The enormous complexity of life is evidence... evidence for evolution. Talking about evidence for god, then bringing up gravity, cells or the diversity of life... is a bit like saying that you can bend a spoon with your psychic powers, then using your hands

Which was a response to you bringing up evolution by saying "The enormous complexity of life is not evidence...evidence?" It seems that you're having difficulty following this conversation and the order in which the conversation is occurring.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So not blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed? He didn't say anything close to "blessed are those that sought to make sure what they believed in was true." He said "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed," meaning the same thing that Thumpalumpacus had stated: that your religion blesses those with blind faith over those seeking the truth. How can you say "Not true at all" then provide a biblical quote as evidence that it is true after all?

If you can't see that Thomas was given proof, touched Christ...then I can't help your ignorance.  I can't help that.

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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If genuine prophecy exists, then who but an omniscient diety would know?

Perhaps the people who lived in the time and space prophesied, and the following generations.  You know, people who look for actuall prophecy in the Bible, only to be disappointed.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Isaiah 40:22"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
  He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Food rain - Exodus 16.  Notice Moses and Aaron attempted to keep the manna as proof...

Note how this doesn't address my point -- that deep truths buried in a bible would be very convincing.  Those writing them down need not understand what they're writing at all:

"What's that, God? Atoms are surrounded by -- hold on, I'm trying to keep up -- an electron cloud?  What does that mean?"

"Don't worry about what it means, Moses.  I, the Lord God they Father, am telling you to write this down.  Could you please just write it down?"

"But -- but --"

"Moses, do you argue with Zipporah like this?!" [Cue ominous thunder]

Now, kindly address this point.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"...and if the "maschination" disappears or someone that disagrees with you takes it/destroys it?

Any god who is claimed both omnipotent and filled with a desire to save his creations could make arrangements to forestall this.  Certainly your god cannot be outwitted by a small-time burglar.  Or can he?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"(Of course, the veneration of blind faith is exactly designed to answer this stunning paucity of evidence; it's purpose is to make the Christian god unfalsifiable by asserting that he values faith and disparages those who require evidence).

Not true at all.

Quote from: "John 20:24-29"Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.  So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"  But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I have emphasized a passage you seem to be ignoring.  This is exactly a "veneration of blind faith."

QuoteJesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

I am faithless.  Your omnipotent god knows this.  Now, if he refuses me evidence, the only logical conclusion is that he doesn't care for me to believe.  Given that, the claim that he desires the salvation of all men is ipso facto false.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

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?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Perhaps the people who lived in the time and space prophesied, and the following generations.  You know, people who look for actuall prophecy in the Bible, only to be disappointed.

A simple google search will find you many prophecies fulfilled.  Some not yet fulfilled and some apparently not fulfilled.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Note how this doesn't address my point -- that deep truths buried in a bible would be very convincing.  Those writing them down need not understand what they're writing at all:

When exactly was it known for sure the earth is sphere-shaped?  When was it known that the atmosphere is a protective covering for the earth?
Notice that the idea is the same while using examples of understood then.  Did they understand the earth was round or the atmosphere protected them?  I'm not sure if it was.  I don't know of anyone expounding on the idea in that day.  If someone did, it still wasn't fully understood.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Now, kindly address this point.

Were I an omniscient god dictating my holy book, it'd be very easy: I'd include a bit of knowledge that would be incomprehensible in the science of the day, but understood later.

"The circle of the earth, like a canopy, spreads like a tent to live in"  Are you telling me they understood exactly what this meant?  It's exactly the "bit" you asked for "incomprehensible" to the science of the day AND later understood.  Which part didn't I address?  Being a Christian, my IQ is lower than yours.  I may need your help.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Any god who is claimed both omnipotent and filled with a desire to save his creations could make arrangements to forestall this.  Certainly your god cannot be outwitted by a small-time burglar.  Or can he?

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?

He did make arrangements.  Unfortunately the only way "around" His own law  and remain Just, Righteous, and Holy is for God Himself to die.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"...that he values faith and disparages those who require evidence).
This is exactly a "veneration of blind faith."

This text proves God doesn't disparage seekers of truth.  He came, appeared before Thomas and let him touch his hands.  I suppose the point is Thomas was seeking God.  Atheism, when "looking" for God, is only looking for proof of his/her own understanding to further substanciate his/her belief/disbelief and thus find no "evidence."

Evidence was left and many believed after the fact...the problem now is that you don't want to believe 2000 yr old evidence, hence the question posed earlier; How would you keep the evidence so that in 2000 years there doesn't arise Atheists again?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I am faithless.  Your omnipotent god knows this.  Now, if he refuses me evidence, the only logical conclusion is that he doesn't care for me to believe.  Given that, the claim that he desires the salvation of all men is ipso facto false.

If God says "the rocks cry out..." and you don't believe nature and it's grand complexity and order, men who through direct interaction, wrote their experience down to share, historical evidence...then I suppose what you're doing is remaining in what YOU want to remain in.  Evidence is not refused you.  You are surrounded by it.  Is it God's fault you decide the vast, almost unimaginable and incomprehensible, improbability of the opposite is more probable to you?

Do you go to Vegas?

Quote from: "Tank":pop:

My fingers are killing me, Tank!  

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

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

Actually, you need the lesson.  Plus pointing out grammar mistakes on a forum is just another lame deflection tactic.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank":)

You can always stop! It's not compulsory to come here and defend your position or that of other Christians. You're on a hiding to nothing you know. Go have a look at jac3510's posts. He just sort of left...

Good luck. I'll hold your coat  

Quote from: "DropLogic"Davin wrote:
The claim that heaven even exists. The claim that a god exists and only wants people to believe in it.

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

Actually, you need the lesson.  Plus pointing out grammar mistakes on a forum is just another lame deflection tactic.

If you're giving the lesson, are you pointing out a mistake in grammar to me?

If pointing out the "mistake" conveys how I interpreted his words, then it's not lame nor a tactic of deflection.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "DropLogic"Davin wrote:
The claim that heaven even exists. The claim that a god exists and only wants people to believe in it.

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

Actually, you need the lesson.  Plus pointing out grammar mistakes on a forum is just another lame deflection tactic.

If you're giving the lesson, are you pointing out a mistake in grammar to me?

If pointing out the "mistake" conveys how I interpreted his words, then it's not lame nor a tactic of deflection.

Because God is a "He" to you?  If God transcends the physical, how could one possibly know the sex of such a being?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank":)

You can always stop! It's not compulsory to come here and defend your position or that of other Christians. You're on a hiding to nothing you know. Go have a look at jac3510's posts. He just sort of left...

Good luck. I'll hold your coat  :cool:

Ah! We appear to have reached the Chinchilla fur stage of the discussion!

[spoiler:11k1k6iw]because they have about 60 hairs sprouting from each hair follicle[/spoiler:11k1k6iw]

EDIT: Blast! one post too late!

Quote from: "DropLogic"Because God is a "He" to you?  If God transcends the physical, how could one possibly know the sex of such a being?

Logic.  God created man first...and in His image.  Then God created woman OUT of man.  This is illogical?
I don't intend on getting into a debate on creation, (not in this thread at least) but simply gave this as the logical reason I see a 'HE' in God.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I'll simply do my best, not intending on having the proof to end all arguments.

It's impossible to end an argument or even have a realistic one when faith is involved.  Every argument is based on convenience and circular ideas.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Logic.  God created man first...and in His image.  Then God created woman OUT of man.  This is illogical?
I don't intend on getting into a debate on creation, (not in this thread at least) but simply gave this as the logical reason I see a 'HE' in God.

Why do you believe that?  You realize that this belief is akin to believing that four turtles and rat were made supersized and granted the ability to talk by radioactive ooze.  right?

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Logic.  God created man first...and in His image.  Then God created woman OUT of man.  This is illogical?
I don't intend on getting into a debate on creation, (not in this thread at least) but simply gave this as the logical reason I see a 'HE' in God.

Why do you believe that?  You realize that this belief is akin to believing that four turtles and rat were made supersized and granted the ability to talk by radioactive ooze.  right?

Nice way to divert the point.  You asked a specific question and I gave you a specific answer.  Given you know what I believe to be true, either by faith or whatever you wish to attribute it to, you know the basis of my beliefs...a collection of books/writings/letters.  If there were no such thing as the Bible, then you'd have reason to ask the above, otherwise you're simply using Strawman tactics to belittle the point.  A point clearly made and clearly based.  Just because you dismiss it as fable, doesn't remove the fact of how and why I use 'HE' for God.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So is what you're saying is that you trust your senses even though your senses can be imperfect?  Let's be honest here.  One argument the Atheist brings to debunk ID, for example, is the apparent flaws in the human body.  If this is true, what can you trust to be true even if you "feel" it, "see" it, or experience it?  With this in mind you're going to now tell me you can prove wind/air without actually seeing it?  How convenient it is for you to use a flawed system(s) for proof, yet a Christian cannot.

I can empirically prove air and wind even if I cannot see it. I do not "believe" in air and wind. Nor do I need faith to know it exists; I know it exists. What I cannot do is empirically prove God, Heaven or Hell...yet you "believe" in it...through faith. I even cannot give enough good evidence for you to believe in a god.

If you can't trust your senses, it's time to bring out the Yahzi Baseball Bat test (TM)
Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.
Step 2. Strike yourself in the head.
Step 3. Repeat step 2 until all doubts about the reality of physical existence are driven out.

QuoteMaybe if you earnestly seek, He may oblige you.

Your god is the one who needs worship...flawed omnigod that it is. If he needs worshiping so badly, he can easily make known to every person in the world of his existence. It is up to everyone to worship him or not. But wait, even those that believe through religious faith may not be saved from the all good god.

Sorry, but my reasoning abilities and critical thinking skills are honed enough to see through superstition.

QuoteHowever, I doubt you can earnestly seek anything you have no belief in...unless it's something of scientific value.  

I don't need to believe in anything. I either know or I don't know. I am either sure or unsure. I either adhere or don't adhere.

QuoteEven then, if you don't believe something, why seek to find yourself wrong?

I either know or I don't know. I am either sure or unsure. I either adhere or don't adhere.

QuoteIs absolute truth only absolute truth the moment it can be proven?

Believing in/of through faith in a non empirical so called "absolute religious truth" is an oxymoron.
"Heaven exists." is an absolute statement?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I'm not defending my position.  I came to this forum to share a Christian point of view.  This thread was opened and the question was asked by a professing Atheist.  I figured giving him/her my opinion would clear up the confusion.  I don't intend on changing anybody's mind as to their Atheism, but rather simply an understanding of why Christians...   One can understand, yet disagree.  I understand why, or I think I do, one might think there is no evidence.  

Just to make myself clear, I never said or ever say that there is no evidence of god/s. I say there is NO GOOD evidence of god/s. Ancient Jewish superstitions of cosmic Jewish zombies rambled on from some guy who saw visions 2000 years ago is certainly no good evidence for anyone to believe the assertions made of said Jewish zombie.

QuoteI am also a lover of science, physics, astronomy...all that surrounds what Atheism embraces as the only truth.  

You still proceed from false assumptions of atheism. Why is that?

QuoteI simply happen to believe and put faith into the something beyond the probabilities.

And this shows us your reasoning and critical thinking skills have been shelved in this matter.

QuoteI'll simply do my best, not intending on having the proof to end all arguments.

Then you'll have problems during discussion of assertions you make with no, little or no good evidence to back up the assertions.

Simply put, AnimatedDirt's stance is you have to have faith to get into Heaven. I think we pretty much knew that. He will admit that one needs religious faith in religious matters. And he may even admit that religious faith in something that has no good evidence of its existence is a good thing because it will give you an afterlife that also has no good evidence of existing.

I can't do that...*shrugs*

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "DropLogic"Because God is a "He" to you?  If God transcends the physical, how could one possibly know the sex of such a being?

Logic.  God created man first...and in His image.  Then God created woman OUT of man.  This is illogical?
I don't intend on getting into a debate on creation, (not in this thread at least) but simply gave this as the logical reason I see a 'HE' in God.

Why does a deity need genitals?

What's heaven?

Quote from: "KebertX"What's heaven?

It's that region between Never Never Land and Honalee in the providence of make believe.  

Well...shite. Atheists are definitely NOT getting into heaven. Even babies aren't getting into heaven:
http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctri ... en_web.htm (http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/articles/article_00126_do_babies_automatically_go_to_heaven_web.htm)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"A simple google search will find you many prophecies fulfilled.  Some not yet fulfilled and some apparently not fulfilled.

So contorted as to be nonsense, unless one already believes.

QuoteWhen exactly was it known for sure the earth is sphere-shaped?  When was it known that the atmosphere is a protective covering for the earth?
Notice that the idea is the same while using examples of understood then.  Did they understand the earth was round or the atmosphere protected them?  I'm not sure if it was.  I don't know of anyone expounding on the idea in that day.  If someone did, it still wasn't fully understood.

The very fact that your bible is tied to the knowledge-base of the time it was written is evidence that it is not divinely inspired.  Certainly an Omniscient god could've taught Moses how to spell "cyclotron," or "gamma ray".  The point is that an omniscient being not only would know this stuff, he would know that folk like me would have a high standard of evidence.

Quote"The circle of the earth, like a canopy, spreads like a tent to live in"  Are you telling me they understood exactly what this meant?  It's exactly the "bit" you asked for "incomprehensible" to the science of the day AND later understood.

 Which part didn't I address?  Being a Christian, my IQ is lower than yours.  I may need your help.

1)  I didn't impute denseness on your part.  If you wish to walk around with a chip on your shoulder, that's your business.  Just don't pretend that I put it there.

2)  Surely they could understand a round sky.  That, however, is hardly specific.  Where's stuff like, say, the circumference of the earth?  How about predicting the Holocaust?

QuoteAccording 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.

QuoteHe did make arrangements.  Unfortunately the only way "around" His own law  and remain Just, Righteous, and Holy is for God Himself to die.  

Yes, I know the Christian mythos, having been raised in it.  What I'm asking you is that, if your god is omnipotent, how can any man escape the conclusion that he exists?  The very fact that more than half of all humans alive reject your mythos is evidence that even if he exists, he is not quite convincing.

QuoteThis text proves God doesn't disparage seekers of truth.  He came, appeared before Thomas and let him touch his hands.  I suppose the point is Thomas was seeking God.  Atheism, when "looking" for God, is only looking for proof of his/her own understanding to further substanciate his/her belief/disbelief and thus find no "evidence."

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.

QuoteEvidence was left and many believed after the fact...the problem now is that you don't want to believe 2000 yr old evidence, hence the question posed earlier; How would you keep the evidence so that in 2000 years there doesn't arise Atheists again?

1) I've already answered your question:  an all-powerful god could arrange for the safe-keeping of evidence.  He could put glyphs on the moon 50 km wide spelling out his name, if he so desired.  Or can he?  I will not address this "question" again.  Two answers should be plenty for you.

2) I accept evidence that countermands my desires all the time.  For instance, I didn't want to believe my father was dying.  However, the evidence, in the form of shallower, accelerating respiration, dropping blood pressure, rising pulse, and falling O2 perfusion were compelling.  Please don't use this straw-man with me.  If you're going to impute something to me, do so out of my own words, not some stereotypical "Atheist" you've constructed in your head.  I mean, you don't see me criticizing you for your idiocy in believing in the virgin birth, do you?  No.  The reason why is that I understand that quite a few Christians don't literally believe that is true.  I restrict myself to arguing your points.  Kindly return the respect.

QuoteIf God says "the rocks cry out..." and you don't believe nature and it's grand complexity and order, men who through direct interaction, wrote their experience down to share, historical evidence...then I suppose what you're doing is remaining in what YOU want to remain in.  Evidence is not refused you.  You are surrounded by it.  Is it God's fault you decide the vast, almost unimaginable and incomprehensible, improbability of the opposite is more probable to you?

Again, by imputing a desire onto me which I don't have, you're strawmanning me.  That is not only a fallacy, but an irritant, and an impediment to good discussion.

Further, what you claim is evidence is explained by natural processes.  What is more improbable: a universe which arose as a result of vacuum-flux, regulated by a few constants -- or a universe created by a being who is everywhere all at once, who can do anything at all, who is all-perfect, yet cannot manage to change the mind of one little human like me?

QuoteDo you go to Vegas?

Objection, Your Honor: irrelevant.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"So contorted as to be nonsense, unless one already believes.

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

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The very fact that your bible is tied to the knowledge-base of the time it was written is evidence that it is not divinely inspired.  Certainly an Omniscient god could've taught Moses how to spell "cyclotron," or "gamma ray".  The point is that an omniscient being not only would know this stuff, he would know that folk like me would have a high standard of evidence.

Your whole belief system is tied to the knowledge-base of your time, and you believe what you do.  Why would God confuse and give the spelling of something not yet understood?  Wouldn't that just make them OF THAT DAY think God just a crazy person in their head?  You have a high standard of evidence, yet the probabilities of ideas most people that don't believe in God are astronomical....but you tell me your standard of evidence is high?  Doesn't this work against you somewhat?

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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"1)  I didn't impute denseness on your part.  If you wish to walk around with a chip on your shoulder, that's your business.  Just don't pretend that I put it there.

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? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5973) thread.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"2)  Surely they could understand a round sky.  That, however, is hardly specific.  Where's stuff like, say, the circumference of the earth?  How about predicting the Holocaust?

Round sky?  Where do you see round sky?  It reads, "circle of the earth".  Since when does earth=sky?  You want prophecies of "holocaust"?  How about prophecies of the order of "world" (then known) empires?  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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteAccording 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".  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yes, I know the Christian mythos, having been raised in it.  What I'm asking you is that, if your god is omnipotent, how can any man escape the conclusion that he exists?  The very fact that more than half of all humans alive reject your mythos is evidence that even if he exists, he is not quite convincing.

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

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:7"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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=5959) and specifically at Karadan's post on the second page about half way down.  Then take another look at the passage above.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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...

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"1) I've already answered your question:  an all-powerful god could arrange for the safe-keeping of evidence.  He could put glyphs on the moon 50 km wide spelling out his name, if he so desired.  Or can he?  I will not address this "question" again.  Two answers should be plenty for you.

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

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"2) I accept evidence that countermands my desires all the time.  For instance, I didn't want to believe my father was dying.  However, the evidence, in the form of shallower, accelerating respiration, dropping blood pressure, rising pulse, and falling O2 perfusion were compelling.  Please don't use this straw-man with me.  If you're going to impute something to me, do so out of my own words, not some stereotypical "Atheist" you've constructed in your head.  I mean, you don't see me criticizing you for your idiocy in believing in the virgin birth, do you?  No.  The reason why is that I understand that quite a few Christians don't literally believe that is true.  I restrict myself to arguing your points.  Kindly return the respect.

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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteIf God says "the rocks cry out..." and you don't believe nature and it's grand complexity and order, men who through direct interaction, wrote their experience down to share, historical evidence...then I suppose what you're doing is remaining in what YOU want to remain in.  Evidence is not refused you.  You are surrounded by it.  Is it God's fault you decide the vast, almost unimaginable and incomprehensible, improbability of the opposite is more probable to you?

Again, by imputing a desire onto me which I don't have, you're strawmanning me.  That is not only a fallacy, but an irritant, and an impediment to good discussion.
Further, what you claim is evidence is explained by natural processes.  What is more improbable: a universe which arose as a result of vacuum-flux, regulated by a few constants -- or a universe created by a being who is everywhere all at once, who can do anything at all, who is all-perfect, yet cannot manage to change the mind of one little human like me?

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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteDo 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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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..."  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Davin"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).

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

Davin wins.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Davin wins.

I'm not surprised.

But are you trying to imply with this post?

DAVIN CAN GET INTO HEAVEN!!!

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Just because you say it's contorted and so nonsense doesn't make it so.

Quote from: "Ez 26:14""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:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsophismata.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Ftyre_today_satellite.jpg&hash=d47b9e524670a31c689b227c110e5b9fef488a5a)

QuoteYour 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.

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

To show knowledge not in possession of his prophets.

QuoteWouldn'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.

QuoteYou 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?

Quote...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.

QuoteOnce 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.

QuoteI 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? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5973) 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.

QuoteRound 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.

QuoteSince when does earth=sky?

A matter of which element one wishes to accentuate.

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

You mean like the one about Tyre, above?

QuoteHave 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?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteAccording 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.

QuoteIf 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?

QuoteHaven'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.

QuoteThat'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.

QuoteHonestly, 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.

QuoteThe 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:

Quote from: "Isaiah 45:7"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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=5959) 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.

Quote

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

QuoteHistory, 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteExplained 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.

Quote

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteDo 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.

Quote from: "DropLogic"DAVIN CAN GET INTO HEAVEN!!!

He certainly CAN...

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Fast forward a few millenia:

Too many words to put here to read.  Read Tyre: A Place For Fishing Nets (http://www.learnbible.net/amazing2.html) at your leisure.
There are other sections on that page, but one entitled, "Tyre: A Place For Fishing Nets"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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).

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"...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?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Matthew 18:1-4"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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?

Quote from: "Me"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.

Quote from: "you"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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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 ...

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.