Can an Atheist get into heaven

[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?

[Gawen]

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.

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."

Why does anyone believe what they believe?  

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

Do 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.

Do 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.

...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.

I 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.

To 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.

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.

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

[Gawen]

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

[AnimatedDirt]

 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.

[pinkocommie]

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.

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.  

[Sophus]

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.

[Gawen]

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.

[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.

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

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.

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?

Why 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.

Do 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.

Do 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.  

...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.

I 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.

To 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?

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.

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.

[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.

[Gawen]

You miss the part of not having all knowledge,

No, I didn't miss it.

therefore 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.

You 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.

and 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

Have 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.

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

Another thread, perhaps.

He could...he has.

I don't think so.

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?

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

[Gawen]

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?

[AnimatedDirt]

Have 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.

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

Another thread, perhaps.

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

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?

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?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[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?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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?

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.  

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).