Can an Atheist get into heaven

[AnimatedDirt]

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:

[Tank]

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!

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

[DropLogic]

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.

[DropLogic]

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?

[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.

[Gawen]

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.

Maybe 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.

However, 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.

Even 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.

Is 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?

[Gawen]

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.

I 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?

I 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.

I'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.

[Gawen]

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*

[Sophus]

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?

[KebertX]

What's heaven?

[pinkocommie]

What's heaven?

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

[Gawen]

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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.

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.

"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?

According to the "tale", Satan thought he outwitted God when Christ was nailed to the cross.  Little did he know the cross was the bridge for man to cross over to God while yet a sinner.  In the same way, men may "outwit" God, but like I asked before, is truth only truth the moment it is proven?

Are you telling me you believe that reality is subjective?  If so, we'll need to end this discussion.  I can tolerate blind faith, but I find nonsense like solipsism to be enervating.  Are you telling me that the Philippines didn't exist before you learned of them?  Get real.

He 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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

Do you go to Vegas?

Objection, Your Honor: irrelevant.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

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? thread.

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.

According to the "tale", Satan thought he outwitted God when Christ was nailed to the cross.  Little did he know the cross was the bridge for man to cross over to God while yet a sinner.  In the same way, men may "outwit" God, but like I asked before, is truth only truth the moment it is proven?

Are you telling me you believe that reality is subjective?  If so, we'll need to end this discussion.  I can tolerate blind faith, but I find nonsense like solipsism to be enervating.  Are you telling me that the Philippines didn't exist before you learned of them?  Get real.

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

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:

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

Do you go to Vegas?

Objection, Your Honor: irrelevant.

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