If God DOES exist, would good atheists be allowed in heaven?

[MoralCompass]

basically, it would be unfair for god to not prove he exists and send us to hell for it.

To send us to hell for not knowing it exists would be unfair.  Then, everyone would go to hell, because apperently, nobody knows.  God would not be the ultimate being of morality if he sent everyone to hell.

Personally, I think it would be a poor test of will if it did prove its existance.  Anyone with reason would want heaven over hell, and no doubt do whatever they have to, and ban together to make sure everyone else followed the same path.

Its like a teacher standing over the shoulder of a known cheater on an exam.  The cheater obviously isn't going to do anything because he knows the teacher is watching.  His true nature would not be revealed.  If she leaves the room, and watches on a hidden camera, his will is shown.

[Will]

Correction:

If you were a weak atheist, speaking hypothetically about God, it would be going against the definition of a weak atheist, being that you are forming a belief about god.

You'd only be "going against" understanding in the hypothetical. It's not like we're saying, conclusively, that god exists and then based on that actual belief asking the question of whether good atheists will be going to heaven.

I don't think you understand what "hypothetical" means.

Personally, I think it would be a poor test of will if it did prove its existance. Anyone with reason would want heaven over hell, and no doubt do whatever they have to, and ban together to make sure everyone else followed the same path.

This suggests anyone with reason cannot enter heaven, which proves the point that it's not reasonable to believe in god.

Its like a teacher standing over the shoulder of a known cheater on an exam. The cheater obviously isn't going to do anything because he knows the teacher is watching. His true nature would not be revealed. If she leaves the room, and watches on a hidden camera, his will is shown.

The god figure expects people will throw out the reasonable despite any evidence and then rewards the unreasonable. Think about that. The god character rewards those who turn on everything that makes sense around them in favor of delusion.

[SteveS]

Its funny how Atheists, who claim to have no beliefs in God or an afterlife, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it. You should all take a vow of silence on this if you are concerned with being true Atheists. You can only have beliefs about this stuff. You can’t have knowledge about it, because it isn’t possible in this life.

[sarcasm]

Its funny how theists, who claim to have no beliefs in atheistic ideas, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it.  You should take a vow of silence on atheism if you are concerned with being true Theists.

[/sarcasm]

 :?   Surely, the hypocritical and self-contradictory nature of your approach occurs to you?  Anyway, I could never abide by a vow of silence - I'm blabby by nature.

[rlrose328]

Its funny how Atheists, who claim to have no beliefs in God or an afterlife, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it.  You should all take a vow of silence on this if you are concerned with being true Atheists.  You can only have beliefs about this stuff.  You can’t have knowledge about it, because it isn’t possible in this life.

You don't have any idea what atheists are all about.  You don't know us or what we believe... all you know is the rhetoric you've been taught.  You should take a vow of silence until you can be a true Christian.  I don't have absolute knowledge of god any more than you do.  It's ALL conjecture by humans, nothing more, nothing less.

"I live my life in total morality, but don’t believe in an afterlife."

That statement itself is contradictory, because you are content with never seeing your loved ones again, and you DON’T KNOW for sure if you will or not…but you choose the option anyway.   If you are not content with never seeing them again, then I feel sorry for you, because you have chosen to feel horrible because of your BELIEFS.

I'm not content with the fact that I'll never see my family or loved ones again.  Again with your ignorance and self-importance.  I'd LOVE to spent eternity with my loved ones.  I just don't believe such a concept is factual.  And whether or not I believe in an afterlife has NOTHING to do with how moral I am... none whatsoever.  

I've been told REPEATEDLY, including TWICE today, "Gee Kerri... you're just too nice to be an atheist."  If I'm wrong and your god chooses to ban me from heaven for thinking for myself and doing the right things in my life DESPITE not believing in an afterlife, I'll gladly go.  Surely he knows that the overwhelming majority of his self-confessed followers can't say the same thing.

So, I guess, if I were God, I’d postpone your entrance into heaven until you know the importance of feeling horrible about all those people going away, and then choosing to not feel horrible by believing they don't go away.

I'm not even going to dignify this nonsense with an answer.  I'm done here. :x

[MoralCompass]

You don't have any idea what atheists are all about. You don't know us or what we believe... all you know is the rhetoric you've been taught. You should take a vow of silence until you can be a true Christian. I don't have absolute knowledge of god any more than you do. It's ALL conjecture by humans, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I do.  An atheist does not hold any beliefs in God, and an atheist does not hold any beliefs in "not God."  You cannot say God does not exist, because you don't know, and you cannot believe it does not exist or believe that it does exist.

There are two possibilities for a sane person's position on something.  Reasonable belief(hypothesis, opinion, unproven theory, assumption) or knowledge.  Atheists have neither, regarding God, and therefor have no position.

So quick to assume I'm a Christian.  I'm agnostic.  I see God's existance or non-existance as being unprovable.

[rlrose328]

There are two possibilities for a sane person's position on something.  Reasonable belief(hypothesis, opinion, unproven theory, assumption) or knowledge.  Atheists have neither, regarding God, and therefor have no position.

I disagree... I have a reasonable belief that there is no god.  There has been no empirical proof that god exists.  The default position is that god doesn't exist.  Therefore, the ONLY sane and reasonable position is that of the atheist.

If someone came up to me and told me there was a divine and magic teddy bear in a closet somewhere in America, it's not up to me to search every closet on the continent until I find it.  The person making the assertion is responsible for providing proof (and a book describing the closet doesn't count as proof).  Show me the teddy bear or I'll be safe in assuming the teddy bear doesn't exist outside of that person's imagination.

So quick to assume I'm a Christian.  I'm agnostic.  I see God's existance or non-existance as being unprovable.

I apologize for jumping to conclusions but you must admit that you are coming across quite pompous, telling us what we do and don't believe and what makes us sane or not.

[MoralCompass]

Its funny how theists, who claim to have no beliefs in atheistic ideas, can even have opinions, a synonym for belief, on it. You should take a vow of silence on atheism if you are concerned with being true Theists.

No, you see, since I'm agnostic, I can have belief in some of your ideas, like the Bible not being the literal word of God, and add my opinions on God.  So, its not hypocritical.

[MoralCompass]

I have a reasonable belief that there is no god.

A reasonable belief is a belief nonetheless, so by that view, you would not be an atheist.

[rlrose328]

I have a reasonable belief that there is no god.

A reasonable belief is a belief nonetheless, so by that view, you would not be an atheist.

You are splitting hairs based on semantics.  Not a logical or acceptable means of debate.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree.  See previous example.  I don't have to believe the teddy bear exists or doesn't exist.  The default position is that there is no god until proven.  Therefore, atheism is the default position.... the non-existence of a god doesn't require belief... it just IS.

[SteveS]

No, you see, since I'm agnostic

Okay - my bad, I offer you a sincere apology - I unhesitatingly admit that I did assume you were a theist.  My assumption was based on your words - I could not find an introductory thread started by you, so I had to work with what I had.
In that light, I still see a problem with your approach:

Strong atheists claim they know something that cannot be known, which is just absurd.

Okay.  Personally, I'm a "weak atheist", or "agnostic atheist", or whatever you'd like to call it.  I do not, because I feel I cannot, claim to know that god does not exist.  Furthermore, and as regards "pure" agnosticism, I do not claim to know that this cannot be known - I only claim that currently it is unknown.  I would also claim that I do not know whether the existence of god is unknowable or not.  If we define god to be "that which is unknowable", then sure, but how did we arrive at that definition?  At this point one could offer no opinion on god whatsoever, outside of "god is unknowable".  Any claim to particular further knowledge about god would blatantly contradict the statement that "god is unknowable", right?

So fair question: do you claim to know that god's existence or non-existence is unprovable?  Or, do you merely claim to believe it.  Are you a "strong agnostic" or a "weak agnostic"?  If you claim to know that god's existence is unprovable, then I would kindly ask you to explain how you acquired this knowledge.

Finally, 'cause this one is a biggie,

I have a reasonable belief that there is no god.

A reasonable belief is a belief nonetheless, so by that view, you would not be an atheist.

I reject this statement entirely.  "Theist" is one who believes in god.  Put an 'a' on the front, and you have "atheist", one who is not a theist; one who does not believe in god.  An atheist is defined by the belief that they do not have.

The words "theist", "atheist", and "agnostic" all refer to what we believe.  Taken from http://www.dictionary.com

a·the·ism

â€"noun
1.   the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.   disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[Origin: 1580â€"90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism]

One can't help but notice that "belief" is specifically cited by these definitions, and not knowledge.

By making the unjustified claim that to be considered an atheist a person must assert that they know there is no god, you are intentionally weakening the position of atheism by portraying it incorrectly to be something that it is not.  This is a classic "straw man" fallacy.

[MoralCompass]

You are splitting hairs based on semantics. Not a logical or acceptable means of debate.

The meaning of things is pretty important.  I'm not focusing on anything trivial here.

[rlrose328]

Au contraire, mon ami.... you are hinging your entire argument on the word "belief," as if it is the most important concept in this argument.  It's not, not by a long shot.  Let's discuss the concept of organized religion, if you want to get picky about words and how they affect the general populace and how our country will evolve.  A belief in god is merely the starting point... the argument is much more broad.

[MoralCompass]

I'm crashing after this.  I'll admit I've lead us all on a tangent, and to rlrose328, I am sorry if I seem inflated.

Anyway, I am a strong agnostic and believe that god is unknowable to humanity.  Yeah, I'm using definition as the basis of my argument, but where is the trouble in that?  It's not just the definition of "belief", but the definition of "atheism" as well
.
I have a friend, philosophy major, who defined atheism in symbolic logic, and it was clear that no beliefs were held.  He was very frustrated with number 1 in the Dictionary.com definition, and rightly so, because it is very different from the second one.  

I don't know if the dictionary.com definition is a product of the Christian majority and ignorance, but I do know that it probably needs addressing.
 
I'll read replies when I get up.

[Will]

I have a friend, philosophy major, who defined atheism in symbolic logic, and it was clear that no beliefs were held.  He was very frustrated with number 1 in the Dictionary.com definition, and rightly so, because it is very different from the second one.  

Atheism is quite simply the understanding of the nonexistence of god or gods. Your buddy is describing nontheism or indifference.

[rlrose328]

Atheism is quite simply the understanding of the nonexistence of god or gods. Your buddy is describing nontheism or indifference.

Yeah, what he said.