Atheists can be in heaven?

[Thom18]

Atheists wouldn’t remain atheists after meeting God, would they?

 

[vz71]

That’s quite a Catch 22 you’ve worked yourself into. If you continue to be an atheist in heaven then you wouldn’t have been allowed in in the first place.

One may be at the door without gaining entrance.
The Pope indicates an atheist may go there. But what you are reading into it is that this atheism will survive the journey.

You can claim symantics are being argued, but logic is on the side that says atheism will not withstand the beatific vision.

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

Only through Jesus? What about the people who lived in the billions of years before Jesus walked the Earth? Can they be in heaven?

 

[vz71]

Here is what the Pope actually said about this. Lest anyone try to distort his words or meaning.
Pope Francis:

“God has the heart of a father, your father was a good man, he is in heaven with Him, be sure. God has a father’s heart and, would God ever abandon a non-believing father who baptizes his children? God was certainly proud of your father, because it is easier to be a believer and have your children baptized than to be a non-believer and have your children baptized. Pray for your father, talk to your father. That is the answer.”

 

[PRmerger]

That is excellent news. Someone who never saw any evidence for God and therefore never believed that God exists, finally learns that God actually exists. And therefore says: “Now that I finally found out the truth about your existence; I want to be with you.” And God smiles and answers: “Thy will be done. Welcome to heaven.”

Just a wee tweak: you’re responsible for what you should have known or could have known, vis a vis evidence for God.

 

[PRmerger]

I accept that. It is another variant of the invincible ignorance. But I never saw any evidence for God, except what some people say about God. And words are insufficient.

You’ve never seen any arguments for God’s existence? Or you’ve seen them, and you don’t find them convincing?

 

[PRmerger]

And words are insufficient.

Why would words be insufficient? They’re sufficient for almost EVERYTHING else you believe/find to be true…unless you’ve actually examined personally all the facts/arguments/data for each and every belief you have.

For example: are these words not sufficient: Katmandu is the capital of Nepal.

Or do you remain skeptical of the veracity of these words until you actually GO to Nepal, visit all the cities, see which ones have government officials running around doing government business, examine these officials’ credentials, to determine if, indeed Katmandu is the capital of Nepal?

And do you do this for EVERY capital city of every nation in the world?

 

[STT]

They hopefully change their mind after God shows himself.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

That’s quite a Catch 22 you’ve worked yourself into. If you continue to be an atheist in heaven then you wouldn’t have been allowed in in the first place.

One may be at the door without gaining entrance.
The Pope indicates an atheist may go there. But what you are reading into it is that this atheism will survive the journey.

You can claim symantics are being argued, but logic is on the side that says atheism will not withstand the beatific vision.

You are certainly persistant. In trying to convince me that the discussion is somehow about whether one could remain an atheist once accepted into heaven. An impossibility.

But as the pope says, if one is an atheist, one can still be allowed access to heaven.

Feel free to agree with that specific statement. Or yet again state the impossibility of remainIng an atheist once there. I can keep this up as long as you like…

 

[vz71]

No need.
I quoted the Pope above and discovered he says nothing remotely approaching what you said.

You may continue to argue if you wish, but your misquote tells me there is no point. You will be persistent. In what, I am uncertain.
But I do not care to watch.

 

[Bradskii]

No need.
I quoted the Pope above and discovered he says nothing remotely approaching what you said.

You may continue to argue if you wish, but your misquote tells me there is no point. You will be persistent. In what, I am uncertain.
But I do not care to watch.

Nobody is misquoting. Here is what you actually quoted yourself about what the pope said about a boy’s atheist father:

‘God has the heart of a father, your father was a good man, he is in heaven with Him, be sure’.

Game, set and match I would say. Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys.

 

[laylow]

Game, set and match I would say. Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys.

Don’t forget to thank your opponent, your team and most importantly the fans! OK, I’m seen too many tennis trophy presentations and am tired of the same drill already! …Carry on.

 

[vz71]

And where exactly does it say what you are claiming?

 

[Tommy999]

You might want to call the Catholic Answers radio show some day on the air when Trent Horn is on. Not only is he a good Christian apologist, but he seems to enjoy reasoning with atheists. You are obviously someone who values intellectual discussions about religion and atheism. It would be an interesting discussion.

 

[Bradskii]

And where exactly does it say what you are claiming?

I thought you’d dropped out.

You mean the bit where the pope says that atheists can get to heaven? Well, I guess it’s this bit, where he actually SAYS (and you actually quote) that an atheist IS IN heaven:

‘…he is in heaven with Him’.

‘he’ being the atheist, ‘He’ being God and ‘heaven’ being the place where they are both at. I’ll bet he’s not an atheist now though.

 

[Bradskii]

You might want to call the Catholic Answers radio show some day on the air when Trent Horn is on. Not only is he a good Christian apologist, but he seems to enjoy reasoning with atheists. You are obviously someone who values intellectual discussions about religion and atheism. It would be an interesting discussion.

I’ve read his ‘Answering Atheism’. Let’s just say that I wasn’t impressed.

 

[PRmerger]

The second one. I heard many arguments and not one of them did I find convincing.

Which one of them did you find to be the best?

NB: No need to tell me you’re an atheist and that you find them ALL tedious and inutile and boring and rotten. Understood. NONE of them are good…but out of all the ones you’ve seen, which one is the best? Or, the least bad?

The operating word is “almost”. I do not operate under the principle that each and every proposition is equally significant. If you would tell me that you just won 10 dollars on the lottery, I would accept your words for it. But if you would say that Little Green Men abducted you, brought you into their flying saucer, then took our internal organs out to examine them, and then put everything back… well, I would NOT accept your word for it. I hope you would be equally skeptical in a reverse scenario.

So, what would evidence for God’s existence look like? What kind of data could I provide for you to offer proof of his existence?

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I, for one, doubt very much if the Dalai Lama is going to hell.

 

[PRmerger]

There are two kinds of possible attempts. One tries to establish the existence of the “God of the philosophers”. Aquinas had his famous “five ways”.

So…could you be a bit more clear here? Which argument of Aquinas do you find to be the best (yes, they are all rotten…understood)?

And you’re saying that it fails because, essentially, whatever it posits, science will be able to provide the answer? Is that your refutation of whatever argument you’re proposing for Aquinas?

By the way, I recall an interesting observation. It goes: “No one doubted the existence of God, until some philosophers tried to prove it.” God’s existence belongs to the realm of “faith”.

Actually, the Catholic position is that God’s existence can be discerned through Reason alone. Faith is not required here.

And I am sorry to add: to the realm of “blind faith”. As Jesus said (allegedly): “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”. The words “who have not seen” refer to the lack of evidence, aka blind faith.

And you should know that in Catholicism blind faith is a heresy.

Maybe in your fundamentalist church of origin you were encouraged to have blind faith? But Catholicism, again, declares fideism to be a heresy.

The other attempt would be to show evidence for the “God of the Bible”, the assumed creator of the universe, who hides behind the clouds, to whom one can pray, and who will fulfill the request of the prayer, if we ask in name of Jesus. You could issue a prayer to him, and see if the prayer will be fulfilled - as Jesus promised

Ah, yes. I never argue that God can be proven because the Bible says God exists. That is a very poor argument indeed!

As is the argument that if you pray and your prayer is answered, this is proof of God’s existence.

You cannot do it on you own

Why not?

With God’s active help, you certainly could.

Ok…so what would this proof look like?

So I will have to wait until I see God, and then I can make my choice

Well, this would have to occur this side of heaven of course. So…what would God look like s you would know it’s him?

Of course this is a rational outcome, after all to demand to make a choice without having all the necessary information would be extremely cruel.

Indeed.

And if you have all the information necessary to make a rational decision, but choose to reject God, so be it, yes?

 

[O_Wood_32]

If we remain sinners, we will die. However, if we repent of our sins, and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we will have eternal life. **[Romans 6:23]
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”