Atheists can be in heaven?

[Bradskii]

PRmerger:

Ok…so what would this proof look like?

It would include a proposition, which could only happen via a divine interaction. No “sufficiently advanced alien race” could provide it. Example: “rearrange the stars to exhibit the books of the Bible in increasing order, in every language, one book at a time”. That would do it. Or create an object which has a temperature of minus one Kelvin. Or move an object faster than the speed of light. Lots of possibilities.

But there’s the problem of mental illness or the effects of drugs. Everything you listed could seem to have been done in either case. I’ve had some wierd experiences with some drugs but nothing that made me think that an alternate reality was real. But I remember my father when he was in hospital and a combo of drugs and fever convinced him he was talking to a china dog the previous evening. ‘As real as I am talking to you’.

Many religions use trance and psychotropic drugs like peyote to catch a glimpse behind the curtain.

But then again, if I met someone in the pub tonight who said he had news from the other side and told me that my dad had spoken to a china dog - on the assumption I had not told anyone about that conversation, I would be suitably impressed.

 

[po18guy]

If they are in heaven, they are no longer atheists. Something happened just before their final breath.

 

[Gorgias]

It would include a proposition, which could only happen via a divine interaction. No “sufficiently advanced alien race” could provide it. Example: “rearrange the stars to exhibit the books of the Bible in increasing order, in every language, one book at a time”. That would do it. Or create an object which has a temperature of minus one Kelvin. Or move an object faster than the speed of light. Lots of possibilities.

Right. So the only ‘proof’ is one that throws faith out the window and, in its place, offers the iron-fisted “acquiesce! resistance is futile!” imposition of a despot.

Good luck with that one. I suspect that, deep down, you know you’ve presented an unreasonable standard, and are merely using it as a plaything to taunt others and prop up your own worldview. That’s called “not dealing in good faith.”

We could engage in a “prediction game”, where he would predict an action of mine in (MY) future. (Oh, that wonderful “free will”!) If he can accurately predict my future action, his omniscience would be established.

Again… bad faith. Once He predicted, you would be free to do something else. Then again, the prediction could be “whatever I say, you’ll try to avoid” – which would be true! So, no need to engage in that silly exercise!

Something happened just before their final breath.

Other than a heart attack?

 

[Gorgias]

A sensible person would demand: “prove it”!

And He did. What He didn’t do – and what you seem to think is reasonable to demand – is that He continues to prove it, each generation and every day, in a way that demonstrates to the senses that it’s true.

If I would declare: “I am God, and follow my demand!” I hope you would also tell me: “prove it!”.

And if I did, would it be reasonable for me to follow up with, “well… prove it again! …and again! …and again!”…? No, that sounds more like the toddler who wants to play the same video over and over and over again, and less like an adult who can reason for himself.

 

[vz71]

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.

What the Pope did mention was a specific person who had demonstrated faith in God through baptizing his children.

The Pope in no way said what you have claimed.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I agree that all claims are not equal.
But for some claims, even an extraordinary one, all that would be required would be words, yes?

So, for example, if your wife told you that she had seen something extraordinary occur, would you remain skeptical, or would you believe her, because you have faith in her?

 

[PRmerger]

They are not commensurate, so they cannot be ordered into a sequence of “best”, “a little worse”… etc.

So which one of Aquinas’ 5 ways do you find to be the most convincing?

NB: there is no need to remind us that you are an atheist and therefore find them ALL unconvincing. Duly noted. But of all of the arguments asserted for God’s existence, which of them do you find to be the least bad?

Let’s use the first one - the argument from motion, for the sake of simplicity. Aquinas assumed that motion is something like a “billiard ball”, it needs a cue-stick to be in motion, because left alone, it would be stationary. (Yes, I am aware that this is not 100% precise.) The problem is that Aquinas had an incorrect metaphysical assumption, namely that there IS a “stationary” state of affairs. He did not know that “motion” or “change” are inherent attributes of STEM. He had no idea about the theory of relativity, or the quantum mechanics. Of course one should not “blame” him, he was ignorant of real physics, so he had to resort to metaphysics.

So you think that some things can just move themselves, without a cue stick?

 

[PRmerger]

Why would I reject God, if he is the source of all good? But if I would reject God, why would that entail some form of “eternal torture or suffering”? After all here and now we are separated from God, no beatific vision, actually no vision at all, and this existence is not an “eternal torture”.

Because you choose yourself. Obviously.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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.

What the Pope did mention was a specific person who had demonstrated faith in God through baptizing his children.

The Pope in no way said what you have claimed.

This is quite simple.

Was the guy an atheist? Yes.
Did the pope say he was in heaven? Yes.

 

[vz71]

Was the guy an atheist? Yes.

An atheist that baptized his children.

The Pope considered it an act of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Really? Interesting.

What was the best answer he had, and why did it fail? (NB: understood that you weren’t impressed with ANY of his answers, but only fundamentalists cannot find a single good in the contra position.)

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Was the guy an atheist? Yes.

An atheist that baptized his children.

Job done. At last.

 

[JimG]

I suppose that atheists can enter heaven, but they probably stand outside the gates arguing with St. Peter at great length before deciding to enter.

 

[vz71]

What kind of atheist is it that performs acts of faith in God?

 

[Babaganoush]

I think the best approach would be to remain agnostic on the issue of who will be saved. Don’t judge others, because you aren’t the judge. But also don’t assume that anyone can be saved without Christ. I think it is kind of nonsensical to assume that atheists will be in heaven just because they might have good intentions. Many christians throughout history, including st Augustine believed that all men have good intentions even though their objectives might be evil. Many atheists fight against Christianity out of good intentions.

 

[Bradskii]

What kind of atheist is it that performs acts of faith in God?

One exactly like a good friend of mine who baptised his children because of his wife’s wishes.

 

[vz71]

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.”

It seems apparent the Pope is addressing an act of faith in God.
I doubt the atheistic claim.
His (the fathers) actions betray an underlying faith in God.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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

Really? Interesting.

What was the best answer he had, and why did it fail? (NB: understood that you weren’t impressed with ANY of his answers, but only fundamentalists cannot find a single good in the contra position.)

The best answer for God? He didn’t have one. But he had plenty for a god. It was a book for deists. Replace the name God with Thor and the arguments still stand.

I could now ask you which of his arguments for Thor did you think was the least best.

 

[Bradskii]

I doubt the atheistic claim.

I guess that was your last option.

 

[vz71]

Last option for what? You seem to be saying the same thing I have. That one cannot maintain atheism in heaven.

Either way, this is the Pope’s quote again
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.”

It seems apparent the Pope is addressing an act of faith in God.