Can an atheist ever go to Heaven?

[sophion]

You have to ask yourself,
Why would a person who has rejected another person,
want to spend the rest of his life
with that person?
What sense does that make?

depends on the reason for the rejection.

• were you rejected because he hated you despite knowing the fact that you are there caring for him?
• were you rejected because you were not there when he needed you? and neither can he find any traces of you?

for me the last one deserves a second chance.

 

[JRKH]

says there:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

ok so an atheist who had given up on the concept god, in catholic theology its practically unlikely for them to be saved.

It would be extremely difficult - yes.

Consider what a person embraces when they reject the existence of God.

The Believer embraces the potential of God…The possibilities of God and the Promises of God…Even if the person is unable to fully understand God or to “prove” His existence. At death such a person approaches God with hope and Love.
The Agnostic leaves open at least the possibility of God even though he cannot bring himself to fully embrace God. At death such a one may approach God with curiosity - a wonder and excitement to understand that which he was unable to understand in life.

But the Atheist…By definition has rejected God as a possibility.
So when the Atheist dies - and comes face to face with the Judge - who he has denied even exists, the most likely response is going to be extreme terror and a recoiling from Him - in short - a spontaneous, final rejection of God and the consequent condemnation of himself.

So - my advice to the Atheist is to at least move more into the Agnostic camp. Continue to read, and study and seek. Do not “reject” but instead leave the door open. you may be surprised…

Peace
James

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Are you saying that if you didn’t believe in God you wouldn’t know the difference?

I would say that is so.

For atheists being “good” (whatever that means to atheists) is covenient and makes sense, as they say. Because it makes sense in society to give and take and everyone can get along. Jesus says to get along and love thy neighbor, no matter what and even when they do you wrong. Even if it doesnt make sense to love them back and even if it isnt convenient, He says to love them regardless.

Convenience is not compassion and even Jesus makes note of that when he says, “even sinners do that.”

 

[Portofino]

One of the things I appreciate about the Superman films, actually, is that Lois Lane is in love with the man who is Clark Kent, in a certain sense; she just doesn’t know it (and yet, on some level, she does).

A non-believer could theoretically be exhibiting a great deal of love of God, without knowing it – through love of neighbor, for example. Their “state of grace” could exist on the level of an almost pre-conscious intuition.

Or, as been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, an atheist can profess no belief in God and yet have a quite strong belief in morality. If God really is love (as per the epistle of John) then this means that such a non-believer has not truly rejected God, in his heart.

If this atheist comes to some conscious awareness of divinity during his lifetime, all-the-better; but I don’t think that conscious acknowledgement of God is necessary to acceptance of God (and, ironically, there are many who consciously acknowledge God–with their minds–yet reject God–with their hearts–by using God as a means of indulging hatred or intolerance).

 

[JRKH]

One of the things I appreciate about the Superman films, actually, is that Lois Lane is in love with the man who is Clark Kent, in a certain sense; she just doesn’t know it (and yet, on some level, she does).

A non-believer could theoretically be exhibiting a great deal of love of God, without knowing it – through love of neighbor, for example. Their “state of grace” could exist on the level of an almost pre-conscious intuition.

Or, as been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, an atheist can profess no belief in God and yet have a quite strong belief in morality. If God really is love (as per the epistle of John) then this means that such a non-believer has not truly rejected God, in his heart.

If this atheist comes to some conscious awareness of divinity during his lifetime, all-the-better; but I don’t think that conscious acknowledgement of God is necessary to acceptance of God (and, ironically, there are many who consciously acknowledge God–with their minds–yet reject God–with their hearts–by using God as a means of indulging hatred or intolerance).

Some good stuff here…

Peace
James

 

[Cable]

,They’re more common than one would think, and I assure you I am.

You’re saying you lack even the slightest morsel of belief that there’s a God - I’m not buying it because it’s rare. If you’re saying you reject whatever amount of faith in God you have, then yes, I can see that - and to make that choice now is somewhat de rigeur.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Or, as been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, an atheist can profess no belief in God and yet have a quite strong belief in morality. .

Most of this sounds fine amd dandy, except… where does this atheistic morality come from? And what is the reason for it?

 

[Bradski]

Bradski, you are right, you cannot choose to believe what you do not know, but you can choose to reject what you do know or not sufficiently pursue what is quite plausible knowing that a great deal hangs on it.

And how long should I follow a particular path before trying another?

 

[Bradski]

You’re saying you lack even the slightest morsel of belief that there’s a God - I’m not buying it because it’s rare. If you’re saying you reject whatever amount of faith in God you have, then yes, I can see that - and to make that choice now is somewhat de rigeur.

I’m pretty certain that you have absolutely zero belief in Shiva. Or Krishna. Or Jah. What you’re actually expressing is amazement that someone doesn’t believe in your god.

Most of this sounds fine amd dandy, except… where does this atheistic morality come from? And what is the reason for it?

Morality? Mate, we’re too busy raping and pillaging for any of that fancy ‘morality’ you keep on about. That’s just some nonsense for those religious people.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Morality? Mate, we’re too busy raping and pillaging for any of that fancy ‘morality’ you keep on about. That’s just some nonsense for those religious people.

Just because a group of people decide not to rape or pillage doesn’t automatically make them moral. You could even say that not raping and pillaging is not done our of morality, but out of convenience (which I believe all “atheistic morality” boils down to in the end). If you rape and pillage, you will either go to jail or get killed doing that, so it makes sense for people not to do that. That isn’t morality, it’s common sense.

 

[Portofino]

I would say that is so.

For atheists being “good” (whatever that means to atheists) is covenient and makes sense, as they say. Because it makes sense in society to give and take and everyone can get along. Jesus says to get along and love thy neighbor, no matter what and even when they do you wrong. Even if it doesnt make sense to love them back and even if it isnt convenient, He says to love them regardless.

Convenience is not compassion and even Jesus makes note of that when he says, “even sinners do that.”

Saying that atheists are good only out of convenience, or because they fear the police – or fear retaliation from their neighbor – is like saying that Christians are good only because they fear hell. Ultimately, it’s an unjust assessment, in most cases.

Compassionate non-believers care about their neighbor because they see their neighbor as part of their extended family (which is ultimately what Jesus preached, in employing the words “brothers and sisters”!) They see themselves in their neighbor, and their neighbor in themselves (“my neighbor has feelings, just as I have feelings; my neighbor feels pain, just as I feel pain; just as I want to live, so my neighbor wants to live; just as I have to die, so my neighbor has to die”). Because they feel empathy, a part of them inhabits everyone they meet, and a part of everyone they meet inhabits them (“abide in me, and
I in you”).

You could ask, “why have empathy?” and they might respond, “why not have empathy?” Those with empathy have an added dimension of awareness that those who do not, lack – namely, an awareness that other people exist and are as “real” as they are. The more self-aware you are, the more there is an awareness of the existence of others.

 

[Bradski]

You could even say that not raping and pillaging is not done our of morality, but out of convenience…

If I treat you with kindness and there is no ulterior motive I’d suggest that you may well assume that the act was genuinely good, done for it’s own sake. That I thought it was the right thing to do. That, with no guide to morality, I had worked out myself that it was the right think to do.

If you do me a kindness, how do I know if you’re doing it because you know it’s the right thing to do as opposed to doing it because you have been told it’s the right thing to do?

If an atheist does an anonymous altruistic act, it must be for it’s own sake. No-one will know. But it could be said that there’s no such thing as altruistic behaviour by a Christian because God is watching and giving you a couple of brownie points each time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And how long should I follow a particular path before trying another?

Length of time is irrelevant. It’s the quality and sincerity of commitment to the path that counts.

 

[kbwall]

God alone has final say on every soul. However, since you seem to be in the mood to speculate your eternal destination, here are some factors to consider.

There is invincible ignorance, that is you honestly don’t know better. Again, only God can know how invincible your ignorance is. The simple fact that you’re on a Catholic forum means you have at least some knowledge of Christ, and still choose to reject Him. Still, only God will determine if your ignorance is invincible. I’d say you have at least some subconscious belief in God, and you’re not all that rooted into atheism. You claim this is hypothetical, but why bother if you really didn’t believe? I mean, I don’t care where other religions say I’m going after death.

There is also the issue of your morality. You claim to be a good person, but are you really? First off, you’re not a Christian, so I highly doubt you follow Christian morals. Big thing in today’s society; sexuality. Do you abstain from fornication, porn, and masturbation? Do you lie, even if it’s just on occassion? Ever gotten angry at somebody? All those things are sins in the eyes of God. Yeah, I reckon you’re not a serial killer, but Jesus made it quite clear that actually many people will end up in Hell, not just the serial killers and horrible dictators.

Like I said, only God has final say, and it is not my place to judge. I only brought up a few things to consider if you wish to speculate on your own fate. The Church’s position on atheists is pretty much that they have a shot.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If I treat you with kindness and there is no ulterior motive I’d suggest that you may well assume that the act was genuinely good, done for it’s own sake. That I thought it was the right thing to do. That, with no guide to morality, I had worked out myself that it was the right think to do.

If you do me a kindness, how do I know if you’re doing it because you know it’s the right thing to do as opposed to doing it because you have been told it’s the right thing to do?

If an atheist does an anonymous altruistic act, it must be for it’s own sake. No-one will know. But it could be said that there’s no such thing as altruistic behaviour by a Christian because God is watching and giving you a couple of brownie points each time.

That would be a shallow notion of motive. The Christian idea is not that God merely sees your acts from an external perspective but knows the truth of each and every thought that passes through your mind, in addition to every want and desire in your heart. Which means a true Christian cannot engage in self-deception but must be completely open and transparent to God, the living ground of all reality. There is no fooling him and no hiding behind a concocted self-image. An atheist may, in keeping things private, be quite capable of harboring precious and idyllic, but unwarranted, notions about themselves.

 

[Bradski]

Length of time is irrelevant. It’s the quality and sincerity of commitment to the path that counts.

So did you start with Christianity? It would have been a lot of wasted time and sincere commitment if you’d picked what would have turned out for you to be the wrong religion as the first to investigate.

 

[Bradski]

That would be a shallow notion of motive. The Christian idea is not that God merely sees your acts from an external perspective but knows the truth of each and every thought that passes through your mind.

A guy is working late at the office and sees five bucks on a desk. He could take it and no-one would know. He doesn’t take it.

Another guy in another office is working late and sees five bucks on a desk. The office is covered by closed circuit TV. He doesn’t take it either.

We know for a fact that the first guy acted morally. We don’t know that about the second.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So did you start with Christianity? It would have been a lot of wasted time and sincere commitment if you’d picked what would have turned out for you to be the wrong religion as the first to investigate.

I started with and continue to look for truth, wherever that leads. There is nothing in Catholicism that after diligent and fair-minded analysis has been shown contrary to truth. It may appear to some that there are issues, but I would dispute that and am willing to defend that position.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A guy is working late at the office and sees five bucks on a desk. He could take it and no-one would know. He doesn’t take it.

Another guy in another office is working late and sees five bucks on a desk. The office is covered by closed circuit TV. He doesn’t take it either.

We know for a fact that the first guy acted morally. We don’t know that about the second.

What’s your point? God is not an external closed circuit monitor that only sees what you do. He sees every thought and motive in your heart including your thoughts about the closed circuit camera and perhaps that you even had to deliberate this to prove you are better than the average Christian. What are you trying to prove and why?

 

[Bradski]

I started with and continue to look for truth, wherever that leads. There is nothing in Catholicism that after diligent and fair-minded analysis has been shown contrary to truth. It may appear to some that there are issues, but I would dispute that and am willing to defend that position.

I’m not trying to demean your faith. And I’m sure that you could defend your position as well as any other person from any other religion could defend theirs. But if you can’t find truth in the natural world (and it’s there if you apply yourself diligently and with a fair mind), then there are plenty of options that would take you a lifetime to even scratch the surface of but a few.

It must have crossed your mind at some point that an awful lot of people never investigate what the options are. Why would you say that is?

What’s your point? God is not an external closed circuit monitor that only sees what you do. He sees every thought and motive in your heart including your thoughts about the closed circuit camera and perhaps that you even had to deliberate this to prove you are better than the average Christian. What are you trying to prove and why?

The point I am making is partly in response to questions as to how an atheist could possible act morally if he or she doesn’t believe in that particular person’s deity. A person who doesn’t believe that they are being watched constantly and acts in a moral way is obviously doing so because he feels it is the correct thing to do.

We have Christians on this forum who have plainly stated that they wouldn’t know the difference between right and wrong if it wasn’t for their belief in God. That is, if God didn’t exist, they might have taken that five bucks.

They are, in fact, saying that they act morally because they are Christian. Wouldn’t it be better for them to say that they act morally and they are Christian?