Can an atheist ever go to Heaven?

[PRmerger]

I’d think that if someone developed a set of morals themselves, those morals would be ones that that person would use as a guide to his or her life.

Until he decides that he is no longer bound by them.

Revisit of an old discussion we had:

This reminds me of times when I was playing a game with my then 7yr old daughter in which she made all the rules. She told me, “You can’t walk on the carpet 'cause it’s hot lava”.

Ok. I complied. She complied.

Then she wanted something that was on the carpet and she walked over to get it, stating,
“Well, it’s not hot lava anymore!”

Okey dokey. She makes up the rules. She’s not bound by them. She can change them ad lib.

In the end, when one is bound by “no one but myself” when it comes to moral authority, it is essentially the same as “I am bound by nothing.”

 

[Bradski]

So consent + x = moral.

What is the x?

X is anything that causes no harm.

Would you like to - or are you pretty much good with that.

An afterlife sounds nice. I think most people would jump at the chance to live longer. Or again. That’s why all religions have it in the small print. I don’t think many would survive without it.

 

[PRmerger]

Has the church ever sanctioned marriage (and hence sex) for girls younger than it does now? And do you agree that having a lower limit of 14 is acceptable? Or would it depend on the situation and therefore be subjective.

This is an interesting question, Bradski. I was not aware of the Church, *a priori, *establishing a lower limit for girls to get married.

What is the age that you believe the Church has proclaimed? And can you cite your source please?

 

[PRmerger]

X is anything that causes no harm.

Well, this is the obscure part.

What you believe causes no harm may indeed cause harm. And vice versa.

 

[PRmerger]

An afterlife sounds nice. I think most people would jump at the chance to live longer. Or again. That’s why all religions have it in the small print. I don’t think many would survive without it.

Yes. And this desire is another argument for the existence of God. As CS Lewis said, paraphrasing, all human desires are for something that exists.

We desire food. Food exists.

We desire beauty. Beauty exists.

We desire sex. Sex exists.

We desire an afterlife…

 

[Bballer32]

X is anything that causes no harm.

Your definition of harm is based off what?

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t see any problem at all in the logic of using that example, meltzerboy.

So you, too, view consent as the litmus test for whether a sexual liaison is moral?

Not necessarily moral but also not necessarily criminal (despite anti-sodomy laws on the books), while having non-consensual sex with an underage child is neither moral nor legal in most countries.

 

[rciaguy]

Hello, everyone. This is my first foray into a Catholic Answers Forum, so bear with me.

To the original question, can an atheist ever get to heaven, I think the earliest answer that I saw in this thread, i.e. that only God knows and Catholics don’t ever make predictions about who ends up in hell, comes closest to answering the question. I would add only one thing: that if God decides that your life has been one of true atheism (a rejection of everything that constitutes life in God (and Christ), then heaven would be closed to you. Furthermore, this would NOT be because God wished to exclude you, but because you chose to exclude yourself. True Atheists would not be disallowed in Heaven, they would not be there because they refused to embrace the life that is Heaven. Anyone still asking this kind of question - can I get to heaven if I am an atheist - may be many things, but a true atheist he or she is not. A true atheist wouldn’t care about getting there, because he or she would be firm in the belief that heaven isn’t there to get to.

As to proof of God’s existence, something said by one of the other “threaders” resonated with me, i.e. the incredibly high standard of proof that would be God-deniers want to hold believers to. I have a legal background and, I would argue that the proof of the existence of a divine architect in our universe is well beyond the civil standard of balance of probabilities and even the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even science, which since the days of the Enlightenment has been advanced by some (not the Church, I might add) as the enemy of belief in God, itself uncovers more and more evidence on a daily basis of the existence of a wonderfully and incomprehensibly complex divinity. I have always believed this, but recently read a book by Thomas Dubay S.M., called The Evidential Power of Beauty. It is breathtaking in its scope and, in my view, clearly demonstrates that the real delusion, contra Dawkins, is the one held by those who, in the face of such overwhelming evidence of artistry, beauty, thought and love beyond all imagining, still question the existence of God.

 

[PRmerger]

Not necessarily moral but also not necessarily criminal (despite anti-sodomy laws on the books), while having non-consensual sex with an underage child is neither moral nor legal in most countries.

Ok. Well, adding the legal aspect just complicates things.

Let’s just look at how we discern the morality of sexual liaisons.

It’s been proposed that consent + no harm = moral.

And clearly sex with a minor harms so that = immoral.

The argument, then, is: sex with a member of one’s own gender is harmful and therefore = immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello, everyone. This is my first foray into a Catholic Answers Forum, so bear with me.

Welcome!

A true atheist wouldn’t care about getting there, because he or she would be firm in the belief that heaven isn’t there to get to.

Indeed.

As to proof of God’s existence, something said by one of the other “threaders” resonated with me, i.e. the incredibly high standard of proof that would be God-deniers want to hold believers to. I have a legal background and, I would argue that the proof of the existence of a divine architect in our universe is well beyond the civil standard of balance of probabilities and even the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Too true. Too true.

 

[Portofino]

What is the “x”?

Ironically, it’s the same “x” that would apply in any human interactions, period. Namely, “do not lie; do not cheat; do not manipulate; do not exploit.”

This is not to deny that not everyone has the same threshold for claiming that lying, cheating, manipulating, or exploiting has taken place.

Prostitution is a good example – is it inherently exploitative, even if it is consensual? Most would say yes.

Others could consider casual sex to be “mutual exploitation,” though that would require a somewhat more subtle reasoning, in a way that would “lose” a lot of people. That is, there would be more debate (whereas few would debate that rape is an act of violence).

That pre-marital sex within the context of a long-term (and, potentially, permanent) relationship is “mutually exploitative,” would be more subtle reasoning, still. There would be even more debate.

Then there would be forms of sexual conduct that --aside from questions of morality or immorality – are still self-destructive. By that I mean that promiscuous behavior – aside from questions of lying, cheating, or exploitation – would likely qualify as self-destructive behavior, in the same manner as alcoholism would.

Through a more subtle understanding, you could conclude that even alcoholism is “immoral” – for one thing, it endangers others and damages relationships – but, on the most obvious level, it is at least self-destructive.

 

[Cable]

X is anything that causes no harm.

An afterlife sounds nice. I think most people would jump at the chance to live longer. Or again. That’s why all religions have it in the small print. I don’t think many would survive without it.

but fringe benefits wasn’t the question

 

[Portofino]

Until he decides that he is no longer bound by them.

Revisit of an old discussion we had:

This reminds me of times when I was playing a game with my then 7yr old daughter in which she made all the rules. She told me, “You can’t walk on the carpet 'cause it’s hot lava”.

Ok. I complied. She complied.

Then she wanted something that was on the carpet and she walked over to get it, stating,
“Well, it’s not hot lava anymore!”

Okey dokey. She makes up the rules. She’s not bound by them. She can change them ad lib.

In the end, when one is bound by “no one but myself” when it comes to moral authority, it is essentially the same as “I am bound by nothing.”

Definitely, this can happen with non-believers; however, it can happen with believers, as well.

I’ve met at least a few Christians in my life who – in a way that bemused me, actually – tend to not always be “on” with their Christianity. It’s as if they’re shooting a movie, and there are times where they turn the camera off and behave “off the record.”

I’m not saying they’re perfect Christians – and no Christian is expected to be perfect, I’m sure – just that “lapses” in living up to one’s values are by no means endemic to non-believers.

As Bradski has pointed out, there is an ironic sense in which principled atheists may be more likely to live up to those values, precisely because those values are self-chosen. It is like when you own your own business – no one is a more dedicated employee – or when you are doing anything that comes from within yourself, and is not imposed from the outside.

Also, I’m personally a believer that there are always consequences to behavior, and that what we call “immoral” behavior (harm of others) will be conducive to suffering, in this life. This suffering could come in the form of guilt, remorse, or shame; it could take the form of losing a friend, or a spouse; it could take the form of fear of discovery, or, in a much more diffuse way, it could have negative effects on your life in even more subtle ways (for example, you’ve exploited and hurt many women in your life, and now – suddenly – you have a daughter, and all of that behavior comes back to haunt you).

 

[PRmerger]

Prostitution is a good example – is it inherently exploitative, even if it is consensual? Most would say yes.

Ah, yes! I am so glad you brought this up, and that, it appears, you seem to find it immoral.

Are you of the position that x = no harm?

If so, then what of the argument, proposed by some atheists here on the CAFs, that no one is harmed by prostitution and therefore it is moral?

What harm do you believe is encompassed in a sexual liaison between a prostitute and her client?

 

[PRmerger]

What is the “x”?

Ironically, it’s the same “x” that would apply in any human interactions, period. Namely, “do not lie; do not cheat; do not manipulate; do not exploit.”

This is not to deny that not everyone has the same threshold for claiming that lying, cheating, manipulating, or exploiting has taken place.

Prostitution is a good example – is it inherently exploitative, even if it is consensual? Most would say yes.

Others could consider casual sex to be “mutual exploitation,” though that would require a somewhat more subtle reasoning, in a way that would “lose” a lot of people. That is, there would be more debate (whereas few would debate that rape is an act of violence).

That pre-marital sex within the context of a long-term (and, potentially, permanent) relationship is “mutually exploitative,” would be more subtle reasoning, still. There would be even more debate.

Then there would be forms of sexual conduct that --aside from questions of morality or immorality – are still self-destructive. By that I mean that promiscuous behavior – aside from questions of lying,** cheating,** or exploitation – would likely qualify as self-destructive behavior, in the same manner as alcoholism would.

Through a more subtle understanding, you could conclude that even alcoholism is “immoral” – for one thing, it endangers others and damages relationships – but, on the most obvious level, it is at least self-destructive.

I find it interesting that you include “cheating” here as one of those universal wrongs that you seem to think that everyone, including atheists, find immoral.

It is interesting in light of a recemt conversation I had with none other than Bradski who has maintained that he wouldn’t see anything wrong with his son cheating on a test if his son assured him it harmed no one.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9540912&postcount=322

As a Christian, of course, I am astonished that someone would proclaim cheating to be an acceptable behavior.

I am curious as to how an atheist responds to the above.

 

[PRmerger]

Definitely, this can happen with non-believers; however, it can happen with believers, as well.

That it does occur is not the problem.

The fact is that it is not sanctioned by the Believer’s paradigm is the important concept.

In the atheistic paradigm, there is no prohibition against changing the rules because, by definition of atheism, one makes the rules.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, I’m personally a believer that there are always consequences to behavior, and that what we call “immoral” behavior (harm of others) will be conducive to suffering, in this life. This suffering could come in the form of guilt, remorse, or shame; it could take the form of losing a friend, or a spouse; it could take the form of fear of discovery, or, in a much more diffuse way, it could have negative effects on your life in even more subtle ways (for example, you’ve exploited and hurt many women in your life, and now – suddenly – you have a daughter, and all of that behavior comes back to haunt you).

This is, Portofino, a very Catholic paradigm you’ve espoused.

See Galatians 6:7.

And from our Catechism: Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

 

[Portofino]

Ah, yes! I am so glad you brought this up, and that, it appears, you seem to find it immoral.

Are you of the position that x = no harm?

If so, then what of the argument, proposed by some atheists here on the CAFs, that no one is harmed by prostitution and therefore it is moral?

What harm do you believe is encompassed in a sexual liaison between a prostitute and her client?

Well, I admit I cannot exclude – in principle – an encounter with a prostitute that was not non-exploitative, or marked by genuine intimacy. In that respect, I am a relativist – just as a Christian is a relativist, arguably, in making exceptions to the injunction “do not kill.” If the injunction not to kill is not absolute and inviolable, then it is a relative injunction (and the statement, “well, it’s not really killing,” ultimately a matter of semantics).

Ultimately, even if “do not exploit” is absolute, there is still the question of whether a particular behavior is exploitative, by definition.

Buying someone’s body for money is pretty exploitative. If you get to keep them, they’re your slave; if you just want to rent them for a little while, they’re a prostitute.

But, again, I don’t maintain that the experience of true intimacy – in the manner of a Sonia from “Crime and Punishment”, of a Liza from “Notes from the Underground,” or of the film “Leaving Las Vegas” (with Nicolas Cage) – is absolutely impossible, in the arms of a prostitute.

It would be a matter of not because of, but in spite of.

And, as regards exploitation, it is not just that you are “renting” them for money, as your temporary property, but – if they are impoverished, or feeding a drug habit – you are exploiting them as you would an impoverished worker, taking advantage of their need for the money you are paying them.

If they are mentally ill or mentally disturbed – in need of counseling – you are not part of their solution, but their problem; reinforcing the very things they are in need of counseling for. You are their “anti-psychologist.”

 

[Portofino]

This is, Portofino, a very Catholic paradigm you’ve espoused.

See Galatians 6:7.

And from our Catechism: Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

“Galatians 6:7” – “as you sow, so shall you reap.” Nice

I do have a Catholic friend who insists – rather unfashionably, though I agree with him – on the formula “virtue is happiness.” This was from Socrates, but the Buddhist and the Epicurean believed the same (“it is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly”–Epicurus).

My Catholic friend sees this as evidence of God (that only “goodness” will give you true, lasting inner peace and contentment) whereas the Buddhist or the Epicurean would say that it just is, and would not necessarily conclude that it is evidence of a higher order.

From my own reading of the gospels, this may be what Christ meant when he said, “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” The Tao te Ching has the similar line: “if a violent man does not come to a violent end, I shall have him teach me.”

Of course, you could argue that many Christians did come to a violent end; yet, in going to their deaths, they still had inner serenity and peace of mind. A truly violent man – a Stalin, for example – even if he doesn’t die a violent death, knows no peace within himself (whether through fear and paranoia, anger and resentment, or chronic dissatisfaction).

 

[Michael_Francis]

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)