Do you have an idea how good Atheist will be saved?

[alitaptap]

It has been my experience that, in most cases, it is not so much that Atheists reject God, as it its they reject the images of God that have been presented to them by organized religion.

References I’ve heard to “fairy stories” and “magic men” or “magic beings” etc. seem ample proof that many atheists are reacting only to “God” as seen through the eyes of ancient man.

Maybe because atheists view fairy stories as fiction so they don’t react negatively.

 

[firstmode]

I think a strong atheist, as in a person who out of his way denies the existance and will of God, as opposed to a general irreligious person or an agnostic will not be saved. I think this because by directly denying God in general they are in effect denying and blaspheming against the Holy Spirit the vehicle of salvation, which as Christ said himself is an unforgivable sin that results in damnation.

Of course God is omnibenevolent so a righteous atheist of the sort i described may be saved by the divine mercy and grace of God, however i think on the whole, a strong atheist condemns themselves to oblivion.

---

As to agnosics and weak atheists, I think there may be a possibility of salvation, of course depending on each individual and God’s grace.

I think that our most righteous acts are like filthy rags unto the Lord. I do not feel there is anything good enough that an atheist can do their whole lives for God to forgive them for ignoring his son and all the people that were sent into their lives preaching his son.

 

[firstmode]

So, saved from what?

To a Jewish person, what happens to an Atheist when then die? What do they see?

 

[Cristian_B]

I don’t know what people have said in this thread but I’ll say my opinion.

I believe that Christians and non-Christians know the story of the crucifixion of how Jesus was crucified between two criminals. One repented and one didn’t. This can be taken in another meaning. This represents the world. There is Christ, who though He is innocent decided to be on the cross so we might me saved; and the two criminals represent the rest of mankind. There is one who heard of Jesus and mocked/rejected Him and there are others who heard of Jesus and accepted Him. There is no other way. All humanity is condemned because all humanity has sinned. There is none without sin, except the one between the two: Jesus Christ. He came to receive the punishment of sin (death) in our stead. We are all already condemned to the capital punishment. Do you believe that the man on the cross can do anything to change His situation? There is nothing a man can do to save himself without accepting Christ. Christ came on the cross as our substitute. We can only be saved if one takes our punishment in our stead. That already happened at the crucifixion when Christ died (death is the punishment for sin) on the cross. Now by accepting Him and the fact that He died in our stead we are saved, meaning that we don’t have to receive our punishment since He received it in our stead.

After saying all this, no matter how good you are, if after receiving the Good News (i.e.: Gospel) you deny Christ there is no one to receive your punishment in you stead. There is no salvation outside Christ because He is the only One that could receive our punishment in our stead, because He is the only righteous one.

 

[alitaptap]

just a thought…

there was a man who had a haircut. during the process, the barber and the man had a conversation, which ultimately lead to religion.

b: you know, i don’t believe in God.
m: why so?
b: because a lot of things happen and God doesn’t do anything.
at this the man pondered what his barber said and he noticed a group of teeners with un kept hair. so he said:
you know, i don’t believe in barbers.
b: what? i’m standing here! i’m a barber!
m: yeah but why don’t you do anything about those teens with un kept hair.
b: they don’t come to me.
m: well, it’s the same with God, if we don’t come to him then nothing will happen.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH:
It has been my experience that, in most cases, it is not so much that Atheists reject God, as it its they reject the images of God that have been presented to them by organized religion.

I’m not sure what you are, “making easy for me”. In what you write above you merely confirm what I have said.

I don’t reject these things out of “faith,” but out of the fact that there is no evidence for any such thing. I will not accept the existence of any such things until there is sufficient, confirmed evidence for them.

But do you also reject the possiblity that things exist, in or out of the universe, for which there is, at present, no evidence for? Do you reject the possibility that there are things Man has not yet conceived as yet?
Do you also reject the idea that there are things that man, with his limited intellect, cannot truly fathom and therefore must use analogies for. Examples might be the relative size of planets. It is virtually incomprehensable to the human experience to understand the various sizes and distances of planets. So we use analogies like, if earth is like a Golf ball then Saturn would be like a basketball.

Unless you are completely closed off to anything that is not already proven, you will agree that there are possibilities for things to exist which have not been “discovered” yet. You will also grant that man is limited in his ability to understand certain concepts and therefore must explain things in “relative terms” that the human mind can grasp rather than in terms that accurately describe the object itself.

Nonsense. I have plenty of hope – in friends, in family, in art, in my own achievements, in my community, in life itself.

I also am mature enough to accept that life must eventually end and that I’m not some super-special magical being that’s gonna live forever and ever ever. That’s all.

But your hope is finite. You are “mature enough” to accept death, but also immature enough to reject the possibility of something more.
Now whether that “something more” is, “some super-special magical being”, (The image presented to our limited intelligence) or whether it might be something quite different in reality we cannot know.
I just find it sad that those who reject the possibility of God because there is “no evidence” (or at least not evidence they will accept) are quite willing to accept the possibility of things that are not God even though there is no evidence yet.

Peace
James

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m not sure what you are, “making easy for me”. In what you write above you merely confirm what I have said.

You said people reject the “image of god,” by which I assumed you meant the risible idea of a big bearded man in the sky who’s supposed to stop bad guys who go bump in the night. I’m “making it easy for you” by telling you that I reject not only that image, but also the very idea of an intelligent being without a body.

If by “god,” you mean something other than an intelligent being without a body, you’ll have to tell me what you mean.

But do you also reject the possiblity that things exist, in or out of the universe, for which there is, at present, no evidence for?

Of course not. I fully accept that there are very likely plenty of things that we do not yet have evidence, and I furthermore grant that it is possible that some god exists – whether your god, the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Norse gods, or anything else.

However, granting a possibility is not the same as belief. For example, to change subjects entirely, I grant that it is possible that leprechauns live under my house. However, given the lack of evidence, I do not believe that to be the case, and given that there is absolutely no evidence for it – and no evidence that there are even such things as leprechauns – I’m fine with saying that I reject belief in the claim that leprechauns live under my house until such time as evidence is presented.

The case is similar with gods (NOTE: I am comparing my lack of belief in gods to my lack of belief in leprechauns. I am not comparing gods to leprechauns – I know they are different claims). I grant that it is possible that gods exist. However, given the lack of evidence, I do not believe it to be the case, and given that there is absolutely no evidence for it – and no evidence that there are even such things as gods – I’m fine with saying that I reject belief in the claim that gods exist until such time as evidence is presented.

But your hope is finite. You are “mature enough” to accept death, but also immature enough to reject the possibility of something more.

As I explained above, I don’t reject the possibility. I reject belief in the claim.

I just find it sad that those who reject the possibility of God because there is “no evidence” (or at least not evidence they will accept) are quite willing to accept the possibility of things that are not God even though there is no evidence yet.

Well, I have good news for you – you don’t have to be sad, as I do not do that.

alitaptap:

: b: you know, i don’t believe in God.
m: why so?
b: because a lot of things happen and God doesn’t do anything.

Just for the record, I have found that “atheists” who base their reasons for not believing on the childish “a lot of [bad] things happen and God doesn’t do anything” argument are almost always basing their arguments on sentimentality, emotion, and nonsense – instead of logic.

The proper reason not to believe in a god is that there is no evidence for one. God might very well exist and be an evil tyrant by human standards. “God lets bad things happen” fails as an argument, and the “atheists” who make this argument can often be swayed back to their original religion with more sentimental tripe.

 

[Cristian_B]

The proper reason not to believe in a god is that there is no evidence for one.

There is evidence. The problem is that people are looking for a particular form of evidence. If they don’t have that kind of evidence, they label the existing evidence as non-evidence (I’m not sure if that word exists), even though evidence does exist.

 

[AntiTheist]

There is evidence. The problem is that people are looking for a particular form of evidence. If they don’t have that kind of evidence, they label the existing evidence as non-evidence (I’m not sure if that word exists), even though evidence does exist.

Well, give me an example of what you’re talking about – your best piece of evidence that points clearly and undeniably to the existence of your god.

I really hope that your “evidence” isn’t the warm, fuzzy feelings that people get when they pray or unconfirmable stories of magic or an argument from ignorance (“Well, no one knows how the universe started so…let’s just say god did it!”)

 

[Cristian_B]

Well, give me an example of what you’re talking about – your best piece of evidence that points clearly and undeniably to the existence of your god.

I really hope that your “evidence” isn’t the warm, fuzzy feelings that people get when they pray or unconfirmable stories of magic or an argument from ignorance (“Well, no one knows how the universe started so…let’s just say god did it!”)

Posting what I know will just get this thread off topic, but I’ll just start with a question and then put the main ideas of why God exists, hoping that finally it won’t lead this thread off-topic.

AntiTheist, what is [perhaps] your first logical deduction when you see the following photo?

http://chriscontiweddings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/pile-of-rocks.jpg

I hope that you agree with me that it is obvious someone made that pile of rocks. Or let’s take the example of Stonehenge. Why is it so hard for people to believe that Stonehenge could be create by nature? After all, it is not that complex: just a pile of rocks. Nature could have created them more easily than inert matter creating life. It does not seem logical to me that evolutionists claim that man created Stonehenge but deny the fact that Nature created Stonehenge. On the other hand, they say that life was created accidentally from inert matter. Ironical, and a little dishonest, isn’t it? People don’t like the idea of being accountable to someone, so by saying that life can originate from inert matter they make themselves their own gods and they have the liberty to do whatever they please. But back to what I was talking about: to say that nature can’t create some rocks like those in Stonehenge (or even the pile of rocks in the image above) but to say that life can be produced accidentally. Hard to believe. Anyway, I realize this won’t satisfy your ‘hunger’ for evidence.

These are the two main proofs:

1. 
   *]Fulfillment of prophecy.
   *]Complexity of life and nature.
   
   I don’t have time and the number of letters (a limit of 6000) in this post is limited so choose one of the above which I’ll elaborate a bit.

 

[romesweethome]

Similarly, I’m the kind of person you’d probably call a “good person” if you hung out with me, but I don’t see any evidence or reason to think that there are any gods of any kind.

If it’s true that “good atheists” are saved even without having to believe in a god, then I’m set either way. There would be no point to me believing claims for which there is no evidence.

The principles of Christianity(ie. the golden rule) did not exist prior to the Judeo-Christian faith and the evidence of behavior of athiests proved this. Therefore one cannot mimic the Christian life while at the same time claim the rewards of the Christian life, which is eternal life with God after this world. No one is good apart from God because nothing is good without God. God is goodness itself. You can mimic those who have the life of God within them all one likes, but once again, the rewards will not come to fruition in your life now, nor in the next. This would be like trying to claim you are the president of the united states, and even act as if you are and dress the part. In reality, you are no more the president of the united states then my dog dixie although you claim to hold the same authority, power and servanthood.

peace, rsh

 

[AntiTheist]

Anyway, I realize this won’t satisfy your ‘hunger’ for evidence.

You correctly state that nothing in your post comes anywhere close to evidence.

I asked you for evidence, and you go off on this poorly-reasoned rant, which I suppose is a taste of what you’re going to say if I pick “The Complexity of Life and Nature.”

So I’ll pick that one and point out that complexity, in and of itself, does not indicate that a disembodied intelligence is organizing the universe. In fact, evolution demonstrates that complex things come from simple things – the idea of an intelligence existing all by itself contradicts the obvserved evidence that complex things come from simpler things.

If you can seriously reason your way from “there are complex things” to “therefore, there’s a supernatural being who created complexity” – and your logic is both sound and valid – then you are going to win a nobel prize for your work. Let’s see your logical process.

[Incidentally, no one says it’s “impossible” for Stonehenge to have occurred naturally – anymore than it’s impossible for that “face” on the Mars rocks to have occurred naturally – it’s that we have examples of human civilizations erecting standing stones and of standing stones being significant to the religion of that particular civilization…that’s how we know it’s man-made…it has nothing to do with the “complexity” of the rocks]

romesweethome [cute name]:

The principles of Christianity(ie. the golden rule) did not exist prior to the Judeo-Christian faith

Oh, goody! A demonstrable falsehood.

Have a look at this page, entitled “Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 World Religions”: religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

I’ll direct your attention to quotations from the Confucian philosopher Mencius, who predates Christianity probably by a good three or four hundred years: “Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Mencius VII.A.4

Please retract your false statement.

and the evidence of behavior of athiests proved this.

What are you thinking of here?

 

[romesweethome]

You correctly state that nothing in your post comes anywhere close to evidence.

I asked you for evidence, and you go off on this poorly-reasoned rant, which I suppose is a taste of what you’re going to say if I pick “The Complexity of Life and Nature.”

So I’ll pick that one and point out that complexity, in and of itself, does not indicate that a disembodied intelligence is organizing the universe. In fact, evolution demonstrates that complex things come from simple things – the idea of an intelligence existing all by itself contradicts the obvserved evidence that complex things come from simpler things.

If you can seriously reason your way from “things are complicated” to “therefore, there’s a supernatural being who made it complicated” – and your logic is both sound and valid – then you are going to win a nobel prize for your work. Let’s see your logical process.

[Incidentally, no one says it’s “impossible” for Stonehenge to have occurred naturally – anymore than it’s impossible for that “face” on the Mars rocks to have occurred naturally – it’s that we have examples of human civilizations errecting standing stones and of standing stones being significant to the religion of that particular civilization…that’s how we know it’s man-made…it has nothing to do with the “complexity” of the rocks]

romesweethome [cute name]: Oh, goody! A demonstrable falsehood.

Have a look at this page, entitled “Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 World Religions”: religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

I’ll direct your attention to quotations from the Confucian philosopher Mencius, who predates Christianity probably by a good three or four hundred years: “Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Mencius VII.A.4

Please retract your false statement.

What are you thinking of here?

please show me where christian principles are lived out on a grand scale in the world previous to judaism and christianity. please give me your sources. thanks rsh

 

[AntiTheist]

please show me where christian principles are lived out on a grand scale in the world previous to judaism and christianity. please give me your sources. thanks rsh

You didn’t claim that – you claimed that Christian principles – and you specifically cited the Golden Rule – did not exist prior to Judeo-Christianity.

I have shown that statement to be false. If you’d like to retract the claim you made and then make a new claim – one that’s actually correct – you may.

But the first step is admitting that you were wrong. I thought Christians considered humility a virtue?

 

[romesweethome]

You didn’t claim that – you claimed that Christian principles – and you specifically cited the Golden Rule – did not exist prior to Judeo-Christianity.

I have shown that statement to be false. If you’d like to retract the claim you made and then make a new claim – one that’s actually correct – you may.

But the first step is admitting that you were wrong. I thought Christians considered humility a virtue?

lol, maybe you misunderstood my post. All athiestic leaders and groups before, during and after judaism and christianity existed, bore fruits of murder, opression and the like, as their norm. judaism and christianity have never bore these fruits as their norm. I am asking you to please show me where athiests claimed the golden rule and lived by it previous to judaism and christianity. obviously this would have to be on a large scale and visible enough to be able to point out in history(ie. on a grand scale).

peace rsh

 

[AntiTheist]

lol, maybe you misunderstood my post.

I read your words just fine. The problem is that you didn’t say all of this in your first post. Here’s a good lesson: type the words that you actually mean to say.

All athiestic leaders and groups before, during and after judaism and christianity existed, bore fruits of murder, opression and the like, as their norm. judaism and christianity have never bore these fruits as their norm.

Well, aside from the fact that Christianity indeed bore the “fruit” of the Crusades and various other historical atrocities, it’s impossible for atheism to “bear fruit” in the same way, as atheism is a position on a question, not a dogma or a doctrine.

You can have a religion “breaing the fruits” of violence because religions can contain commandments like, “suffer not a witch to live” or orders to reclaim the holy lands from the infidels.

But atheism has no commandments. It’s just a position on a single question (are there gods?). It’s impossible to logically derive violent acts from atheism in the way that it’s possibble to logically to derive violent acts from religion.

Now, it is possible to derive violence from a political ideology or a religious doctrine – but not from a single position on a single question.

 

[Scotist]

You can have a religion “breaing the fruits” of violence because religions can contain commandments like, “suffer not a witch to live” or orders to reclaim the holy lands from the infidels…But atheism has no commandments. It’s just a position on a single question (are there gods?). It’s impossible to logically derive violent acts from atheism in the way that it’s possibble to logically to derive violent acts from religion

Right, then the opposite is true as well, “it’s impossible to logically derive good acts from atheism the way it i’s possible to derive good acts from religion.” (thou shall not kill, do not commit adultery, take care of the poor, give the other cheek, etc)

If atheism has no connection with morality, why are atheists so consistently in favor of abortion, sodomy, and euthanasia?

Last time I checked most orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews rejected such things.

 

[Kaninchen]

From hell, many Protestants and Muslims believe that being outside their group always gets you a one-way ticket to hell. A mad, unjust belief in my opinion.

Again,it is not a Catholic doctrine.

Oh, I’ve been around CAF long enough to have watched a few ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus’ and ‘Nostra Aetate’ rows and to know that it’s not as simple as that!

 

[Kaninchen]

To a Jewish person, what happens to an Atheist when then die? What do they see?

We’re not exactly clear on what happens to a ‘Jewish person’, never mind anybody else!

 

[JRKH]

There is evidence. The problem is that people are looking for a particular form of evidence. If they don’t have that kind of evidence, they label the existing evidence as non-evidence (I’m not sure if that word exists), even though evidence does exist.

Well, give me an example of what you’re talking about – your best piece of evidence that points clearly and undeniably to the existence of your god.

I really hope that your “evidence” isn’t the warm, fuzzy feelings that people get when they pray or unconfirmable stories of magic or an argument from ignorance (“Well, no one knows how the universe started so…let’s just say god did it!”)

Christian B has made a clear point about evidence and Antitheist has confirmed his observation by his request for an example which immediately contains conditions for acceptability.

Let us consider the type of “evidence” requested by Antitheist. He says it must be “Clear and undeniable”. Clear and undeniable to whom and by what standard? Is there any evidence for anything that cannot be denied?
The theist says, just look at the world the huge expanse of the universe, etc. etc. the mere fact of it is proof that there is an intelligence behind it.
The athiest says that this does not prove “God”.

But consider -
I watched program a while back about Einstein and his theories etc. They we discussing Gravity. Now Gravity has been “known”, that is, in evidence since the dawn of man. First man had no name for it, he only knew intuitavely and experientially that, “what goes up must come down”. Eventually someone (newton I think) developed some laws relating to Gravity.
Through all of this, the experiential data and development of physical law, no one really knew how gravity worked. All anyone knew was that we were stuck to the earth. That somehow, larger bodies pulled smaller bodies towards them.
Then along comes Einstein and talks about bending space etc. An Idea that is seen as preposterous by many in the scientific world of the time.
Long story short, it took many years/decades to be able to demonstrate that light (and space) does indeed bend around objects. Low and behold it now appears that we are not held on the earth by the earth’s “pull” but by the “push” of bent space.

Thus it is that things that are “clear and undeniable” to men of science for many years, and even centuries, can be overturned by some future evidence. Evidence that was not even conceivable just a few years before. Of course for these men of science to develop and then prove such new ideas require that they be willing to look at ideas and evidences in a new way. They must be willing to “think outside the box” of “clear and undeniable” evidence.

Peace
James