Does an atheist go to heaven?

[vz71]

Now he was a believer. If it had been Jesus as opposed to a china dalmation, would he have believed it was real?

The question was about you specifically. I was not asking about your father.

You say I need faith which I would need to want in the first instance. And I say I need proof, which denies the need for faith and is not available in any case. So the question really is unanswerable.

I do not recall that specific, but your claim that the question is unanswerable is very telling.
At least you are open enough to admit there is no convincing you.

 

[vz71]

God does not talk to ANYONE, HERE and NOW. We have all sorts of recording devices, quite unlike in ancient times. There would be no need to “believe” in some dubious “testimonials”, when there would be crystal clear, colored videos to prove that God is real.

I know many people right now that claim otherwise. That they do -in fact- hear God speaking to them. You simply dismiss them all, carte blanc, as dubious is duplicitous at best. it is a position that requires a great deal of faith since you must believe many things about a great number of people without actually checking.

That some people believe the bible as “evidence”… does not make it so.

The eyewitness testimony of thousands is very strong evidence.

Real evidence, physical evidence cannot be explained away. Not that atheists would want to explain away real evidence.

Actually, your friend earlier already explained this to me.
Real is readily explainable. It is simply an hallucination.
Any other testimonies are simply the reports of dubious sources and should not be believed.

You have dismissed out of hand eyewitness testimonies now, as well as the eyewitness testimonies written down from the past.

What exactly are you looking for?

 

[vz71]

There is no evidence of any “eye-witness” testimonies, either from today or from the past.

The bible very specifically mentions eyewitness testimonies.
And as for today…

I know many people right now that claim otherwise. That they do -in fact- hear God speaking to them. You simply dismiss them all, carte blanc, as dubious is duplicitous at best. it is a position that requires a great deal of faith since you must believe many things about a great number of people without actually checking.

The claim that there is no evidence from the past or now is not just false, but shown false in the last few posts before you made the accusation.

 

[Pattylt]

What exactly are you looking for?

I admit I would be a tough nut to crack but a personal, private revelation to me would convince me. I’m not sure what it would look like but if I felt that it was a real revelation, I would believe it.

One of the biggest reasons I left faith in God is because my faith was failing, I didn’t want it to, and I begged God to come back…to help me…to give me something to hold on to. Silence.

I can not trust personal or eyewitness accounts of others. They aren’t mine. It’s theirs. I also, during my failing faith phase read and reread the Bible a lot. In further studies I discovered what scholarship had to say. Unfortunately this has now left me unable to believe the Bible as anything other than some very biased believers trying to keep other believers in the fold. You can’t unlearn what you have learned.

God would know what to do to bring me back. I still ask and seek on occasion. I call myself agnostic as I admit I just don’t or can’t know. The call is up to God. I’m here waiting whenever.

 

[vz71]

I can not trust personal or eyewitness accounts of others. They aren’t mine. It’s theirs.

I was asking a specific person, but you have convinced me.
It was a specific question meant for any one.

What exactly are you looking for?
At the very least it helps us all to know if someone is simply a close minded rock thrower, or if they are really after a specific…or if they were denied a specific at one time or another and lost their faith.

Being unable to trust testimony of others is a problem.
Is this an absolute or is this a question of degrees?

In a jury trial, the jury rarely is handed evidence that is experienced first hand. It is almost always the eyewitness account of another.
Is a single witness saying they witnessed the murder enough to condemn a man for life? Perhaps two witnesses? Twenty?
Or are you of the opinion that if you had not witnessed first hand the murder, you cannot condemn one for the murder no matter the evidence presented?

Do you require the same degree of evidence for a condemnation of a man as you would for something that is life fulfilling instead?

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Jesus spoke to st faustina. And realitively recently

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Many atheists hate the concept of God.

 

[Pattylt]

Do you require the same degree of evidence for a condemnation of a man as you would for something that is life fulfilling instead?

I would base the trust of any testimony of an eyewitness on several levels. It’s a fair question! First that comes to mind is the trustworthiness of the witness. I have no direct access to the Apostles trustworthiness but I tend to believe they were basically honest with what they believed but a bit doubtful on how they interpreted things. Second is biases s/he may have. A fair thoughtful witness that has no stake in the outcome would weigh much heavier on the truthfulness. This is the big problem with the Gospels. These are not disinterested witnesses. They very much want to justify their beliefs. It’s a shame that the early Christians didn’t preserve the works of Celsius as an example.

While we have Paul claiming multiple witnesses, we only have his one witness of this. There is no mention of these 500 in any of the Gospels. The time factor is a problem as well. We know stories change over time, we don’t know by how much. We shouldn’t expect that a 90% illiterate population would write for our benefit but boy, it would have been nice. We have no writings of those that left the faith and why. We don’t even have the earliest writer’s papers copied for prosperity. Why wouldn’t they have saved Papius? I don’t expect you to know but it’s suspicious to me. I think he may have been a bit too heretical for later copiests.

Current day witnesses to experiences of God are just hard for me to accept. I believe that they believe it but I didn’t have the experience so I have no way to test it’s truthfullness. If someone tells me something simple and mundane, I usually trust the story. It doesn’t affect my life if it’s true or not. In discussions of God, however, it’s a huge concern if true or false or mistaken.

Does that answer the question? If not, ask again specifically what you want me to answer. I’m not shy and try to be very honest in my answers.

 

[Aquinas11]

I have no direct access to the Apostles trustworthiness but I tend to believe they were basically honest with what they believed but a bit doubtful on how they interpreted things. Second is biases s/he may have. A fair thoughtful witness that has no stake in the outcome would weigh much heavier on the truthfulness. This is the big problem with the Gospels. These are not disinterested witnesses. They very much want to justify their beliefs

How about the fact that the eyewitnesses were tortured for their beliefs and never recanted? If anything they had every reason not to justify their beliefs. They didn’t win a golden prize for their beliefs. They were tortured for them. And none of them recanted. If they were all peddling falsehoods then at least one of them would have caved while being tortured. Heck, all of them would.

THE TWELVE APOSTLES:

1. Andrew - crucified
2. Bartholomew - beaten then crucified
3. James, son of Alphaeus - stoned to death
4. James, son of Zebedee - beheaded
5. John - exiled for his faith; died of old age
6. Judas (not Iscariot) - stoned to death
7. Matthew - speared to death
8. Peter - crucifed upside down
9. Philip - crucified
10. Simon - crucified
11. Thomas - speared to death
12. Matthias - stoned to death

 

[Pattylt]

I’m sorry but most of these stories arose later in Church tradition and have little to no verifiable historical evidence. I don’t doubt that some absolutely died for their beliefs but so have many others in all faiths. Dying for what you believe doesn’t mean the belief is true otherwise the Heaven Gate beliefs are true, too!

Have you read Candida Moss’ The Myth of Christian Persecution? Just curious. No need to answer.

 

[Aquinas11]

I’m sorry but most of these stories arose later in Church tradition and have little to no verifiable historical evidence

How did you come to that conclusion?

I don’t doubt that some absolutely died for their beliefs but so have many others in all faiths

Irrelevant to the point that them being tortured and not recanting their beliefs tends to indicate they believed those beliefs to be true.

Dying for what you believe doesn’t mean the belief is true otherwise the Heaven Gate beliefs are true, too!

Mass suicide is hardly in the same ballpark as failing to recant while being tortured to the death. The former doesnt’ involve hours or days of prolonged torture.

Candida Moss’ The Myth of Christian Persecution

WRought with errors, for example asserting that documents attesting to Polycarp execution in 2nd century must be fake, since the document said it occurred at a tomb and she contends tombs weren’t venerated until 3rd century. Meanwhile she ignored historical documents in year 200AD that stated that Christian tombs were already being venerated and was debating whether ROme or Asia Minor should be capital of Christian Church.

 

[vz71]

This is the big problem with the Gospels. These are not disinterested witnesses. They very much want to justify their beliefs.

How do you know this?

If it is true that…

I can not trust personal or eyewitness accounts of others. They aren’t mine. It’s theirs.

Then where did this information concerning the Gospel accounts come from?

 

[Pattylt]

This is getting way off tract from the OP. I’ve read historical critical scholars for quite a while now and accept what the majority of scholars accept. You obviously don’t and I’m not interested in debating it. I’m not a historical scholar myself, just widely read. Let’s leave it that I don’t accept the Gospels at face value. I do not think they are lying. They really believe what they state. I don’t believe it and I tried to find critical historical evidence for their beliefs. I didn’t. You do. Not much more to say beyond that.

To the OP. I have no idea that if God is real whether I will be given a chance to repent and believe and be accepted into Heaven. If God is truly just and merciful then I hope I will. As things stand at the moment, while I do not deny the possibility of Gods existence, neither have I found any reasons or evidence that convinces me that the supernatural exists…

 

[vz71]

I’ve read historical critical scholars for quite a while now and accept what the majority of scholars accept.

So you accept some second hand information, but not other second hand information. Did these scholars provide further information to back the claim?
I would be interested in that.

 

[StephenBolin]

Well this is a Catholic forum to explain Catholic teaching. The Church knows no other means of salvation besides through Jesus Christ, the sacraments he instituted, and the Church he founded. Without baptism, or a desire for baptism one is lost forever. Why? Because without God and/or a desire for God one is lost forever.

 

[Pattylt]

Yes, they do. These are PhDs in NT scholarship and their books are fully footnoted and extensively documented. Most are also Christian. They quote the ECF’s. They present the evidence of scribal changes and conflicting MSS’s. Most clearly state what can and can not be shown to have happened. There are areas that they admit are beyond historical analysis such as that Christ rose from the dead. They can show that the Apostles believed this but not that it happened. That’s theology, not history.

I started out reading the NT from a devotional level. Finding it unsatisfying I started reading the critical historical knowledge. It answered far more questions I had. I can’t unlearn what I’ve learned. I can not read them emotionally anymore. The problems jump out at me and won’t go away.

I know many have also done the research and have not found insurmountable problems at all. I’m just not one of them.

 

[vz71]

Yes, they do.

And the sources are???

 

[Pattylt]

The sources are the same as Catholics use. The early Church Fathers, the Gospels in all their varied copies, the books that didn’t make it into the canon, any pertinent letters and writings from the era. Have you ever looked into or read critical historical scholarship?

 

[Bradskii]

At least you are open enough to admit there is no convincing you.

The question is unanswerable as far as you are concerned. I have already given an example of how I could be convinced.

 

[Herculees]

This is some of what the Bible say about who goes to Heaven!

Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.