For Christians who believe that only Christians go to heaven

[Poseidon]

youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs&feature=related

Here is a very good video from an atheist youtuber in response to Pascal’s Wager, asking the question “what if I’m wrong?” I am just curious to hear anyone’s thoughts on the video, because I thought it made some excellent points. I also have seen a very big misconception on the part of many Christians here where they think that atheists are atheists based on rebellion, pride, unwillingness to repent our sinful ways, etc, instead of the real reason (for most of us) of us simply not being convinced of God’s existence.

Any thoughts?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs&feature=related

Here is a very good video from an atheist youtuber in response to Pascal’s Wager, asking the question “what if I’m wrong?” I am just curious to hear anyone’s thoughts on the video, because I thought it made some excellent points. I also have seen a very big misconception on the part of many Christians here where they think that atheists are atheists based on rebellion, pride, unwillingness to repent our sinful ways, etc, instead of the real reason (for most of us) of us simply not being convinced of God’s existence.

Any thoughts?

Sorry you are in that boat. Sorry not to oblige, those arguments don’t mean anything to me and I don’t get involved in endless arguments. I will ask you a couple of questions though. Have you read the Scriptures, every educated person should you know. At the very least it is one of the greatest works of literature in existence. I suggest the RSV Catholic bible. And of course you should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church since Catholics are your leading opponents. Now the reason I say this is that though I love Thomas Aquinas and also think Pascal makes wonderful sense, it wouldn’t hurt my faith a bit if both were proved absolutely wrong. Why, because God has spoken through the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church and through the history of salvation as recorded in the scriptures.

:extrahappy:

 

[Samuel63]

God occasionally tries to convince us of his presence and the validity of his revelation to us here on earth (i.e. messages from God) by adding miracles to the event. These are recorded in the bible and many happen in in modern times. For example, 20,000 people witnessed the miraculous event at Fatima. To be convinced, look at the trail of miracles going back into history. These are connected with only one faith, that is the Catholic Church. Prior to the Messiah, these miracles occurred in the Jewish nation and faith.

If you want to see a miracle today, check out The Incorruptables.

 

[meltzerboy]

youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs&feature=related

Here is a very good video from an atheist youtuber in response to Pascal’s Wager, asking the question “what if I’m wrong?” I am just curious to hear anyone’s thoughts on the video, because I thought it made some excellent points. I also have seen a very big misconception on the part of many Christians here where they think that atheists are atheists based on rebellion, pride, unwillingness to repent our sinful ways, etc, instead of the real reason (for most of us) of us simply not being convinced of God’s existence.

Any thoughts?

I don’t think the problem is so much with his or your reasoning about G-d’s existence or lack of existence, but rather with the insufficiency of knowledge about faith traditions. In Judaism, for example, people devote their lives to understanding the inferences and implications of what is written in the Torah and the Talmud since there are several layers of interpretation according to the style of writing, the culture of the period, the intricacies of the language, and the contextual meaning based on related passages in the Hebrew Bible. One cannot rightly dismiss something unless one has first thoroughly studied and understood its meaning.

 

[Rolltide]

First, I’d respond that you have a faulty title to your thread, because Catholics do not believe that only Christians go to heaven. Even though we have the doctrine “No salvation outside the Catholic Church”, it does NOT preclude the possibility that others might be saved. Those who have no knowledge of the Catholic Church, through no fault of their own, still have a chance at salvation if they sincerely try to do what God wishes of them. This could potentially include those that are of other faiths, agnostics, and atheists that were raised with misconceptions of what the church teaches, but act in a righteous and moral manner. It certainly includes groups like Native Americans before Columbus, who could not have known about the faith whatsoever. These people would thus be acting “through the Catholic Church” (and its beliefs) without even realizing it. A good example of this would be the “Thief on the Cross” story from the Gospels.

 

[bpcatholic]

I think it was a good video. It seems to an honest response. The way I see it, Jesus, who is God, is truth. Ultimately our search for truth is our search for God, whether we realise it or not. The two cannot be separated. Everyone makes his or her own journey in the search of truth and God and only God knows our sincerity. God judges our whole being, not what we may or may not know. Those are my thoughts.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

1. The consensus I’ve seen of Christians is that Pascal’s wager is pretty weak, and I agree with that.
2. Why do you think that MOST atheists are atheists simply because they’re not convinced of God’s existence? I’d say it’s a mixture of the things you said plus the “logical” atheists who actually aren’t convinced by the arguments. The majority of atheists I’ve met are either angry at God or are trying to be cool and reject that silly “illogical” Christianity that their unenlightened parents believe. In other words, they were atheists due to arrogance.

I’ve met logical atheists too, of course. But I definitely wouldn’t say that’s the majority. I’d say it’s a mixture of a lot of reasons.

 

[dskysmine]

youtube.com/watch?v=dqz0plz6DEs&feature=related

Here is a very good video from an atheist youtuber in response to Pascal’s Wager, asking the question “what if I’m wrong?” I am just curious to hear anyone’s thoughts on the video, because I thought it made some excellent points. I also have seen a very big misconception on the part of many Christians here where they think that atheists are atheists based on rebellion, pride, unwillingness to repent our sinful ways, etc, instead of the real reason (for most of us) of us simply not being convinced of God’s existence.

Any thoughts?

Hi Poseidon,
Since I don’t know exactly all the arguments that the atheist in that video uses to refuse the existence of God I cannot really say that his reasoning is that flawless. From the video I can only take that he seems to believe that his reasoning is flawless and that what he thinks is good would be the ultimate good, although he also never made any argument to defend why what he thinks is good is actually good. He also is constructing some sort of god in his own image… if that isn’t pride… then what is?
It is pretty obvious that there are some “religious” ideas in some of these kind of atheists, in the sense that there are things that they believe in that they will never put into doubt. Materialism is the most common among modern atheists. As you probably know yourself it is pretty hard to discuss religious ideas with people that have been “indoctrinated”, so you see what we have to deal with, when discussing anything like this.
A very famous quotation I like from Christianity is that Christianity is the only religion where God Himself considers atheism “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” It’s not that Jesus really thought that God, the Father, forgot about Him, but can you for a split second imagine talking to yourself and saying “You do not exist”? It is one of the most profound sayings of Jesus, and how brilliant that the very next thing (or so believed) he said was of what you could say “blind Faith”:
“In your Hands I commend my Spirit”.
How can anyone understand after a moment of such profound “doubt” trusting in God with everything that you have left?
If that didn’t move you then I really don’t know what can.
God bless,
D

 

[fred_conty]

His sound, demeanor, sincerety, was quite good. If what he said he really believed, then Jesus would certainly give him credit where credit is due, namely, his intellectual query.

But one thing he mentioned didn’t quite gel with me. He took the path of God not being a loving God because of Old Testament apparent harshness by God, which has always been a mind bogler from early christianity to now. The difference between the God of old and the God of the new testament.

But I did notice that he didn’t bother to bring up Jesus in the New Testament and the extreme measures that Jesus went to that proved how very much he loved us. Or about all the miracles in both the old and new testaments. Or the old testament prophesies pointing and defining Jesus centuries before Jesus was born. Or the goodness of the people who believed in God and their role of goodness they played in helping others. Or explainations about many things we need to know about our life and about our future.

This man’s thought only concentrated on what he considered contradictions. I believe that is what I saw as the crack in his dam, openness to the difficult, and blindness to the beauty and good. An imbalanced thinking. He needs to think and open himself up to everything to be as fair as he said he wants to be. He needs to answer all questions not a select few of his choice.

Just a thought.

 

[Poseidon]

I don’t think the problem is so much with his or your reasoning about G-d’s existence or lack of existence, but rather with the insufficiency of knowledge about faith traditions. In Judaism, for example, people devote their lives to understanding the inferences and implications of what is written in the Torah and the Talmud since there are several layers of interpretation according to the style of writing, the culture of the period, the intricacies of the language, and the contextual meaning based on related passages in the Hebrew Bible. One cannot rightly dismiss something unless one has first thoroughly studied and understood its meaning.

I’m not sure I agree with you there completely. There are certain claims that one can pretty rightly dismiss without too much studying. However, in defense of your point some of the most incredible advances in science and knowledge have started out as crazy ideas - the earth is round, heliocentrism, dark energy, etc.

Also, I don’t think that my lack of knowledge of faith traditions is my problem. I spent the first 20 years of my life as a Catholic, 17 of those living in a home with very Catholic parents, so I think I know a thing or two!

 

[dskysmine]

I’m not sure I agree with you there completely. There are certain claims that one can pretty rightly dismiss without too much studying. However, in defense of your point some of the most incredible advances in science and knowledge have started out as crazy ideas - the earth is round, heliocentrism, dark energy, etc.

Also, I don’t think that my lack of knowledge of faith traditions is my problem. I spent the first 20 years of my life as a Catholic, 17 of those living in a home with very Catholic parents, so I think I know a thing or two!

Do you know what hubris is?

 

[ANewWorld]

A couple thoughts here, first I don’t see how someone could say that any point of view or assertion cannot be dismissed without the full context and then at the same time assert that their religion is correct above all others. I would propose most people do not thoroughly study all other religions before dismissing them.

Secondly, we always speak of the nobleness of humility and I do not disagree with this virtue. Humility means to be modest and respectful, not egotistical, yet here the poster puts up a YouTube video where the speaker, who we do not know, is modest in respectful in putting forth his point of view. The idea that I have seen several posters here make that atheists for the most part simply wish to reject God to be “cool” or have can’t have “logical” reasons for their worldview is the ultimate lack of humility. The tone is dismissive and then the implication is put forth that someone is being dishonest even if they are attempting to have an honest dialogue.

Are people really this close minded to not believe that many many atheists are open to evidence of God? The central tenet of any of the monotheistic religions is faith, which by definition, is believing without proof. Yet when someone proposes that their mind simply cannot honestly accept things without proof, it is called hubris. It is does not mean all atheists are closed to the awe and wonder of the world and universe around us, it simply means they will not apply answers to these unknowns for which they have no idea of the answer.

 

[ANewWorld]

Hi Poseidon,
As you probably know yourself it is pretty hard to discuss religious ideas with people that have been “indoctrinated”, so you see what we have to deal with, when discussing anything like this.
D

I will not call into question your assertion that you believe some atheists are “indoctrinated” in that they are closed to evidence outside their own narrow view. However, this assertion is an example of the Straw Man Fallacy. The topic of this thread is not atheists who are closed to any evidence of God and/or a true religion. The topic here is skepticism and there is a vast difference at play: Science does not accept things on insufficient evidence, but it also does not reject them. True skeptic inquiry is open to the notion that God exists; science is about proof, not disproof.

On the other hand, we have numerous incidents where religions of all kinds are closed to evidence, the most notorious being the Galileo Affair. Even as recently as 1990, the current Pope said the Church’s handling of the Galileo Affair was “rational and just” given social implications. So we have a sitting Pope who approves of the suppression of fact yet claims to be only aligned with the truth? This leaves us with the possibilities that he is honestly aligned with the truth and delusionally thinks the Earth doesn’t orbit the sun, and is open to better scientific evidence, or he feels that if truth does not conform to dogma, then dogma wins. This is the antithesis of humility.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Even as recently as 1990, the current Pope said the Church’s handling of the Galileo Affair was “rational and just” given social implications. So we have a sitting Pope who approves of the suppression of fact yet claims to be only aligned with the truth? This leaves us with the possibilities that he is honestly aligned with the truth and delusionally thinks the Earth doesn’t orbit the sun, and is open to better scientific evidence, or he feels that if truth does not conform to dogma, then dogma wins. This is the antithesis of humility.

I’d like to see the context. I also know that Blessed Pope John Paul II publicly apologized for the Church’s actions in the Galileo affair. What exactly was the Pope saying and why?

The Church is not opposed to new scientific evidence, and if you believe that you are wrong. No bones about it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

A couple thoughts here, first I don’t see how someone could say that any point of view or assertion cannot be dismissed without the full context and then at the same time assert that their religion is correct above all others. I would propose most people do not thoroughly study all other religions before dismissing them.

Do you consider every possible competing scientific theory to make sure that the ones you take for granted are correct?

 

[ANewWorld]

I’d like to see the context. I also know that Blessed Pope John Paul II publicly apologized for the Church’s actions in the Galileo affair. What exactly was the Pope saying and why?

The Church is not opposed to new scientific evidence, and if you believe that you are wrong. No bones about it.

I am referring to Pope Benedict XVI when he was still a Cardinal is his speech at La Sapienza University, I am fully aware of Pope John Paul II’s apology. I am not implying that Pope John Paul II was opposed to scientific evidence, merely pointing out that Cardinal Ratzinger’s take on the situation not unambiguously aligned with Pope John Paul II.

During John Paul II, the church also greatly softened its stance on evolution saying that in discovering fact, science is aligned with God. The unfortunate part is that in times past the church has unequivocally taken opposing stances and there are no bones about this either. So no, I am not of the opinion that the Church is always opposed to new scientific evidence, only that we have to use reason knowing that they have been opposed at times when it threatens one of their dogmatic positions based on ancient writings that are now easily refuted. Before someone jumps down my throat on this, I am referring to the individual statements of fact that are now refuted. However, these individual pieces as well as the Church’s change in positions throughout the years do undeniably prove that everything the Church says is not always correct and thus everything they say cannot be the undisputed word of a an omniscient God.

 

[ANewWorld]

Do you consider every possible competing scientific theory to make sure that the ones you take for granted are correct?

By this question I think you missed my point. My point was that an earlier post in this thread said you cannot dismiss something without thoroughly studying it and I was saying religions do this all the time; I was pointing out a contradiction in his logic.

You are also missing the point on a second level. First, let’s clarify the meaning of the word “theory.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

I believe, and correct me if I misunderstood you, that you are referring to hypotheses, not theories. A hypothesis can be put forward and it is pursued and tested based on evidence, As I said before, science is about proof based on evidence. Is it perfect? Of course not, scientists make mistakes too. Science, however, is based on the willingness to make revisions based on incorrect assumptions and statements.

 

[dskysmine]

I will not call into question your assertion that you believe some atheists are “indoctrinated” in that they are closed to evidence outside their own narrow view. However, this assertion is an example of the Straw Man Fallacy. The topic of this thread is not atheists who are closed to any evidence of God and/or a true religion. The topic here is skepticism and there is a vast difference at play: Science does not accept things on insufficient evidence, but it also does not reject them. True skeptic inquiry is open to the notion that God exists; science is about proof, not disproof.

It’s not a Straw Man Fallacy to attack Materialism. Materialism in a lot of atheists is tantamount to a secular religion. If he were truly skeptic he wouldn’t be atheist, he would be agnostic, at best.

On the other hand, we have numerous incidents where religions of all kinds are closed to evidence, the most notorious being the Galileo Affair. Even as recently as 1990, the current Pope said the Church’s handling of the Galileo Affair was “rational and just” given social implications. So we have a sitting Pope who approves of the suppression of fact yet claims to be only aligned with the truth? This leaves us with the possibilities that he is honestly aligned with the truth and delusionally thinks the Earth doesn’t orbit the sun, and is open to better scientific evidence, or he feels that if truth does not conform to dogma, then dogma wins. This is the antithesis of humility.

The Galileo Affair was a matter of disobedience… not of science. Copernicus previously to Galileo had released documents supporting heliocentrism and there was no problem there.

God bless,
D

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You are also missing the point on a second level. First, let’s clarify the meaning of the word “theory.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

Actually, while that is indeed a good qualifier and refresher for those using the colloquial use of the term, I was using “theories” in the scientific sense (the more colloquial hypothesis works too for this point though). I’m referring to such things as "the big bang theory (show aside ).

I was referring to things like “the theory of relativity”. I’m going off of High School level rudimentary scientific history knowledge here (I’m more of a philosopher than a scientist ) so correct me if I’m wrong, but before Einstein’s theory of relativity we used Newton’s laws to explain the universe.

So, have you thoroughly studied Newton’s theory AND Einstein’s theory to figure out which is correct?

Maybe you have, but most people haven’t, and yet most people accept Einstein’s theory under the assumption “All of the experts believe it”.

I think I did miss your point though, so fair enough. You’re actually right-Christianity isn’t and never claimed to be scientific.

As for the Galileo affair I still want to see exactly what he was saying in context. I highly doubt Cardinal Ratzinger was in direct opposition to the Pope and I guarantee that he’s saying it’s okay to ignore science in favor of dogma. The Galileo Affair itself is not what it seems at first glance anyway.

 

[JDaniel]

By this question I think you missed my point. My point was that an earlier post in this thread said you cannot dismiss something without thoroughly studying it and I was saying religions do this all the time; I was pointing out a contradiction in his logic.

You are also missing the point on a second level. First, let’s clarify the meaning of the word “theory.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

I believe, and correct me if I misunderstood you, that you are referring to hypotheses, not theories. A hypothesis can be put forward and it is pursued and tested based on evidence, As I said before, science is about proof based on evidence. Is it perfect? Of course not, scientists make mistakes too. Science, however, is based on the willingness to make revisions based on incorrect assumptions and statements.

ANW:

“Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially.” - wikipedia

Is a ‘theory’ the same thing as a “fact?” IOW, does theory = fact?

Really, isn’t a ‘theory’ nothing more than an ‘hypothesis’ that’s been around the block a few more times?

Poor Galileo. During his confinement (punishment) he was put up like royalty, fed like royalty, treated better than he probably treated the servants that took care of his every need. I am tired of hearing about Galileo and his so-called problems with the Church. Document the terrible treatment that he received - or retract the postulation.

God bless,
jd