Why do non-adherents think they are entitled to heaven?

[Pug]

Perhaps they believe in immortal souls/spirits? No entitlement required - it just is. And perhaps the “location” of these souls without bodies is not going to be miserable because there is no pressing reason in their view for it to be that way, so why suppose it. They communicate their beliefs to you with the convenient moniker “heaven”, borrowed from the surrounding culture.

 

[Neithan]

Life. And not just human life, all life.

The respect for it, the preservation of it.

Odd, because in another thread you said that we have no way of knowing if life is really distinguishable in a meaningful way from non-life, unless I completely misunderstood you (and conceded that I could not argue based on that radical doubt).

Because, like everything else in the universe that preceded it for 10 billion years, the fundamental forces put it together. Life’s no different.

Well, the reality is that morality is subjective.

Something can be subjective and absolute. E.g. God.

If you mean subjective to each individual personal being, that’s incoherent. Then there are just competing ethical ideas based on personal preferences (or personal preferences writ large).

Axioms are just sales job. The more something appeals to logos and the less something appeals to pathos, the higher the chance I’ll be convinced by it.

Then, in that case, combined with your view that there is no absolute ground of morality, you must be amoral.

As for what is logos and pathos, that also depends on what axioms you accept etc.

 

[Hume]

Odd, because in another thread you said that we have no way of knowing if life is really distinguishable in a meaningful way from non-life, unless I completely misunderstood you (and conceded that I could not argue based on that radical doubt).

We were discussing epistemology, which is a bit different from ethics in sorta the way “why” is a bit different from “how”.

If you mean subjective to each individual personal being, that’s incoherent. Then there are just competing ethical ideas based on personal preferences (or personal preferences writ large).

No, it’s subjective between broad paradigms. The societal level.

It’s why Aztecs, The Holy Roman Empire and the Hittites all had different cultures with different norms - but their societies still functioned.

Then, in that case, combined with your view that there is no absolute ground of morality, you must be amoral.

Societies exist and function regardless if there’s a god or not, as I’m sure you’d argue that both the Norse pantheon and the Egyptian pantheon (depending on time in their history, sometimes they approached monotheism with Ammon-Ra) were imaginary.

As for what is logos and pathos, that also depends on what axioms you accept etc.

I can dance to that. It’s subjective.

You’re largely informed by the culture you grow up in. It’s why a “true Japanese” will embrace Shinto and Buddhism and eschew that foreign Catholicism. Real Indians practice Hindu. Part of their culture.

(“Real” is being used sort of tongue-in-cheek. I obviously think the people of these cultures can believe as they wish)

 

[navyblueblood]

Blade Runner. Where do I claim my points?

 

[annad347]

So what gives? If you don’t believe in God or any of the traditions and practices associated with faith, why do you believe you are entitled to eternal life?

She was talking about her father, do you know what his relationship was with God? Do you know what it was befor he died?

Maybe his death was her revelations, something God needed her tongontheough in order to bring her closer to him?

Besides isnt the only One who decides who is entitled to heaven is God. Who are we to say who is or isn’t entitled to heaven?

 

[BornInMarch]

When the Catechism and Bible both say that God desires all humans to be saved, and when the Pope outright says a man who died an atheist can make it to Heaven, it’s safe to say that’s more likely to be true than the alternative.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’m not talking about that.