Will I go to hell?

[NonServiam]

Why not err on the side of caution and seek? Intellectual pride?

Intellectual honesty. I mean, if you’re wrong about Islam, and that turns out to be the right religion, you’re bound for hell just as much as I am. So why don’t you err on the side of caution with regards to Islam?

Answer that question – and then answer it again for every other religion – and you’ll see why I don’t “err on the side of caution” for your particular brand of supernaturalism.

More later.

 

[AlTheCollegeGal]

In my opinion, I cannot ever determine whether an individual is going to Hell, for that is not my place to say. I cannot make that decision. Only God can. I am a fallible, imperfect creature as we all are, thus, this question cannot be definitively answered. God bless you.

 

[Robertanthony]

Because atheism (not accepting the claim that any gods exist) is the default position: for any claim, the default is not to accept the claim until there is sufficient evidence for the claim.

So the burden of proof is on us believers? Who gets to pick the default position? You know you’ll never get a proof like that from God because God can’t be studied under a microscope, be put in a laboratory (he’s best found in an oratory) I don’t get it, NonServiam, you come across anything lying on the ground (a can of Coke Zero, a watch, a t-shirt, an Ipod, a gossip magazine etc.) you would never say to yourself that any of these things is a product of chance, you know someone or some machine made these without actually having been witness to the making of each of these particular items, yet how much more complex and huge and intricate the universe is, yet you claim that no god exists (a-theism), if you simply say that you don’t know, that makes you an agnostic. I see the vast universe, billions of people and I think a 1st cause is necessary, I choose to believe that this cause is a Creator and he goes by the name of Yahweh. You see the vast universe, billions of people, what says you?

 

[wcknight]

Certainly. If someone could present to me evidence or an argument that provides enough evidence for the existence of God then of course I would believe in him. As it stands though, I haven’t seen that evidence or heard that argument. So at least for now, I’ll live my life under the assumption that there is no God.

Atheists are always looking for evidence BUT they choose to ignore or try to explain away all the evidence no matter how substantial or real.

Fatima is not the only supernatural event witnessed by many. Even IF you exclude all the miracles of Christ and the Apostles, there are still hundreds of miracels performed by other saints and holy folks throughout the ages.

And every saint says that Christ is the one and only God, not Buddha, not Odin or posidon or any other god from literature or mythology.

There is no other faith in which there have been a bunch of great miracle workers. Consider MOses, Elijah, St Anthony of Padua, St Catherine of Sinna, Blessed Martin De Porres, St Rose of Lima, St Padre Pio, all of these were great miracle workers, some healing the sick and even bringing folks back from the dead.

AND ALL claim Jesus is Lord and God. Of all the folks who witnessed Jesus or Mary in apparitions, none have claimed that some other deity is God. There are no votes for Zeus or Shinto or Islam or or shiva or hindu or any other god or religion. You would think that IF any of these other dieties or religions had any credibility whatsoever, at least one or two great miracle workers would have revealed themselves as their representatives. The big difference is OUR GOD IS GOD, theirs is not.

Many saints have proven themselves throughout every century. ANd every one testifies that the Catholic God IS the ONE and ONLY GOD. You say that IF GOD speaks to you personally, you would believe in Him. Well ASK him and keep asking. IF He does not respond then you may have an argument or excuse for not believing.

BUT when you hear his Voice, will you really recognize that it is Him and not just your imagination. Or will you be like the hymn, IF today you hear His voice harden not your heart. To listen to the Truth you have to be OPEN to the Truth. If you have already closed your mind and heart, you will definitely miss Him.

If you are open to the Truth then, read up on some of the saints. They were all holy and upright people, there is no reason for them to lie about what they experienced or heard or saw. Many of their deeds are well documented. St Padre Pio lived until the 1960’s. His life is well documented and just typical of what the great saints experienced.

You have a personal responsibility to seek the Truth and if you make a sincere effort to find the Truth, God can not hold that against you. BUT I guarantee you that IF you really seek God, you will find Him. You have every thing to gain for searching AND every thing to lose if you are wrong.

The atheist has to make the worst possible wager. You are betting your soul that there is no God, IF you are right, you win nothing. IF you are wrong, you lose everything.

The deist, who is betting there is a God, IF we are wrong we lose nothing. BUT if we are right we gain everything.

I love to gamble, BUT I would never ever take the former wager no matter how slim the odds or how great the odds of being right or wrong. Risking everything with nothing to win … that is a gamblers worst nightmare.

I would always make the second wager, to risk nothing with the possibilty no matter how tiny (and I personnly think there is a very high probablity of us being right -for the reasons stated above) of gaining everything … that is a gamblers dream senario.

Oh my answer on hell is Who knows, BUT why risk it ???

 

[wcknight]

Intellectual honesty. I mean, if you’re wrong about Islam, and that turns out to be the right religion, you’re bound for hell just as much as I am. So why don’t you err on the side of caution with regards to Islam?

Answer that question – and then answer it again for every other religion – and you’ll see why I don’t “err on the side of caution” for your particular brand of supernaturalism.

More later.

What islamic saint has performed dozens of miracles ?? What Buddhist or Hindu or shinto or Aztec or Mayan or any other faith. We have dozens of miracle workers, some as recent as the last century. There may even be a few in this century. And there have been some in every century since Christ and the Apostles.

Our God is God, so there is no need for us to look elsewhere. IF you know of a religion that has a few miracle workers, please name them. I’ve done so, and there are many more that I have not mentioned. And I have not even gone into the many Eucharistic miracles, the cloak of St Juan Diego, the miracles at Akita… (oh now I have, but not in detail )…

 

[Poseidon]

So the burden of proof is on us believers?

YES!!! You’ve got it!

Who gets to pick the default position?

The burden of proof is necessarily on the believers, because they’re the ones making the claim that a god/God exists. Think if I was trying to prove to you that the Loch Ness Monster exists. The burden of proof is on me, because I’m the one making the extraordinary claim, not you. You do not need to provide any evidence to show that the loch ness monster does not exist, because you’re not the one making the claim. Your job, in that situation, would be to look at my evidence critically, point out the flaws, and ultimately help me discover whether Nessie really exists or not.

You know you’ll never get a proof like that from God because God can’t be studied under a microscope, be put in a laboratory (he’s best found in an oratory) I don’t get it, NonServiam, you come across anything lying on the ground (a can of Coke Zero, a watch, a t-shirt, an Ipod, a gossip magazine etc.) you would never say to yourself that any of these things is a product of chance, you know someone or some machine made these without actually having been witness to the making of each of these particular items, yet how much more complex and huge and intricate the universe is, yet you claim that no god exists (a-theism), if you simply say that you don’t know, that makes you an agnostic. I see the vast universe, billions of people and I think a 1st cause is necessary, I choose to believe that this cause is a Creator and he goes by the name of Yahweh. You see the vast universe, billions of people, what says you?

The difference between a man-made thing and nature is that we know man made things have creators, and we know of no other way by which they could come about. I’ve never seen a can of coke grow on a tree, or a gossip magazine make itself. I know from experience that these items only come about when some person causes them to.

It’s not the same for the universe. We don’t know how the universe came about, and since we don’t know of any other universes or what caused them we can’t apply experience to help us solve the problem. We can only hypothesize: maybe the universe was created, maybe it came from a multiverse, maybe it caused itself, maybe it has always existed (there are theories compatible with the Big Bang that say the universe might be infinitely old). In the case of life we do know a way for it to come about without intelligent intervention: evolution and natural selection.

 

[NonServiam]

So the burden of proof is on us believers? Who gets to pick the default position?

As Poseidon says, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. In this case, the claim is “A god of some kind exists,” and I find the evidence insufficient to support that claim.

I’m not claiming that there are no gods – if I were, then I would be making a claim and have my own burden of proof. I’m merely saying that I find the evidence for your claim insufficient and as such I do not accept your claim. I’m thus not a believer in any gods. The word for someone who doesn’t believe in gods is an atheist.

I don’t get it, NonServiam, you come across anything lying on the ground (a can of Coke Zero, a watch, a t-shirt, an Ipod, a gossip magazine etc.) you would never say to yourself that any of these things is a product of chance, you know someone or some machine made these without actually having been witness to the making of each of these particular items

Well, duh: we have countless examples of those things being manufactured by humans and no examples of them occurring naturally – in fact, we know enough about the natural world to be aware that none of those things could occur naturally at all (that is to say, an iPod isn’t suddenly going to grow out of the ground).

That’s how we know that those items are created: they differ from natural things in that we have examples of them being produced by intelligence. In order to determine that they are “created,” we need to have a non-created category to contrast them with (ideas must be defined in the context of what they are not).

If you seriously think that an intelligent force created everything, then you have no basis for distinguishing “created” from “natural,” and you could never become aware of the distinction.

I see the vast universe, billions of people and I think a 1st cause is necessary, I choose to believe that this cause is a Creator and he goes by the name of Yahweh.

You sure do choose to believe it because there’s no evidence that suggests that the universe is the product of intelligence.

You see the vast universe, billions of people, what says you?

I say that there is a vast universe with billions of people and billions and billions upon billions of galaxies and stars, all working in accord with what appear to be blind and purposeless laws, undirected by any intelligence. I don’t claim to know everything or be able to explain everything, but I know enough to know that your claim about a god isn’t supported by sufficient evidence.

 

[underacloud]

Burden of proof is an important concept for scientific, philosophical, or legal matters; for the development and acceptance/rejection of certain theories. With regard to personal religious beliefs, it may or may not be relevant.

If you claim the Nessie exists, I’m not too concerned one way or the other. If you claim Nessie will one day judge me and decide whether I go to heaven or hell, I suddenly start to care. I need a well considered position on this. It’s not enough for me to say that you have the burden of proof…that Nessie will judge me is either right or wrong regardless of whether you convince me of it…I need to consider the claim and make a reasonable judgement.

Obviously each religion makes claims, and each needs to be considered. For the Catholic, accepting the faith makes exploration of other viewpoints redundant. As a Catholic, I have certain beliefs that I hold, having considered the relevant evidence, and I can easily dismiss the view that Nessie will be my judge as it contradicts my beliefs (again, based on exploration of the evidence). Equally, I reject Islam, Buddhism, atheism, etc. If I’m wrong and Islam is correct, I guess I’ll be damned. If I’m wrong and Buddhism is correct, perhaps I’ll come back as a lower animal. If atheism is correct…well, I won’t be around to worry about it. The point is that no “burden of proof” will protect me from any of these outcomes.

If you die and come face to face with our God, do you think that your burden of proof argument would still be relevant? Perhaps God will say “you are right, I didn’t really give you enough to go on” (see my previous discussion of invincible ignorance). Or perhaps God will say “I gave you plenty of evidence, but you chose to ignore it”. That’s a matter between you and God (if He exists), and it’s a conversation you either will or won’t have, regardless of who you think has the burden of proof in this life.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

As Poseidon says, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. In this case, the claim is “A god of some kind exists,” and I find the evidence insufficient to support that claim.

I’m not claiming that there are no gods – if I were, then I would be making a claim and have my own burden of proof. I’m merely saying that I find the evidence for your claim insufficient and as such I do not accept your claim. I’m thus not a believer in any gods. The word for someone who doesn’t believe in gods is an atheist.

This is fallacious. You are correct that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but that also pertains to the one who claims atheism. IOW sometimes the burden is on one side and sometimes on another. Common sense says that the burden of proof is sometimes on the believer and someties on the skeptic; that sometimes methodic faith is more reasonable than methodic doubt(e.g. trusting a previously reliable friend, or traditions, or your senses); and that the burden of proof is then on the innovator and on the minority. And atheism is largely a modern innovation and a minority view.

You have come to a place that espouses a theistic (Christian) view and you are asserting your belief that there is no such God.

So, therefore, the burden is on YOU to prove your claim.

The same goes for “Posieden”, or any other atheist who comes here with this cheap cop-out so that they can refuse to defend their false premises while attacking ours.

You sure do choose to believe it because there’s no evidence that suggests that the universe is the product of intelligence.

I say that there is a vast universe with billions of people and billions and billions upon billions of galaxies and stars, all working in accord with what appear to be blind and purposeless laws,…

All of this rather presupposes an intelligence behind the design instead of refuting it. The naturals sciences are proof of this. You could not have the natural sciences if their discoveries were not based on the laws and order of the universe. To say that this vast amount of intelligible order came from chance is to violate the common philosophical notion that you cannot get more from less.

Even your use of the word “laws” betrays your premise because “laws” by definition serve a purpose so to call them “purposeless laws” is a contradiction.

To say that this vast universe of order happened by chance is to say that it did, or did not, turn out the way you expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance as an ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking about chance against a background of order, you invite us to think of order-overwhelmingly intricate and ubiquitous order-against a random and purposeless background of chance.

That, frankly, is incredible. Therefore it is eminently reasonable to affirm the conclusion that the universe did not arrive from chance, but from design. And if there is a design, then there must be a Designer.

…undirected by any intelligence. I don’t claim to know everything or be able to explain everything, but I know enough to know that your claim about a god isn’t supported by sufficient evidence.

If by “sufficient evidence” you mean that the only evidence you’ll accept must be found empirically then you’re begging the question by presupposing materialism and epiricism. You have to prove that the only truths that exist are those that can be “sensed” physically. Which you have not.

 

[JackHandy]

One who knows the truth about Christ is either: (1) bound to live through his grace to be transformed to be like him, or (2) barring that is bound to keep the law perfectly which Christ already did.

You have been taught about Christ and therefore your only option would be to keep the law perfectly. Apart from the grace of Christ, this is not possible for a human being no matter how “moral” you are. A person might be moral on their own but it is only relatively.

Hope this helps

Jack Handy

 

[Maria1993]

That’s not really for us to tellThere have been Eucharistic Miracles that even have been scientifically examined to contain real human blood. The same type as in the Shroud of Turin.

I myself say this because I was under heavy spiritual attack which took a toll on my mental and physical health, when no medicine could control my “food poisoning”. I was attacked by spirits, and physically attacked in my sleep to wake up out of breath and squeezed. I suggest and hope you do research to clear doubts, and actually try and pray. If you’re worried about hell, why risk leaving faith? Look up testimonies, miracles.

 

[Pitcharan]

… So my question is, if I am wrong about Catholicism, do you believe that it is possible for a former-Catholic atheist who lives a moral life to get into heaven?

Saul (St. Paul) was completely wrong about Catholicism and our Lord opened his eyes to the truth in an extraordinary way

 

[Maryann_C]

OK so it looks like you have gone down the road of ’ unless there is proof God exists I won;t worry about judgement’ . The fact is that ‘proofs’ have occurred through out history ( people have already mentioned Eucharistic miracles, Fatima etc) but since they have not happened to some people personally ( they think) they reject the proofs. Sort of like …until the lemming runs off the cliff he doesn’t think he will fall.
The odd thing to me in all this ,is that even the most ardent and vocal scientist and atheist …you know who I am talking about …takes ( as I guess you do) it on FAITH that the proofs of the origin of the universe or the ‘missing link’ etc are there because he famously likes to say “we are working on it” ( there is a thread from a short while back where someone posted a link of his debate with an Australian Bishop where he says this) . In other words scientists can’t PROVE all their claims either but they KNOW they exist??? Ergo scientific atheism is a religious system because it holds certain ideas by faith and not proof.
My dear Posiden ,you have the gift of faith it is just not faith in my God. The proofs for God’s existence have been pointed out for thousands of years and it is written in your DNA ,you choose to reject it . Perhaps this is because you think He didn’t answer a prayer of yours or because He hasn’t appeared to you ( no psychoanalysis this is just a common human argument). Well Jesus was crucified by people who were eye witnesses to miracles he performed. Many people harden their hearts because of pride.
I wonder if you are a parent or perhaps a boss and if your child or employee comes to you asking you for something that you know is either not good for them or good for the family/company in the bigger picture of things , would you give it to them anyway?
The point is that you are not the be all and end all of things , you are merely just a grain of sand in the bigger picture and yet that is the humbling beauty about when one accepts that God the awesome creator loved ME personally so much that He sacrificed His own son Jesus to make it possible for me to be with Him in all eternity because without the perfect sacrifice NO just judge could do anything but to lock me up. I know, I hear you say “yada, yada, yada” because I am sure you have heard this before but one day weather you hear and accept now or get knocked off your donkey and stuck by lighting OR heaven forbid when you stand before the just judge yourself and it is too late- YOU WILL BELIEVE…just like the lemming. You will say ‘but Lord have mercy I asked for proof , I did seek to know if you were real’ to which he will answer ‘you had your proof in the answers given to you by all my Church but you chose not to listen and hardened your heart’.
I ask St Terese the Little Flower to pray for you.

 

[NonServiam]

This is fallacious. You are correct that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but that also pertains to the one who claims atheism.

We’re not claiming that no gods exist. We’re not accepting claims that gods do exist.

That may seem like a silly semantic word game, but it’s not: it’s identical to juries in this country not accepting the claim that the defendent is guilty but not necessarily making the claim that the defendent is innocent.

When a jury votes in this country, they pick either “guilty” or “not guilty” because they are responding to the claim of guilt. Has the claim “The defendent is guilty” met its burden of proof? They vote simply on whether there’s enough evidence to affirm the claim or not: and if there’s not sufficient evidence, they have to vote not guilty. But they do NOT have to be convinced the defendent is innocent (they do not have to support another positive claim).

Atheists are those who find gods not guilty of existing.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that we think they’re innocent of existing, and we’re not necessarily making any claims of our own.

I hope that clears it up.

You have come to a place that espouses a theistic (Christian) view and you are asserting your belief that there is no such God.

I have not asserted that as a claim, nor am I arguing for it. I do not expect anyone to accept it.

Thus far, I have indicated why I think there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any gods. As such, I do not accept any claims about their existence.

All of this rather presupposes an intelligence behind the design instead of refuting it. The naturals sciences are proof of this. You could not have the natural sciences if their discoveries were not based on the laws and order of the universe. To say that this vast amount of intelligible order came from chance is to violate the common philosophical notion that you cannot get more from less.

Even your use of the word “laws” betrays your premise because “laws” by definition serve a purpose so to call them “purposeless laws” is a contradiction.

You seem confused about what a “law” is in science.

Sure, when humans make laws they are proscriptive laws – someone had to make them up and people choose whether or not to obey them. But when we use the word “law” in a scientific context, we’re talking about descriptive laws – descriptions of how the universe works.

In other words, we’ve observed that matter acts in certain regular ways. Our descriptions of how matters acts get written down and become what we call “laws.” But there’s no indication that anyone is directing matter to act in the ways that it does.

The universe exists and it does what it does. That, in and of itself, cannot be evidence that an intelligent being made it so.

The rest of what you say here is so confused that I can barely make any sense out of it. You can have a go at rephrasing it if you like.

If by “sufficient evidence” you mean that the only evidence you’ll accept must be found empirically then you’re begging the question by presupposing materialism and epiricism. You have to prove that the only truths that exist are those that can be “sensed” physically. Which you have not.

No, I don’t have to prove that those are the only truths that exist.

When I evaluate claims, I do it through the means available to me. We know that evidence-based inquiry (which includes peer-reviewed science but is not limited to it) gives us insight into the actual state of things (if they did not give us insight into the state of things, they wouldn’t enable us to do things like construct computers, fly planes, etc.).

If you’re claiming that there is some other way of arriving at truth (i.e. factual claims about the world), then you’re going to have to demonstrate that these methods are ways of arriving at truth just as much as evidence-based inquiry

 

[djrakowski]

I think the only possible answer for Catholics, as well as for Jews, is only G-d knows.

Exactly. We’re not capable of determining the state of another man’s soul. Only God Himself is capable of such judgment.

 

[insideitall]

actually, humans do not know how life was created.

evolution/natural selection is a proposed method of how life could have developed, but only after it was created. people often confuse it with survival of the fittest, but that’s different because it happens in real time. you can observe a group of animals; logically the ones that live to have offspring are fitter (or luckier, if you prefer) than the ones that died without passing their genes on. evolution is unobservable and occurs over thousands or millions of years.

ever heard of richard dawkins? he’s a very prominent evolutionary biologist. he’s also an extremely outspoken atheist. he’s very good at sticking his foot in his mouth by calling people with whom he doesn’t agree various names, like idiot, stupid, etc. not the nicest fellow but it gets him airtime and his books sell well, so whatever, right?

did you know he believes in directed panspermia? I’ll save you the trouble of having to look it up. it means he thinks aliens put life on earth.

the champion of evolution, the man who can see through the smokescreen all us sheeple christians are fooled by… still needs something to explain where life came from. (you’ll notice none of his books deal with where those aliens came from)

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Intellectual honesty. I mean, if you’re wrong about Islam, and that turns out to be the right religion, you’re bound for hell just as much as I am. So why don’t you err on the side of caution with regards to Islam?

Answer that question – and then answer it again for every other religion – and you’ll see why I don’t “err on the side of caution” for your particular brand of supernaturalism.

More later.

I don’t know much about Islam, other than some of the basics. It was started by a regular guy though. Christianity does give some merit to those who live a reasonable life of seeking the Truth. Not “seeking” by seeking every possible escape hatch from the Truth. If you (both personally and atheists in general) are in fact seeking in the proper sense by visiting these forums, then great! I have yet to see a sensible (not double speak and pseudo logic) explanation of how atheists actually do believe something that cannot be proven. And I know the reason I have not seen one.

 

[NonServiam]

I have yet to see a sensible (not double speak and pseudo logic) explanation of how atheists actually do believe something that cannot be proven. And I know the reason I have not seen one.

I explained to you a few posts back that atheism isn’t the assertion of a positive claim but rather the lack of theistic claims. Atheism is not accepting claims about the existence of god – not necessarily claiming that no gods exist – on the grounds that those claims do not have sufficient evidence.

You even said earlier in this thread that my explanation made sense, and you thanked me for it.

Are you now revealing that you’re not actually interested in having a real conversation and that you’re just going to say that same things over and over again, even after I’ve demonstrated that you’re wrong?

Or are you saying that when you told me “thanks!” earlier, what you really meant was, 'That’s a lot of double speak and pseudo logic!"?

 

[insideitall]

I think some of the issue is that we’re arguing two different things.

atheist: one who believes there is no god, there is no meaning to life, and all morals are simply social constructs that have evolved to make society function smoothly

nontheist: one who believes there is insufficient proof for a god, that life has a purpose, and that people can still be awed by the universe

agnostic: one who believes that there is insufficient proof for a god but also insufficient proof against a god.

after reading your last post, I think you’re actually more of a nontheist or agnostic, and I think the difference between the two lies in how much proof of existence each would need in order to become theist. and I think this also makes the arguments slightly different.

 

[NonServiam]

actually, humans do not know how life was created.

The leading hypothesis is abiogenesis.

ever heard of richard dawkins? …] did you know he believes in directed panspermia? I’ll save you the trouble of having to look it up. it means he thinks aliens put life on earth.

No, he doesn’t.

The clip where he talks about the possibility of aliens seeding life on earth was in response to the question of how intelligent design might be a valid hypothesis: and he says that if aliens had seeded life on earth, then one could perhaps make a case for intelligent design by locating some sort of “signature” in human DNA. However, as he goes on to say, even if this were true, the aliens themselves would have had to evolve by Darwinian means. Elsewhere, Dawkins is emphatic that he does not believe in directed panspermia and that he was discussing the possibility of it as one of the few ways that “intelligent design” could actually work as a hypothesis and a confirmable science.

Here’s Dawkins explaining that he does not believe in directed panspermia: youtube.com/watch?v=nfo0UHY6dSM

(you’ll notice none of his books deal with where those aliens came from)

Which is, of course, what we would expect for someone who doesn’t believe in those aliens.

So now that you have the facts, it will be interesting to see if you are intellectually honest enough to admit that you are wrong and retract your claim.