Will I go to hell?

[NonServiam]

an atheist is someone who does not believe any gods exist.

Right, I don’t believe any gods exist.

When I’m confronted with the claim “A god exists,” I don’t accept the claim because I judge that it has insufficient evidence.

I don’t go around actively believing the claim “No gods exist.” Instead, I do not accept the claim “A God or Gods of some kind exist.”

It’s the difference between being convinced that a defendent is innocent and voting “not guilty” (which means I might not be convinced that he’s innocent, but I definitely think there’s not enough evidence to say he’s guilty).

 

[Gorgias]

I still think it’s pretty miserable to reward credulity and to deny reward to people who actually care about whether their beliefs are true.

You’re really going to have to ratchet down the spin if you want folks to engage with you on a rational level. Some folks look at the evidence and perceive it as sufficient to warrant belief. They, too, “actually care about whether their beliefs are true”. So, it’s not as bad you are attempting to make it out to be: all of us care, and as it turns out, not all of us reach the same conclusion, given the evidence. Our prior decision about the evidence leads us to some pretty uncharitable conclusions about the other camp: to you, we’re irrational dupes; to us, you all are intransigent deniers.

Of course, that’s not at all how we each see things. You say that I “apparently do think I’m going to miss out on something great because I’m not credulous enough to blindly accept something as true”; no… I think you’re going to miss out on something great because you’re unwilling to give the evidence a fair shake, such that you’re not just blindly accepting something as true. If you want to take that assertion and spin it to make me out as a bad guy, then you’re free to do so… just don’t fool yourself into thinking it’s a rational characterization.

The topic of the thread was whether a former Catholic and current atheist will go to hell. You’ve done a nice job of turning it into your own little sandbox on whether one who does not believe in God (and is wrong) will go to hell. I believe we’ve given the Catholic answer (in short, “not necessarily”). If you want to rant, well… have at it. If you want to talk about why the evidence for God is insufficient in your view, start another thread.

 

[Cristiano]

…I still think it’s pretty miserable to reward credulity and to deny reward to people who actually care about whether their beliefs are true.

So now you are saying that our belief is credulity thus you are implying that it cold be true. Why is miserable to reward belief in something that it is true? Why is is it miserable to deny a reward to the rejection of something that is true?

I think that your are falling in the basic fallacy of mixing belief with complete knowledge. Saying that you believe only when you have complete knowledge that something is true is a pretty stupid statement to me, you either know or you don’t and if you don’t you either believe or you don’t.

 

[NonServiam]

So now you are saying that our belief is credulity thus you are implying that it cold be true.

Sure, it could be true, just like it could be true that Bigfoot exists. But I won’t accept that either claim is true until there’s sufficient evidence (sufficient, not complete – we don’t need to know everything to know something). [Incidentally, I’m not comparing your God to Bigfoot…I realize that the claims are different…I’m comparing standards of evidence]

Why is miserable to reward belief in something that it is true? Why is is it miserable to deny a reward to the rejection of something that is true?

It’s miserable to deny people a reward for properly exercising their critical thinking faculties and for not accepting a claim for which there is insufficient evidence (note: not "incomplete knoweldge).

I think that your are falling in the basic fallacy of mixing belief with complete knowledge.

I’m not. I’m not arguing that we cannot believe something until we have complete knowledge. I’m arguing that one should not believe a claim until there is sufficient evidence to compel belief, and I don’t think any god claim has any compelling evidence going for it.

 

[Cristiano]

Sure, it could be true, just like it could be true that Bigfoot exists. But I won’t accept that either claim is true until there’s sufficient evidence (sufficient, not complete – we don’t need to know everything to know something). [Incidentally, I’m not comparing your God to Bigfoot…I realize that the claims are different…I’m comparing standards of evidence]

It’s miserable to deny people a reward for properly exercising their critical thinking faculties and for not accepting a claim for which there is insufficient evidence (note: not "incomplete knoweldge).

I’m not. I’m not arguing that we cannot believe something until we have complete knowledge. I’m arguing that one should not believe a claim until there is sufficient evidence to compel belief, and I don’t think any god claim has any compelling evidence going for it.

Saying that it is a miserable event is like saying that it is unfair not to be allowed to play in a sports league because you are not committing to accept the referees calls in the games.
It is simply matter of choice, normally people choose not to consider reasonable evidence as reasonable because it yields to unwanted consequences.
How do you know when you are subject to your reason and not to your will?
Do you believe that a specific person is your biological father? Is that matter of the will or of sufficient reason?

 

[NonServiam]

Saying that it is a miserable event is like saying that it is unfair not to be allowed to play in a sports league because you are not committing to accept the referees calls in the games.
It is simply matter of choice, normally people choose not to consider reasonable evidence as reasonable because it yields to unwanted consequences.
How do you know when you are subject to your reason and not to your will?
Do you believe that a specific person is your biological father? Is that matter of the will or of sufficient reason?

What in the world are you on about? Bad analogies, non-sequitors irrelevant questions: you’re all over the place.

If you really want me to talk to you, pick one thing and write about it so that it makes sense, and maybe I’ll respond.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Again, I didn’t gain evidence to reject the claim.** I don’t think that the claim “gods exist” is false…I don’t think that it’s true** HUH?? because there’s insufficient evidence. How did I determine that? I read up on the subject and reviewed all of the evidence. There’s not a single shred of convincing evidence, nor are there any arguments that are both sound and valid.

Me: “tell me about how you determined it was insufficient”

You: “I didn’t gain evidence to reject the claim” and “I read up on the subject and reviewed all of the evidence”.

Your entire last post is the double speak I’m ranting about.

Give me an example of:

1. a claim about God that you reviewed.
2. what you read/saw/heard that closed the issue for you.

 

[Cristiano]

What in the world are you on about? Bad analogies, non-sequitors irrelevant questions: you’re all over the place.

If you really want me to talk to you, pick one thing and write about it so that it makes sense, and maybe I’ll respond.

No, I am simply demonstrating that you pick and choose how you believe using your will and not your reason.
Using terms like bad analogies, non-sequiturs, irrelevant questions is also irrelevant unless you associate each term with an assumption, argument or conclusion. I do not see the use of your terms associated with any assumption, argument or conclusion.

 

[NonServiam]

Give me an example of:

1. a claim about God that you reviewed.

Ok, “God exists.”

1. what you read/saw/heard that closed the issue for you.

Nothing “closed” the issue: I have not come across sufficient evidence for this claim in well over fifteen years of investigating it. All of the major arguments and pieces of evidence that I have come across for this claim are lacking.

As a result, I don’t accept the claim “God exists” as true. That doesn’t mean that I think the claim is absolutely false – just that I don’t have any sufficient grounds to accept it as true.

Now, if some compelling evidence came along right now, I would admit that I was wrong and accept the claim.

 

[davidv]

I’ll repeat, please don’t try to psychoanalyze me. I’m trying to get people’s views on the subject of whether an otherwise moral atheist who was once Catholic can get into heaven. It doesn’t have to be me, I’m just the most available example. I want your well-reasoned argument about why I (or some other hypothetical person) can or can’t get into heaven, not your condescension.

Your phase “moral atheist” is an oxymoron. The most fundamental moral action is worship of God. Don’t worship God? This is the epitome of immorality.

 

[Gorgias]

Incidentally, I’m not comparing your God to Bigfoot…I realize that the claims are different…I’m comparing standards of evidence] …

I’m arguing that one should not believe a claim until there is sufficient evidence to compel belief, and I don’t think any god claim has any compelling evidence going for it.

Now, if some compelling evidence came along right now, I would admit that I was wrong and accept the claim.

Awesome. Now, this really is fodder for a different thread…

However, how would you define “standard of evidence” for a spiritual being, and under that standard, what would hold as “sufficient” or “compelling”?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Awesome. Now, this really is fodder for a different thread… However, how would you define “standard of evidence” for a spiritual being, and under that standard, what would hold as “sufficient” or “compelling”?

I keep trying to get this out of him, too. No luck so far.

 

[englishredrose]

I accept what you are saying and I know t aint church teaching

but was trying to give a direct answer to the original question without involving religion at all. If one doesn’t believe in God then one doesn’t have the other concepts too because heaven and hell are concepts of God. Is where I was trying to come from. It goes to show that atheists cannot seperate hell from God and by talking about hell they are inadvertantly perhaps, admitting that there is a God since it is only God through the devil that talks about Hell. That the devil don’t exist either without God. So to focus on the devil and hell, one must believe in God somewhere along the line as the whole concepts don’t exist without God if you catch my drift???

and that is exactly my point about if you don’t have a hell or a heaven then you will in fact end up exactly where you believe in and bearing in mind the person wouldn’t be christian it wouldn’t matter to them that they are with norse gods etc because for them that be important although it isn’t important to us christians. we do believe in heaven so we will either be in heaven or hell though i personally believe we all end up in heaven because God loves us all. But for a non christian who doesn’t have a belief of our God then they will indeed end up where ever they do believe in and yep that isn’t church teaching at all but I think privately that is what people do think even if they are not open about that thinking. Christians are too fixed on the church teaching of heaven and hell to work outside the parimeter and think what that be for those who don’t believe in God at all. If an atheist talks about hell in a way that they actually believe hell exists then deep down they believe God exists because hell is purely connected to God so they aren’t really aethiests. In my opinion of course

 

[FaithBuild18]

I don’t think I’ll ever understand why atheists feel self-righteous when they go through daily life copying the Mythbusters’ (TV show) method of acquiring knowledge. They talk about evidence and reason while pretending to mimic a real scientific process. Buddy, how long have you worked in the scientific community? It ain’t what you think my friend.

 

[NonServiam]

Awesome. Now, this really is fodder for a different thread…

Then start one and invite me to respond. Or keep talking to me here. Or don’t do it at all. Whatever you prefer.

However, how would you define “standard of evidence” for a spiritual being, and under that standard, what would hold as “sufficient” or “compelling”?

It would depend on the nature of the claim. How exactly do you define “spritual being”? For you to say that there is a spiritual being, this spiritual being must be detectable in some way and must be distinguishable from natural phenomenon (the imagination, dreams, etc.)

EDIT: So, the point is that it would be up to you to define what a “spiritual being” is, how this “spiritual being” supposedly manifests in a way distinguishable from other phenomenon, and to give examples of this manifestation.

 

[NonServiam]

I keep trying to get this out of him, too. No luck so far.

Could you quote exactly where you asked me this question (post number and all)?

 

[NonServiam]

They talk about evidence and reason while pretending to mimic a real scientific process. Buddy, how long have you worked in the scientific community? It ain’t what you think my friend.

The issue at hand is not “science,” per se: it’s evidence-based inquiry. (EDIT: of which science is one small part)

All of us, in our everyday, daily lives, use evidence to reach conclusions. Our minds do this so well that we’re not always consciously aware of it, but we do. When I see dark clouds in the sky, I say, “Gee, it’s going to rain today.” That is to say, I’m formulating a conclusion on the back of evidence: I don’t just randonly get up and declare that it’s going to rain without any evidence to support what I say. (And, obviously, even if it did end up raining, it would just be by coincidence that I was correct)

All of us use evidence and reason to navigate our lives. I don’t need to conduct a rigorous scientific experiment in order to use evidence to come to many of the basic conclusions I do during the day.

So the issue at hand is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that a god of some kind exists.

I think no, and I have been thinking about this question – reading about it, studying, etc. – for a very long time.

 

[Gorgias]

Then start one and invite me to respond. Or keep talking to me here. Or don’t do it at all. Whatever you prefer.

Well, then… let’s start it here. If it has legs, then we’ll start another thread. Sound good?

It would depend on the nature of the claim.

The claim is that God exists.

How exactly do you define “spritual being”?

A being that is spirit, not matter; one that has no physical existence.

For you to say that there is a spiritual being, this spiritual being must be detectable in some way

“Detectable” how?

So, the point is that it would be up to you to define what a “spiritual being” is, how this “spiritual being” supposedly manifests in a way distinguishable from other phenomenon, and to give examples of this manifestation.

No… the question is not “how does God manifest himself?”, the question is “does God exist?”. Examples of manifestation go to another question; let’s stick to this one. Unless, of course, you’re asserting that God existence is God’s manifestation.

 

[mgoforth]

Please read “Handbook of Catholic Apologetics”. It has your answer.

 

[NonServiam]

No… the question is not “how does God manifest himself?”, the question is “does God exist?”.

Well, here’s our first problem: I think that “to exist” means to manifest in some detectable way.

If something “exists” but doesn’t manifest in any way that any person can detect, isn’t that indistinguishable from not existing at all?