karmatoast said:
please do, thank you.
Atheists: Most deserving of Heaven?
- Thread starter Athelwulf
- Start date
please do, thank you.
Athelwulf,
Do you believe in heaven?
If you are an atheist, I'd say you don't believe in heaven.
But how then can you say
"It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot."
-- this testifies of a belief in heaven.
If you are an atheist and don't believe in heaven, why then say that you might end up there?
Do you believe in heaven?
If you are an atheist, I'd say you don't believe in heaven.
But how then can you say
"It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot."
-- this testifies of a belief in heaven.
If you are an atheist and don't believe in heaven, why then say that you might end up there?
read your own post for the answer rosa.
it should have said read your own thread(do atheist believe in heaven)
what does that mean, you've lost me.rosa said:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976the preacher said:
I'm not saying that god exists... I'm saying there is doubt both ways.
karma:
I would also read these sites, it's not so black and white as it may seem, Exactly what Antony Flew has converted to remains unclear. http://mt.ektopos.com/parablemania/archives/000996.html
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?...mplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15067
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/000305.html
it seems he's as religious as einstein( no such thing as a personal god.)
I would also read these sites, it's not so black and white as it may seem, Exactly what Antony Flew has converted to remains unclear. http://mt.ektopos.com/parablemania/archives/000996.html
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?...mplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15067
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/000305.html
it seems he's as religious as einstein( no such thing as a personal god.)
There is a difference, if atheists do not derive their moral code from God or the Bible. Judaeao-Christian morals come via the Bible, via Moses, via God, but they derive ultimately from the underpinning moral absolute of not hurting or harming or otherwise depriving of their Natural right to health wealth and happiness one's fellow human beings.
Christians are told the rules when they learn the Bible story - "God said this" and "God said that" and you automatically "get" why they're good rules - or at least the obvious ones about not killing, stealing, lying etc. But the Bible story is simply the means by which these moral truths are instilled in children to begin with. But it doesn't have to be that way. We don't have to teach our children to love their neighbour, not to lie, not to kill, but also to hate and abominate gays and other people who are "not like us".
He believes that the universe was designed by a supreme being.the preacher said:
Karmashock, no-one doubts that people do falter when approaching death, as you mentioned. I would not say that I myself would be proof against such backsliding.
I was surprised someone asked for that reference because I first heard about that guy right here at sciforums, though it got mentioned on BBC Radio 4 the next day, I think.
"including in debates with an atheist-turned-Christian named C. S. Lewis". "An" atheist-turned-Christian named C.S. Lewis? One would have hoped Lewis was better known than that, particularly in Christian circles - after all, he created the (Christ-allegory) Chronicles of Narnia, and his surprise late marriage to a cancer victim was the subject of a recent film. (1993 - my mistake, not that recent, my god where did the time go!?). Although, an apologetics site included the following quote:
At any rate, the central core of what Anthony Flew has gone through is illustrated by the following quote from the pfm.org link.
Incidentally, preacher there was a recent Horizon programme on BBC2 here in the UK about Einstein in which they practically declared he was a fully paid up believer in God, (although not a practising Jew). Yes, he talked about God all the time when expressing his opposition to the quantum paradigm, but they made it sound like he was a sincere religious believer - a misrepresentation, I believe.
I was surprised someone asked for that reference because I first heard about that guy right here at sciforums, though it got mentioned on BBC Radio 4 the next day, I think.
"including in debates with an atheist-turned-Christian named C. S. Lewis". "An" atheist-turned-Christian named C.S. Lewis? One would have hoped Lewis was better known than that, particularly in Christian circles - after all, he created the (Christ-allegory) Chronicles of Narnia, and his surprise late marriage to a cancer victim was the subject of a recent film. (1993 - my mistake, not that recent, my god where did the time go!?). Although, an apologetics site included the following quote:
"Lewis had become an atheist in his teens, but underwent a dramatic conversion in 1931, largely under the influence of discussions with a fellow Oxford medievalist named J.R.R. Tolkien."
A fellow oxford medievalist named J.R.R. Tolkien. I wonder if he's related to any other Tolkiens! :eyeroll:At any rate, the central core of what Anthony Flew has gone through is illustrated by the following quote from the pfm.org link.
But he’s now been forced to face the evidence. It comes from the Intelligent Design movement, led by Dr. Phillip Johnson and particularly the work of Michael Behe, the Lehigh biochemist who has proven the “irreducible complexity” of the human cell structure. Though eighty-one years old, Flew has not let his thinking fossilize, but has faithfully followed his own dictum to “go where the evidence leads.”
Behe's so-called evidence is misleading and falls prey to what Richard Dawkins called "the Argument from Personal Incredulity". Just because an 81-year old philosopher has been convinced by Behe does not necessarily mean that Behe's arguments are anything like foolproof, as a cursory glance at the low rating reviews of his book on amazon.co.uk will confirm.Incidentally, preacher there was a recent Horizon programme on BBC2 here in the UK about Einstein in which they practically declared he was a fully paid up believer in God, (although not a practising Jew). Yes, he talked about God all the time when expressing his opposition to the quantum paradigm, but they made it sound like he was a sincere religious believer - a misrepresentation, I believe.
Last edited:
and I concur silas I saw that as well.
as I said to karma, had no believe in a personal god.
and karma did you actually read, the info on those sites, it says he believes more in the possiblity that there is I D in the universe, not a god/gods he states he has no believe in the gods of any of the religion.
as I said to karma, had no believe in a personal god.
and karma did you actually read, the info on those sites, it says he believes more in the possiblity that there is I D in the universe, not a god/gods he states he has no believe in the gods of any of the religion.
Well first of all I don't believe in an after life.
But I'm somewhat of a joker! so here it goes;
If there is such a thing as an after life, I would have to get a pretty damn good offer to live with such boring sob's for all eternity.
Heaven may just be an empty place. As no one has ever been so freaking perfect! and Jessus is just siting there waiting for some hones christian to still arrive; Good luck Jessus you'll be waitin a long time. Specially when Alla is overthere in the other corner of heaven getting all them muslims that fight jihad for their 15 virgins.
Sattan is throwing one hell of a party; Many christians don't even know they are in hell thinking they are in heaven they are been fooled just as easily as this administration with the Devil's advocate been president. G.W. Devils advocate.
Yea the Devil knows how to manupalate and coherse Hell's media to keep them poor suckers fooled for centuries.
Thus for us athiest jessus may just give us a deal we can't refuse;
Hey if Brando is there it can't be all that bad!. Right?.
LOL..LOL..
Godless.
But I'm somewhat of a joker! so here it goes;
If there is such a thing as an after life, I would have to get a pretty damn good offer to live with such boring sob's for all eternity.
Heaven may just be an empty place. As no one has ever been so freaking perfect! and Jessus is just siting there waiting for some hones christian to still arrive; Good luck Jessus you'll be waitin a long time. Specially when Alla is overthere in the other corner of heaven getting all them muslims that fight jihad for their 15 virgins.
Sattan is throwing one hell of a party; Many christians don't even know they are in hell thinking they are in heaven they are been fooled just as easily as this administration with the Devil's advocate been president. G.W. Devils advocate.
Yea the Devil knows how to manupalate and coherse Hell's media to keep them poor suckers fooled for centuries.
Thus for us athiest jessus may just give us a deal we can't refuse;
Hey if Brando is there it can't be all that bad!. Right?.
LOL..LOL..
Godless.
Intelligent Design in the creation and nature of the universe is about as close as you can get to supreme beings and Gods.the preacher said:
He’s not saying that this god is the Christian god or any other human oriented god… merely that the universe is very very conveniently organized.
Again, I’m not saying he’s right. I’m just saying you don’t know.
There is doubt. Therefore, both sides are a matter of faith.
Do you want to have faith that there is no god or that there is a god? The choice is yours.
That made me really confused. What do you mean with un-religious barbarians?
Do you mean those up the north of europe many centuries ago? Those who the christians said where "barbarians"... Well they of course, like everyone else at that time, had a religion.
Say one barbarian tribe that didn't have religion.
Just because they doesnt belong to one of the world religions they aren't "unreligious".
Karmashock,
Atheists don’t particularly want oblivion; they simply accept the somewhat overwhelming evidence that that is what happens when you die. Believing in fantasies doesn’t help you avoid oblivion.
But faith is simply believing something is true without any evidence – that is entirely stupid and idiotic.
I believe most atheists here understand these issues quite well.
No, it remains a fantasy that religionists have mistaken as reality.
Well of course. That’s why religion is factually baseless and useless.
You are confusing the issues of deliberate deception with the fantasy delusions of religious belief. They aren’t comparable.
Agreed, but that in no way indicates whether what they believe is true.
What is the source of your statistics? It seems more likely that those who have never given religion much thought start to consider the issues as death approaches. The idea that death is not permanent is the primary common factor in virtually every religion and the reason why religions exist. This is our inherent survival instinct kicking in and the difficulty of accepting inevitable non-existence. Those who identify themselves as atheists tend to have given the issues serious consideration and are more likely to accept the obvious inevitability of non-existence.
No he isn’t. What’s your proof?
And why is this anything other than a nonsense fantasy?
Perhaps what is more important is that no one can show that a god or gods actually exist, have existed, might exist, or could exist. Trying to show that a fantasy is a fantasy is a rather futile endeavor and certainly of no interest to science.
No – one is indeed known and physical, while the other exists only as an imaginative concept.
No – we only know of one realm, whatever else you believe is just creative fiction.
Atheists don’t particularly want oblivion; they simply accept the somewhat overwhelming evidence that that is what happens when you die. Believing in fantasies doesn’t help you avoid oblivion.
But faith is simply believing something is true without any evidence – that is entirely stupid and idiotic.
I believe most atheists here understand these issues quite well.
No, it remains a fantasy that religionists have mistaken as reality.
Well of course. That’s why religion is factually baseless and useless.
You are confusing the issues of deliberate deception with the fantasy delusions of religious belief. They aren’t comparable.
Agreed, but that in no way indicates whether what they believe is true.
What is the source of your statistics? It seems more likely that those who have never given religion much thought start to consider the issues as death approaches. The idea that death is not permanent is the primary common factor in virtually every religion and the reason why religions exist. This is our inherent survival instinct kicking in and the difficulty of accepting inevitable non-existence. Those who identify themselves as atheists tend to have given the issues serious consideration and are more likely to accept the obvious inevitability of non-existence.
No he isn’t. What’s your proof?
And why is this anything other than a nonsense fantasy?
Perhaps what is more important is that no one can show that a god or gods actually exist, have existed, might exist, or could exist. Trying to show that a fantasy is a fantasy is a rather futile endeavor and certainly of no interest to science.
No – one is indeed known and physical, while the other exists only as an imaginative concept.
No – we only know of one realm, whatever else you believe is just creative fiction.
Please don’t bold your text indiscriminately. Bold some selectively or none at all.
To have faith in the idea of God and such a universe is not stupid.
God is beyond science.
Furthermore, you don’t know that god doesn’t exist and cannot know that. It is also probable that any god would hide his existence on the grounds that people wouldn’t have faith if they knew.
Put a gun to their head and give them a chance to pray… I doubt many atheists would say there is nothing to pray to.
It’s common information. No major archeological society disagrees with this point. Jesus was a real man. Whether he was the son of God too or not is debatable.
Science is and has always been an agnostic.
If you’re an atheist, then science isn’t with you anymore then it’s with the passionately religious.
Science has no opinion on God.
Love and peace, Karmashock.
There is no evidence of the kind. There is simply no evidence of anything… one way or the other.Cris said:
as stupid as unconditional love… and yet that is considered by most to be beautiful.
To have faith in the idea of God and such a universe is not stupid.
My experience is that they don’t think much about this sort of thing at all.
your opinion.
Factually baseless perhaps, but hardly useless.
Quite comparable. Prove with science that you love your parents. Give me numbers that quantify that love. Is it 32.1223 (Love units)/(human emotional constant)?
God is beyond science.
So? It’s faith and belief. We’re talking about world views, identities, cultural psychology, etc. Truth has less to do with it, then whether said beliefs are beneficial regardless.
Furthermore, you don’t know that god doesn’t exist and cannot know that. It is also probable that any god would hide his existence on the grounds that people wouldn’t have faith if they knew.
No, they tend to just go along with the crowd. Atheism is considered modern and no one likes to think of themselves as outmoded. As such, they just ‘say’ they are and don’t give it much thought.
Put a gun to their head and give them a chance to pray… I doubt many atheists would say there is nothing to pray to.
yes he is, look it up.
It’s common information. No major archeological society disagrees with this point. Jesus was a real man. Whether he was the son of God too or not is debatable.
Why must it be a nonsense fantasy? You can’t prove either with science. Science has no ability to touch this… It can’t prove or disprove it.
Science is and has always been an agnostic.
If you’re an atheist, then science isn’t with you anymore then it’s with the passionately religious.
No more profound that that Science cannot prove they don’t exist, have existed, might exist, or could exist.
Science has no opinion on God.
You can’t prove that.
Again, science won’t back that up. This is largely why Flew said he was no longer an atheist. Science just couldn’t show that it knew enough about the universe to say such things.
Love and peace, Karmashock.
Religion requires "blind faith" - believing it to be true without the evidence to support it.
This is illogical and irrational.
Thus it can be deemed "stupid" if that is how one defines stupidity
Unconditional love is often seen as stupid - no matter how "beautiful" one sees it.
Atheist believe in exactly the same physical universe - and some lead far better lives (judged by society as a whole) than those who purport to be religious.
Why, then, would you need to believe in an unprovable mystical being that is as real as an invisibile, undetectable Green Dragon sitting on my shoulder right now?
Religion is a matter of subtle brainwashing and need.
The former starts when your parents wheel you off to church and your school teaches you about "religion". The latter comes in when you use the ideas of religion as a crutch for problems in your life - whatever they may be - perhaps to give your life meaning, direction, comfort etc.
Please define "love" and we'll start from there.
If you find you can't define it then please don't ask people to prove it exists.
Can you define "God"?
No-one is arguing against the beneficial effects that believing in a religion can have on the individual or the society.
It is widely used as a guiding force in someone's life, or a crutch in time of despair. It can help enforce common sense by getting people to believe in something through fear.
The benefits are wide.
But this is no evidence for the existence or otherwise of God, or for heaven etc.
If believing in God is the only way that some people can get through life then I'm happy for them.
It is not science's aim to disprove any god exists.
If there is evidence to prove something then science will accept it.
:bugeye: You're serious, aren't you??
Not only do you believe in an unprovable deity, you are now assigning traits to him to satisfy your own belief.
Probable? Compared to what?
It is not Atheism that is modern it is the ability for people to think for themselves that is modern without fear of reprisals.
Atheism is still a minority thorughout the world.
Don't confuse Apathy with Atheism.
I can watch a soccer match and "pray" that they score the penalty.
That is merely an outward sign of "hope" - not belief in a God.
I would certainly "pray" if someone was about to shoot me - but it would be nothing more than hoping they don't.
So now you're questioning your own religious beliefs that Jesus was the son of your God? (I'm guessing at your religion as Christian).
Thus it is illogical and irrational.
To assign a religious persuasion to it is utterly meaningless.
It is not science's task to disprove the existence of something - rather those that believe in it to prove its existence.
And then why believe in something that will forever be unprovable.
The answer is that Atheists DON'T need to believe in anything else. Religious people DO, or at worst too lazy to think outside of their brainwashing from birth.
I am atheist.
I believe in what science (the scientific method) will tell me.
It can not tell me, ever, that an unprovable being exists.
I thus do not believe it does.
This is illogical and irrational.
Thus it can be deemed "stupid" if that is how one defines stupidity
This is a strawman fallacy - as being beautiful does not prevent one from being stupid.Karmashock said:
Unconditional love is often seen as stupid - no matter how "beautiful" one sees it.
Yes it is, if you define "stupid" as being irrational and illogical.karmashock said:
Atheist believe in exactly the same physical universe - and some lead far better lives (judged by society as a whole) than those who purport to be religious.
Why, then, would you need to believe in an unprovable mystical being that is as real as an invisibile, undetectable Green Dragon sitting on my shoulder right now?
Religion is a matter of subtle brainwashing and need.
The former starts when your parents wheel you off to church and your school teaches you about "religion". The latter comes in when you use the ideas of religion as a crutch for problems in your life - whatever they may be - perhaps to give your life meaning, direction, comfort etc.
In order to prove something you have to define it.karmashock said:
Please define "love" and we'll start from there.
If you find you can't define it then please don't ask people to prove it exists.
Can you define "God"?
Logical fallacy.karmashock said:
No-one is arguing against the beneficial effects that believing in a religion can have on the individual or the society.
It is widely used as a guiding force in someone's life, or a crutch in time of despair. It can help enforce common sense by getting people to believe in something through fear.
The benefits are wide.
But this is no evidence for the existence or otherwise of God, or for heaven etc.
If believing in God is the only way that some people can get through life then I'm happy for them.
An appeal to ignorance.karmashock said:
It is not science's aim to disprove any god exists.
If there is evidence to prove something then science will accept it.
karmashock said:
:bugeye: You're serious, aren't you??Not only do you believe in an unprovable deity, you are now assigning traits to him to satisfy your own belief.
Probable? Compared to what?
Please. Atheism? Modern?
It is not Atheism that is modern it is the ability for people to think for themselves that is modern without fear of reprisals.
Atheism is still a minority thorughout the world.
Don't confuse Apathy with Atheism.
Don't confuse prayer with an outward showing of hope.
I can watch a soccer match and "pray" that they score the penalty.
That is merely an outward sign of "hope" - not belief in a God.
I would certainly "pray" if someone was about to shoot me - but it would be nothing more than hoping they don't.
karmashock said:
So now you're questioning your own religious beliefs that Jesus was the son of your God? (I'm guessing at your religion as Christian).Thus it is a nonsense fantasy.karmashock said:
Thus it is illogical and irrational.
I thought science was nothing more than the search for fact.karmashock said:
To assign a religious persuasion to it is utterly meaningless.
Science does have an opinion of God - that it is an unprovable concept and thus meaningless. God is not a theory as theories must be either provable or disprovable.karmashock said:
It is not science's task to disprove the existence of something - rather those that believe in it to prove its existence.
And then why believe in something that will forever be unprovable.
The answer is that Atheists DON'T need to believe in anything else. Religious people DO, or at worst too lazy to think outside of their brainwashing from birth.
I am atheist.
I believe in what science (the scientific method) will tell me.
It can not tell me, ever, that an unprovable being exists.
I thus do not believe it does.
I am a Christian.
I believe in what science knows.
It cannot tell me, ever, that God doesn't exist.
I thus do not disbelieve that he does.
I believe in what science knows.
It cannot tell me, ever, that God doesn't exist.
I thus do not disbelieve that he does.
however I dont believe in I D, to me it makes no senses, the scientific world is split, on the subject.karma said:
Creation science/Intelligent Design is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science/Intelligent Design is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science/Intelligent Design differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.
and never would it try, it would be stupid." he that asserts a thing, has to prove a thing."karma said:
do you mean, "I thus do not disbelieve that he does'nt".karma said: