Can an atheist get into Heaven

[wolfriverjoe 1,355]

wmw999

Quote

I'm still waiting for Jay's "Incontrovertible Evidence".

When one starts with the knowledge of the result, proving it is simply a matter of finding the evidence. Kind of like a court, where only the prosecution gets to present a case, and the judge is disposed to convict.

When you know the right answer, it's much easier to prove, because you disbelieve everything that disproves.

This presents a twofold problem, however:
1. That means that you're not willing to accept religion on faith, which by its very nature means it can't be proven
2. It's just plain wrong. Learning is advanced by intellectual honesty, which means accepting that sometimes one's most closely-held assumptions are wrong.

I'm OK with not being able to disprove faith, it's what faith is about. And it makes it personal, rather than organizational.

I'm with whoever it was that said that the study of theology, or what God really meant in the Bible, is truly arrogant. Because it's been corrupted over time with what each society considers to be normal (subjugation of women, slavery, separation from/engagement with political systems, etc). What a 12th-century scholar thought the Bible really meant is quite different from what a modern scholar does. And in another 800 years, there'll be yet another interpretation, consistent with modern (or slightly less than modern) values.

Wendy P.

Thanks.

I always was of the "There's no proof or evidence for God because proof would deny faith, and faith is what it's all about" philosophy.

I also find the "this or that is proof of God, you just have to believe it" ideas rather silly. And very arrogant.

I have very little problems with those people who "own" their faith. That is, they believe what they believe and express it in terms of themselves.

Or, they make their statements of belief about themselves. They say "When I die, I will stand before God in judgement."

When someone tries to threaten me with that sort of thing, I tend to express doubt. When someone says "You will stand in judgement when you die", it's a whole different statement.

One is simply expressing their own belief. The other is forcing that belief on me.
I don't like the second one a whole lot.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JoeWeber 2,331]

wolfriverjoe

******>It's a legal issue.

Right - and I know some see it that way. Dot all the I's, cross all the T's, get a good lawyer and it doesn't matter what you do; you can beat the system and win the prize. Legally.

I think following Christ's example is a better way to be a Christian. To each their own.

Bill,

You are not being helpful. Let him chase his tail.

I think Bill is being more reasonable and rational than most of the folks in the thread.

I'm still waiting for Jay's "Incontrovertible Evidence". All I've seen so far is second hand accounts.
What's called "hearsay" in a court of law (note that 'hearsay' is not 'heresy'). And generally inadmissible as "Evidence".

Bill is always reasonable, for sure. I simply think that epistemological discourse with Jay or Ron is pointless until they stop stonewalling when they are called on their claims.

I'd like for Jay to provide his preponderance of evidence, too. His repetitive quoting of the bible and confessions and the like is just overwhelmingly tedious at the stage. That said, his telling Jack to go read Romans 3 for his answer did have some comedic value.

I'd also like Ron to explain where the extra soul goes when a human Chimera is formed from fraternal twin embryos in the womb.

But I doubt they will.

[jaybird18c 4]

You dont "prove the Bible" in the same way you would prove something using scientific methodology, which seems to be what you're looking for and the only thing you'll accept (e.g. Airtight/incontrovertible). There are obviously skeptical alternative (e.g. possible) explanations all over the place. The preponderance of evidence (as you would appropriately judge a literary work, not a scientific theory) is explained very well by Ravi Zacharias.

"Defend the Bible? I’d sooner defend a lion!”
- Charles Spurgeon

https://www.zachariastrust.org/why-trust-the-bible

[RonD1120 58]

JoeWeber

I'd also like Ron to explain where the extra soul goes when a human Chimera is formed from fraternal twin embryos in the womb.

But I doubt they will.

How about this?

The battle for the soul is in the mind, a Christian concept. If two bodies are joined together with two separate personalities then there are two minds. Each has free will to make choices on their own and be held accountable as individuals.

If two bodies are joined together with one mind then the choices are singularly individual.

Keeping in mind that sin is mostly attitude not behvior.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rifleman 61]

wolfriverjoe

One is simply expressing their own belief. The other is forcing that belief on me.
I don't like the second one a whole lot.

A bit like this?

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[billvon 2,438]

Quote

You dont "prove the Bible" in the same way you would prove something using scientific methodology, which seems to be what you're looking for and the only thing you'll accept (e.g. Airtight/incontrovertible). There are obviously skeptical alternative (e.g. possible) explanations all over the place. The preponderance of evidence (as you would appropriately judge a literary work, not a scientific theory) is explained very well by Ravi Zacharias.

Excellent quote.

The Bible is not a history book, nor a science book, and is not required to be accurate in the way that either such text is. It is the record of an oral tradition that goes back 8000 years. It contains a lot of mistakes - mistakes that are demonstrated by both lack of accuracy compared to what we know of the time, and plain contradictions within the Bible itself. But those mistakes do not invalidate it; oral traditions accumulate errors with time.

At best it is a guide to what early Christianity believed, and where the religion came from. It's also useful as a general record of the life of Christ; since it is likely that the Gospels were written by authors who had at least spoken to people who knew Christ, there's more chance of accuracy there. (And since they largely agree there is some confirmation.)

[jaybird18c 4]

The Bible is in fact, among other things, a record of history. As for it being full of error as you say:

"The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired;" that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the," "but," etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5%."

https://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible[

[DJL 232]

Quote

Thanks.

I always was of the "There's no proof or evidence for God because proof would deny faith, and faith is what it's all about" philosophy.

I also find the "this or that is proof of God, you just have to believe it" ideas rather silly. And very arrogant.

I have very little problems with those people who "own" their faith. That is, they believe what they believe and express it in terms of themselves.

Or, they make their statements of belief about themselves. They say "When I die, I will stand before God in judgement."

When someone tries to threaten me with that sort of thing, I tend to express doubt. When someone says "You will stand in judgement when you die", it's a whole different statement.

One is simply expressing their own belief. The other is forcing that belief on me.
I don't like the second one a whole lot.

Faith becomes it's own proof to religious people but they ignore the fact of what faith is, the belief that an outcome will become a reality. Religious faith is very powerful because it's based on years of tradition, repetition, societal norms, laws, and social acceptance. Children are told by adults that these things are truths and then the adults start telling it to themselves. The mental lapses and bridging that occurs to support this illusion can be astounding.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

Faith becomes it's own proof to religious people but they ignore the fact of what faith is, the belief that an outcome will become a reality. Religious faith is very powerful because it's based on years of tradition, repetition, societal norms, laws, and social acceptance. Children are told by adults that these things are truths and then the adults start telling it to themselves. The mental lapses and bridging that occurs to support this illusion can be astounding.

I wasn't raised in a religious environment and was an atheist up until 1998.

[billvon 2,438]

Quote

Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the," "but," etc.

The errors are a bit more than that. And there are no "original writings" for most of the Bible; most of it was transcribed from centuries-old oral histories. In many cases, the Bible represents the concatenation of several, sometimes conflicting stories.

As an example, were birds created before Man?

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

You dont "prove the Bible" in the same way you would prove something using scientific methodology, which seems to be what you're looking for and the only thing you'll accept (e.g. Airtight/incontrovertible). There are obviously skeptical alternative (e.g. possible) explanations all over the place. The preponderance of evidence (as you would appropriately judge a literary work, not a scientific theory) is explained very well by Ravi Zacharias.

The scientific method is how you judge reality.

No-one judges a literary work on the preponderance of evidence. That doesn't even make sense. The value of a literary work as literature is a) subjective and b) purely judged on its own merits. The value of what a literary work says about how the universe works is judged in exactly the same way as any other claim about how the universe works. With science.

Quote

"Defend the Bible? I’d sooner defend a lion!”
- Charles Spurgeon

A lot of good people devote their lives to defending lions, and I'm very glad they do. Without them we'd have no lions left, and our world would be that little bit poorer for it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 232]

jaybird18c

Quote

Faith becomes it's own proof to religious people but they ignore the fact of what faith is, the belief that an outcome will become a reality. Religious faith is very powerful because it's based on years of tradition, repetition, societal norms, laws, and social acceptance. Children are told by adults that these things are truths and then the adults start telling it to themselves. The mental lapses and bridging that occurs to support this illusion can be astounding.

I wasn't raised in a religious environment and was an atheist up until 1998.

And neither was I, however, I became a Christian and studied it as literally the most important thing in the world until coming to the understanding that it's at best as verifiable as any other religion on the planet and also knowing that Christ did not fulfill the Messianic Prophesies. I left it behind and no it was not a decision made lightly, because as a I said, what happens to you when you die and the ramifications your life has on the afterlife is literally the most important thing in your life.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DJL 232]

jaybird18c

The Bible is in fact, among other things, a record of history. As for it being full of error as you say:

"The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired;" that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the," "but," etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5%."

https://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible[

It doesn't get an more circular than saying that the proof of the bible's accuracy is based upon God ensuring that at least the original writings are accurate.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[JoeWeber 2,331]

RonD1120

***

I'd also like Ron to explain where the extra soul goes when a human Chimera is formed from fraternal twin embryos in the womb.

But I doubt they will.

How about this?

The battle for the soul is in the mind, a Christian concept. If two bodies are joined together with two separate personalities then there are two minds. Each has free will to make choices on their own and be held accountable as individuals.

If two bodies are joined together with one mind then the choices are singularly individual.

Keeping in mind that sin is mostly attitude not behvior.

Are you saying that when separate each embryo has a soul but when joined as a Chimera the souls also join to become one?

[wolfriverjoe 1,355]

jaybird18c

You dont "prove the Bible" in the same way you would prove something using scientific methodology, which seems to be what you're looking for and the only thing you'll accept (e.g. Airtight/incontrovertible). There are obviously skeptical alternative (e.g. possible) explanations all over the place. The preponderance of evidence (as you would appropriately judge a literary work, not a scientific theory) is explained very well by Ravi Zacharias.

"Defend the Bible? I’d sooner defend a lion!”
- Charles Spurgeon

https://www.zachariastrust.org/why-trust-the-bible

Well, yet again, please make up your mind.

"Preponderance of Evidence" means just that. ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Not "judged as you would judge a literary work".

Not "the Bible is true because it says it is."

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[RonD1120 58]

JoeWeber

******

I'd also like Ron to explain where the extra soul goes when a human Chimera is formed from fraternal twin embryos in the womb.

But I doubt they will.

How about this?

The battle for the soul is in the mind, a Christian concept. If two bodies are joined together with two separate personalities then there are two minds. Each has free will to make choices on their own and be held accountable as individuals.

If two bodies are joined together with one mind then the choices are singularly individual.

Keeping in mind that sin is mostly attitude not behvior.

Are you saying that when separate each embryo has a soul but when joined as a Chimera the souls also join to become one?

I am saying count the number of minds and that equals the number of souls. This is just conjecture to some degree on my part. I have counseled people with multi-faceted personalities and some were diagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never met nor counseled a chimera as far as I know.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,262]

RonD1120

I am saying count the number of minds and that equals the number of souls. This is just conjecture to some degree on my part. I have counseled people with multi-faceted personalities and some were diagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never met nor counseled a chimera as far as I know.

A) How would you know?

B) How would it help you know the answer?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 58]

jakee

***I am saying count the number of minds and that equals the number of souls. This is just conjecture to some degree on my part. I have counseled people with multi-faceted personalities and some were diagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never met nor counseled a chimera as far as I know.

A) How would you know?

B) How would it help you know the answer?

You need to redirect your question to JoeWeber. It is his fantasy problem.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,262]

RonD1120

******I am saying count the number of minds and that equals the number of souls. This is just conjecture to some degree on my part. I have counseled people with multi-faceted personalities and some were diagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never met nor counseled a chimera as far as I know.

A) How would you know?

B) How would it help you know the answer?

You need to redirect your question to JoeWeber. It is his fantasy problem.

What an odd thing to say.

Although they most certainly are, I know you don't believe that souls are fantasy. And human chimeras (odd as it sounds) are real.

So from your point of view, the only way it becomes a fantasy is if you think that people you haven't personally met aren't actually real. Which is consistent with things you've said before...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JoeWeber 2,331]

RonD1120

*********

I'd also like Ron to explain where the extra soul goes when a human Chimera is formed from fraternal twin embryos in the womb.

But I doubt they will.

How about this?

The battle for the soul is in the mind, a Christian concept. If two bodies are joined together with two separate personalities then there are two minds. Each has free will to make choices on their own and be held accountable as individuals.

If two bodies are joined together with one mind then the choices are singularly individual.

Keeping in mind that sin is mostly attitude not behvior.

Are you saying that when separate each embryo has a soul but when joined as a Chimera the souls also join to become one?

I am saying count the number of minds and that equals the number of souls. This is just conjecture to some degree on my part. I have counseled people with multi-faceted personalities and some were diagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never met nor counseled a chimera as far as I know.

It appears we are in agreement: it's all in your mind.

[Justincblount 4]

RonD1120

*********

I'd also like Ron to explain where the extra soul goes when a human Chimera is formed from fraternal twin embryos in the womb.

But I doubt they will.

How about this?

The battle for the soul is in the mind, a Christian concept. If two bodies are joined together with two separate personalities then there are two minds. Each has free will to make choices on their own and be held accountable as individuals.

If two bodies are joined together with one mind then the choices are singularly individual.

Keeping in mind that sin is mostly attitude not behvior.

Are you saying that when separate each embryo has a soul but when joined as a Chimera the souls also join to become one?

I am saying count the number of minds and that equals the number of souls. This is just conjecture to some degree on my part. I have counseled people with multi-faceted personalities and some were diagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never met nor counseled a chimera as far as I know.

Wait a sec... are you saying people with MPD have multiple souls? So did they only have one soul up until the traumatic experience that made them disassociate? Or were all those souls lying dormant? You've 'counseled people' but it sounds like you have zero understanding of the disorder.

[RonD1120 58]

Justincblount

************

I'd also like Ron to explain where the extra soul goes when a human Chimera is formed from fraternal twin embryos in the womb.

But I doubt they will.

How about this?

The battle for the soul is in the mind, a Christian concept. If two bodies are joined together with two separate personalities then there are two minds. Each has free will to make choices on their own and be held accountable as individuals.

If two bodies are joined together with one mind then the choices are singularly individual.

Keeping in mind that sin is mostly attitude not behvior.

Are you saying that when separate each embryo has a soul but when joined as a Chimera the souls also join to become one?

I am saying count the number of minds and that equals the number of souls. This is just conjecture to some degree on my part. I have counseled people with multi-faceted personalities and some were diagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never met nor counseled a chimera as far as I know.

Wait a sec... are you saying people with MPD have multiple souls? So did they only have one soul up until the traumatic experience that made them disassociate? Or were all those souls lying dormant? You've 'counseled people' but it sounds like you have zero understanding of the disorder.

I was referring to minds not personalities. Those Dx w/MPD still have only one mind. It is fragmented.

When I was still in the psych field, mid-'90s, MPD was not accepted as a valid Dx by many professionals.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

Well, yet again, please make up your mind.

"Preponderance of Evidence" means just that. ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Not "judged as you would judge a literary work".

Not "the Bible is true because it says it is."

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

[JoeWeber 2,331]

jaybird18c

Quote

Well, yet again, please make up your mind.

"Preponderance of Evidence" means just that. ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Not "judged as you would judge a literary work".

Not "the Bible is true because it says it is."

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Just a standard everyday preponderance will suffice. You know, like the one you referenced previously.

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

Just a standard everyday preponderance will suffice. You know, like the one you referenced previously.

I "heard" you the first time. I'll ask again. What specifically are you looking for?