Can atheists go to Heaven?

[The State of Utah]

So atheism isn't a faith because it doesn't believe in god so it's marked by the fact that it doesn't believe, SO the premise is... as long as somebody believes that there is nothing by not believing in something it's not a faith OK I GET IT!!!... could you explain it to me?

Was that a triple negative? I can't really answer that because I really have no idea what you just said, what I can say is this, BALD is not a hair color, OFF is not a T.V> channel, Anarchy is not a form of government, and Atheism is not a religion. These are the LACK of hair, channel, government, and religion.

exactly thats what I'm getting out it all

[Unhealthy2]

But the human mind is, and reason works by the power of the human mind alone. Sometimes your "reason" doesn't mean much.

No, the tool is not flawed. The way the tool is used may be flawed, but the tool itself isn't. Also, how is the fact that reason comes from flawed minds an indication that reason itself is flawed? That's an invalid argument called the genetic fallacy.

[Unhealthy2]

Well that's not healthy. Repenting and gaining forgiveness feels much better.

Just because it feels better doesn't mean it's the best way to go. Mescaline feels good too.

[Gagatron]

But the human mind is, and reason works by the power of the human mind alone. Sometimes your "reason" doesn't mean much.

No, the tool is not flawed. The way the tool is used may be flawed, but the tool itself isn't. Also, how is the fact that reason comes from flawed minds an indication that reason itself is flawed? That's an invalid argument called the genetic fallacy.

I cannot see how that is a fallacy.

[New Kereptica]

Well that's not healthy. Repenting and gaining forgiveness feels much better.

Just because it feels better doesn't mean it's the best way to go. Mescaline feels good too.

Mescaline's bad?

Shit.

[The State of Utah]

ever heard of Decartes?

Yeah, what of him?

He proved God existed... but thats right your The scientist. you only belive in what something is not and because everything you see is not God therefore god cannot be anything. I see where you're coming from now.

[Gagatron]

Well that's not healthy. Repenting and gaining forgiveness feels much better.

Just because it feels better doesn't mean it's the best way to go. Mescaline feels good too.

Well I think being forgiven has more benefit than being punished.
Which is why I prefer grace and forgiveness.

[New Kereptica]

I cannot see how that is a fallacy.

You're asserting that logic must be flawed merely because its origins – the mind – are flawed. This is not the case; it's the genetic fallacy, as UT pointed out.

[New Kereptica]

He proved God existed... but thats right your The scientist. you only belive in what something is not and because everything you see is not God therefore god cannot be anything. I see where you're coming from now.

Prepared to quote and defend him?

[The State of Utah]

But the human mind is, and reason works by the power of the human mind alone. Sometimes your "reason" doesn't mean much.

No, the tool is not flawed. The way the tool is used may be flawed, but the tool itself isn't. Also, how is the fact that reason comes from flawed minds an indication that reason itself is flawed? That's an invalid argument called the genetic fallacy.

Logicaly proove logic is true.

[Gagatron]

I cannot see how that is a fallacy.

You're asserting that logic must be flawed merely because its origins – the mind – are flawed. This is not the case; it's the genetic fallacy, as UT pointed out.

Okay, I get it.
But HOW is it a fallacy?

[Ashmoria]

No, faith is believing something without rational justification. The lack of any rational reason to believe in a god makes belief in a god a completely arbitrary idea. Hence, it is rationally justified to reject it unless new information is presented which rationally justifies it.

So it's rational to beleive that there is NO god. where is it written in the manuals of the world and how it works that there is a 100% chance that god Does NOT exist.???

there doesnt have to be a non-zero chance for god to exist for a person to be an atheist.

lets try that again....

one can accept that there is a nonzero chance that god exists and still be an atheist.

[Genivar]

Yeah, what of him?

He proved God existed... but thats right your The scientist. you only belive in what something is not and because everything you see is not God therefore god cannot be anything. I see where you're coming from now.

A scientist tries to understand the world around him, and if there is something that he cannot understand or explain then he is modest enough too say three words that no religious person would say. I Don't Know.

[Unhealthy2]

I cannot see how that is a fallacy.

"X came from Y, therefore X shares property a with Y." is a fallacy.

For example "His father was a drug dealer, therefore he's also a drug dealer."

or

"Alan Turing invented the computer, and he was a homosexual, therefore computers are homosexual."

It just doesn't work.

[New Kereptica]

Okay, I get it.
But HOW is it a fallacy?

It's wrong. A thing needn't be flawed because its origins are flawed.

For instance: a toy made by a broken machine doesn't have to be itself broken.

[The State of Utah]

He proved God existed... but thats right your The scientist. you only belive in what something is not and because everything you see is not God therefore god cannot be anything. I see where you're coming from now.

Prepared to quote and defend him?

I spent two weeks on him in a seminar I'm no where near qualified to defend him However, I'm saying there are more realms of thought out there than the scientific theory.

[New Kereptica]

I spent two weeks on him in a seminar I'm no where near qualified to defend him However, I'm saying there are more realms of thought out there than the scientific theory.

So you recant, then?

[The State of Utah]

He proved God existed... but thats right your The scientist. you only belive in what something is not and because everything you see is not God therefore god cannot be anything. I see where you're coming from now.

A scientist tries to understand the world around him, and if there is something that he cannot understand or explain then he is modest enough too say three words that no religious person would say. I Don't Know.

HA HA thats funny I've said I don't know, about religious topics I suppose you just defeated your point.

Edit: Though mostley when we don't know we say "take it on faith" which just sends you guys on a wirl. because it's true and supported by facts beyond the moon or it's 100% false. because it has no facts.

Isn't that a falacy to say that it's false because there is no evidence to support it? that is assuming that there is no evidence to disprove it.

[Germoaustria]

This applies not only to atheists, but any other believer to a non-christian faith.

I was having a chat with my friend(he's highly religious), and he told me that if "you don't have God in your heart, you'll go to Hell. No matter if you're good or not." I was thinking about, and well, it just doesn't make sense.. Take Gandhi for example. He was a leading figure in non-violent resistance. He protected the poor and stood up for their civil rights. When you think of peace, many people think of him. But he was Hindu. When he died, did God completely ignore evrything good Gandhi did, and focus on him being Hindu? No matter how good you are, if you're not Christian you'll go to Hell? Is that right NSG?

I'm sorry if I offened anyone, that is the last thing I wanted to do. This is not meant to be a flaming contest, so please, keep it clean.

NOTE:This is assuming God is real, and that a Heaven and Hell exist

A better question would be "why do christians believe it in hell?", Jews don't.

[Genivar]

Prepared to quote and defend him?

I spent two weeks on him in a seminar I'm no where near qualified to defend him However, I'm saying there are more realms of thought out there than the scientific theory.

If you can come up with an idea that hasn't already been made out dated then please feel free to share.

[Unhealthy2]

Logicaly proove logic is true.

First of all, prove has one "o." Second, easy.

Assume A ^ ~A = true

then contradictions are allowed.

However, A ^ ~A => P, for any propositions A and P.

This includes the proposition that A ^ ~A = false.

So for the law of non-contradiction to be invalid, you must first assume that it is valid. Thus, you cut yourself off at the start and the law is valid.

[Unhealthy2]

Okay, I get it.
But HOW is it a fallacy?

Because any argument that is invalid is automatically a fallacy.

[The State of Utah]

This applies not only to atheists, but any other believer to a non-christian faith.

I was having a chat with my friend(he's highly religious), and he told me that if "you don't have God in your heart, you'll go to Hell. No matter if you're good or not." I was thinking about, and well, it just doesn't make sense.. Take Gandhi for example. He was a leading figure in non-violent resistance. He protected the poor and stood up for their civil rights. When you think of peace, many people think of him. But he was Hindu. When he died, did God completely ignore evrything good Gandhi did, and focus on him being Hindu? No matter how good you are, if you're not Christian you'll go to Hell? Is that right NSG?

I'm sorry if I offened anyone, that is the last thing I wanted to do. This is not meant to be a flaming contest, so please, keep it clean.

NOTE:This is assuming God is real, and that a Heaven and Hell exist

A better question would be "why do christians believe it in hell?", Jews don't.

Depends on the Jewish sect.

[Gagatron]

I cannot see how that is a fallacy.

"X came from Y, therefore X shares property a with Y." is a fallacy.

For example "His father was a drug dealer, therefore he's also a drug dealer."

or

"Alan Turing invented the computer, and he was a homosexual, therefore computers are homosexual."

It just doesn't work.

But you could say:
She is my daughter so she has some of my genes.
Or:
I invented this religion, it contains some of my beliefs.

It can be used in certain contexts.

[New Kereptica]

But you could say:
She is my daughter so she has some of my genes.
Or:
I invented this religion, it contains some of my beliefs.

It can be used in certain contexts.

Obviously. The assertion that a given thing has a property of its origin is not always false.

The fallacy is that it's always true.