Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe. - Page 2

BluffTHIS! · #11 11-15-2005, 02:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you're beginning to see that motive is an important ingredient in moral judgments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice comment NR.

And one thing is for sure, despite my more lenient views, non-believers are a favorite to predominate in hell.

RJT · #12 11-15-2005, 02:34 AM

Not sure if this belongs here or under bigdaddy’s thread (or neither).

We start with 3 sets of folk.

1) Those who believe ( I include those who say they believe) .
2) Those who say a God makes no sense.
3) Those who say it cannot be determined therefore, I abstain from belief or non belief.

1) These folk will be judged fairly by God on the sincerity of their belief. God is omniscient. He knows.

2) There is nothing in Science that says a creator God is impossible. These folk have no rights. They relinquished their right to a trial (whether the trial is fair or not really becomes moot) when they chose that God does not exist. No rational thought can lead to any certain conclusion that God does not exist. They are not justified in coming to that conclusion. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of God. They do not recognize any Supreme Authority. The simply then do not participate in the Kingdom of God. A Kingdom which they decided does not even exist.

3) These are the folk with whom we are most concerned. How can a just God judge them harshly for using their “God given” brain? So long as they are decent folk, I don’t think God will be too hard on them. But, as far as participating in the Kingdom of God, I am not quite sure. There are a few complications with these folk.

Regarding why being decent is necessary - If one chooses to be selfish (not decent) and take the attitude that might makes right, then really what one is doing is choosing the Law of Nature. He is following the rule of the animal. He does indeed make a choice after all. He really chooses Man is God. He chooses no God.
He really belongs to group #2.

To the decent folk, why should they be awarded a prize simply for being decent? What is their intent? I think they do actually make a choice too. Again they choose Man is God. They are kind to others so that society works. They do unto others because that is how they expect others to do unto them. If all act accordingly, then the system works. It is Man’s system, though, that they are interested in. They have no interest in God. If they have no interest in God, that is they allowed for the possibility of God, yet decided not to seek Him - why do they wish to partake in His Kingdom after the fact?

If in the back of their mind they think maybe God. Then these folk just might ask for absolution at the last minute before Gettysburg. They might say, even only conditionally “If God exists then I believe“. They allow for God’s saving Grace. Perhaps a just God decides this is a Baptism of Desire that Bluff spoke of. And a just God absolves them of their omission of not knowing Him prior. He accepts them into His Kingdom.

To those who have no such last minute opportunity, yet allow for the possibility of God. This is the hard one. I think the onus is on themselves. Did they make an attempt? Did they seek and not find? What were the circumstances of not finding? This is where a just God must find justly for/against them. He is omniscient. He knows.

Footnote: When I speak of God in the basic form of Creator only, I do not mean to imply that is enough. Once one decides that a creator God is possible, then the onus is on the person to look for evidence. I think rare is the case of one who seeks and does not find it. If one so desires a relationship with God, God graces that person with the gift of Faith. That is how it works. That is how some have given witness to how it works. That is how I believe He works.

bluesbassman · #13 11-15-2005, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

2) There is nothing in Science that says a Flying Spaghetti Monster is impossible. These folk have no rights. They relinquished their right to a trial (whether the trial is fair or not really becomes moot) when they chose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. No rational thought can lead to any certain conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. They are not justified in coming to that conclusion. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. They do not recognize any Supreme Noodle. The simply then do not participate in the Kingdom of Pasta. A Kingdom which they decided does not even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT · #14 11-15-2005, 12:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2) There is nothing in Science that says a Flying Spaghetti Monster is impossible. These folk have no rights. They relinquished their right to a trial (whether the trial is fair or not really becomes moot) when they chose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. No rational thought can lead to any certain conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. They are not justified in coming to that conclusion. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. They do not recognize any Supreme Noodle. The simply then do not participate in the Kingdom of Pasta. A Kingdom which they decided does not even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so if the FSM is God then don't complain that you wanted to eat "spaghetti marinara" for eternity instead of "linguini diabolo" when/if He serves up His menu. Eat the diabolo or go without pasta at that time.

David Sklansky · #15 11-15-2005, 01:52 PM

I'm wondering if people are getting my, not explicitly stated point. Namely that God is more likely to reward those who do right while doubting his existence than those who only do right because thay believe he will punish them if they don't.

I see no reaon for it to be farfetched that if there is a God he is mildly disgusted by the typical worshipper much the same way I am mildly disgusted by the typical fan who hasn't studied my stuff. He could easily be way more anxious to meet Steven Hawking or Watson and Crick (who actually appreciate his work) than txaq007.

imported_luckyme · #16 11-15-2005, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Namely that God is more likely to reward those who do right while doubting his existence than those who only do right because thay believe he will punish them if they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be one leg on which those who state versions of "christianity is immoral" build their case. It's a natural reaction to the teenager who apoligizes to you because they realize they did something wrong and the teenager that apologizes to you because his dad said he'd be grounded until he does. That second teenager just doesn't seem a better person. Variations of this play a part in those non-theists that aren't just concerned with lack of evidence.

RJT · #17 11-15-2005, 02:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering if people are getting my, not explicitly stated point. Namely that God is more likely to reward those who do right while doubting his existence than those who only do right because thay believe he will punish them if they don't.

I see no reaon for it to be farfetched that if there is a God he is mildly disgusted by the typical worshipper much the same way I am mildly disgusted by the typical fan who hasn't studied my stuff. He could easily be way more anxious to meet Steven Hawking or Watson and Crick (who actually appreciate his work) than txaq007.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am hoping that is the way it works, too. I certainly would much rather hang with the likes of Hawking et al for eternity than some of the fascist Christians many of us dread. I think Jesus in fact showed this to be the case. He hung with the disenfranchised (not to equate them to atheists) quite often.

In regard to your actual point: I think I agreed with it in saying for both scenarios, “God is omniscient. He knows.”

imported_luckyme · #18 11-15-2005, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2) Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's just the 'prove a negative' silliness. "If you can't prove me wrong, than anything I can imagine and claim must be treated as true". That has Zero use as evidence for anything and FSM ends up as valid. I don't think god takes kindly to those who equate their belief in him on the strength of the negative proof of the FSM.

Hmmmm...I'm pretty sure you don't think that way in any other area of your life. I have two neighbour that may or may not have a cat. You are allowed to spend a day in each house searching for clues. By your 'reasoning' you would have no justification to decide that the lack of evidence in a house is a indicator of 'lack of cat', even if not total.
If god gave us the power to reason, I suspect he'd prefer we made some use of it and reward us for it.

"leap of faith" is one thing.
"plunge of logic" is another.

jstoc · #19 11-15-2005, 02:58 PM

My thoughts on the subject are that all human beings are all equally capable of commiting "evil" acts. Whether one actually does or does not commit said acts, is irrelevant, as I believe laws and punishment are the only thing that restrains man from acting immoral. Being that we are all capable of commiting these "evil" acts, then we are all equal, none morally superior to the other.

The point of Christianity is that God wants us to recognize that we are all fallen, corrupt and incapable of doing what is good. Therefore salvation is given to those who recognize this inherent fallen nature, and repent, realizing that they are incapable of doing what is right without God.

imported_luckyme · #20 11-15-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe laws and punishment are the only thing that restrains man from acting immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not the evidence point to social issues such as peer pressure, the desire to be accepted, the desire to be repected, etc being a much stronger influence than any 'outside' threat of punishment? For both good and bad morals.