Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the subject, the default approach is one of disbelief, it does not require a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am dubious of the effectiveness of the hermeneutics of suspicion, particularly with respect to this question. The rationalist, I contend, must play by his own rules. Neutrality, then, is necessarily a virtue. A robust skepticism, on the other hand, is just as tendencious as a thoroughgoing credulity.

The burden of proof gambit bears the distinct aroma of an avoidance mechanism. I think it is fair to say, though, that theists have been quite willing to pick up the gauntlet. And I will concede that some atheists have offered substantial critiques of this positions. It is a wonder that discussions ever begin, considering the willingness to hide behind Occam's Razor. But I digress.

My original comment was in response to the scenario where an hypothetical atheist had already offered a partial reason for his disbelief, one that is easily debunked.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure it's not as simple as a/b but religion is about the only subject that people who normally use a b approach switch to a.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with your categories, but the incongruity that you perceive is due in part to the nature of the question, the answer to which is fundamental to our understanding of our world and ourselves. The idea that one must remain loyal to a particular epistemology is fostered, I think, by a foolish consistency and the Western obsession with unity.

[IronUnkind]

Somehow you've conned me into casting you as God in my analogy. I guess that means Mat is Jesus and Mason is...I don't know....Emperor Palpatine?

[ QUOTE ]

The burden of proof gambit bears the distinct aroma of an avoidance mechanism. I think it is fair to say, though, that theists have been quite willing to pick up the gauntlet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange this... I feel that religion is an avoidance mechanism. The truth of the human condition is not pretty. The only things that theist are hiding behind is, always, belief (aka a suspension of reason).

I'm an atheist, but the bible has always intrigued me.

As I understand it, the original question revolves around if God will allow a potential 'evil' man who acts 'good' into heaven merely because he acts like a believes should.

And the answer is that he doesn't.

Matthew chapter 5&6 have some pretty nice quotes from Jesus on who gets to come into heaven. And just acting the belief isn't enough. You have to mean&believe for the right reasons.

So the guy who believes and acts like he does simply because he doesn't want to go to 'hell'. Well...he'll end up right next to me and a whole lot of other atheists (mind you, if this happens...we'll all feel really silly).

[ QUOTE ]
...(mind you, if this happens...we'll all feel really silly).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an atheist also and I would rather you didn't speak on my behalf.

I would not feel sorry if I was eternally damned. If such a god existed (inconceivable to me that the world, as it is, could be a result of any consciousness.. let alone the idea of eternal damnation) I would at the very least have the satisfaction to not have given in to, or satisfied, a tyrant. This attitude, in fact, gives meaning to my life in an otherwise meaningless experience.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...(mind you, if this happens...we'll all feel really silly).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an atheist also and I would rather you didn't speak on my behalf.

I would not feel sorry if I was eternally damned. If such a god existed (inconceivable to me that the world, as it is, could be a result of any consciousness.. let alone the idea of eternal damnation) I would at the very least have the satisfaction to not have given in to, or satisfied, a tyrant. This attitude, in fact, gives meaning to my life in an otherwise meaningless experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be plain obvious that the last line of my note was intended as nothing but humoruous.

But you did get too pad your 'god is a tyrant' post, which I suspect was the true intention of your note anyway.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth of the human condition is not pretty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a Keats fan, are you?

[ QUOTE ]

It should be plain obvious that the last line of my note was intended as nothing but humoruous.

But you did get too pad your 'god is a tyrant' post, which I suspect was the true intention of your note anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like all my posts abouth theism are humourous also, by definition. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As regarding the intention, I really was concerned about the misrepresentation, but if it gave me the opportunity to be militant.... why not? It is sorely needed.

[ QUOTE ]
Not a Keats fan, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not particularly. OTOH, very much a fan of my own observations. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am dubious of the effectiveness of the hermeneutics of suspicion, particularly with respect to this question. The rationalist, I contend, must play by his own rules. Neutrality, then, is necessarily a virtue. A robust skepticism, on the other hand, is just as tendencious as a thoroughgoing credulity.

The burden of proof gambit bears the distinct aroma of an avoidance mechanism. I think it is fair to say, though, that theists have been quite willing to pick up the gauntlet. And I will concede that some atheists have offered substantial critiques of this positions. It is a wonder that discussions ever begin, considering the willingness to hide behind Occam's Razor. But I digress.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think you have hold of the key to the whole religon/intellignece debate. Its not to do with Ockham's razor (which is about which set of beliefs to chose) but purely to do with whether any belief about god should be chosen at all.

Skeptics (I count myself in here) have no belief about god because its their nature not to form beliefs without a reason. Its not a choice or an avoidance mechanism either, they are incapable of believing something without a reason.

Credulous people (is their a word like skeptic for them) have to form a belief about anything they consider, even if there is no reason for it. This is not a choice either.

I assume most people fall between the two extremes.

DS tries to link this to intelligence but its not clear to me he is doing much more than recognising that those he thinks most intelligent are people like him (skeptics) who also happen to be very good at the things he considers most interesting.

chez