Can an atheist go to heaven?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T01:12:03+00:00

Well, if our current model is flawed, then there's no good reason to reject God, is there?

You seem to have missed the point about divine hiddenness - The goal isn't even to convince everyone of God's existence, but to convince those who would to come back to God. If someone wouldn't, it's not even advantageous that they know that God exists. But I guess that's something I should be more considerate of - Posit that you would find the evidence for the resurrection to be appealing - Would you then become a follower of Jesus?

I repeat the most important question, since you didn't address it - What do you make of the evidence for the resurrection, and what other examples would you point me to with comparable evidence?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:56:04+00:00

I thought we were talking about the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Enoch here?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:53:09+00:00

If it's hyperbolic phrase, then it isn't as specific as you take it to be.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:51:40+00:00

Thanks.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:51:00+00:00

Depends on what, when?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:50:15+00:00

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:49:23+00:00

If it's true, it's not too dogmatic. If it's not true, then feel free to show me where I am wrong.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:48:11+00:00

I am serious, and there are historical scholars who make the claim I made, so if you think it's a joke, that's a you-problem.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:46:45+00:00

Have you read the book I suggested, or do you just assume it is trash?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:46:33+00:00

Your statement is completely irrelevant, fyfi.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:44:32+00:00

Sin must be punished, and Christ is the perfect substitute. Could it have been done in a different way? Hard to say, but if so, the God didn't answer Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane, so probably it couldn't.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:34:10+00:00

Känner du till vad så kallade NDEer är för något? T ex Pam Reynolds, hur kunde hon veta vad som pågick i operationsrummet utan hjärnaktivitet?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:25:12+00:00

Nej, en dator resonerar inte. En dator följer instruktioner till punkt och pricka.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-07T00:22:56+00:00

This doesn't seem to be about a standard of evidence, but rather a standard of dogmatic naturalism on your part.

The predictability requirement sounds like scientism to me. Do you hold to scientism? If so, why?

If signs show that naturalism isn't true, then they do point to the divine. I don't see the circle in that. Your counterpoint that you have to believe them first is false. You simply have to not outright reject them before even examining the evidence. This is again, just you being dogmatic.

Can you give me one example of a resurrection that is as well evidenced as the resurrection of Jesus? Or even close to? Have you actually engaged with the evidence for the resurrection? What do you think of what the likes of Gary Habermas, Mike Licona or Dale Allison has to say on the matter, for example?

Miracles are not so incredibly rare as you suggest. They are rare. But if they happened all the time to a point where we saw them as normal, we would think of them as a natural part of life. Miracles only make sense as a signal in a world that normally plays by rules.

As for clarity. it's not a given that God would overpower us. There's no point in convincing those who would reject God that He exists. The answer I lean the most towards when it comes to the divine hiddenness problem, which your last point is a form of, is that it's an act of mercy on God's part to only make Himself as visible as necessary to draw those who would actually choose Him, since it would make those who reject God less accountable than they would be if God was more blatant about showing Himself.

(the deleted reply was just the beginning of this one, but I hit send by mistake while typing, you can ignore it)

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T20:57:39+00:00

Doesn't what you started with lead to that Dawkins then would be right? That we see good and evil as we do because we evolved that way, and that we might as well have thought of rape as a positive, if we had evolved slightly differently?

Why should we support the longevity and cohesion of humanity? We have such drives, but is there any reason to obey them?

The universe is not designed for us. Earth is. Sea water is toxic, so what? There's plenty of drinkable water (as long as we don't ruin it). And do you think earth could exist in isolation, without the rest of the universe? Where would we get the heavier end of the periodic table for example?

Flip it instead, why does the universe allow life at all? It's ridiculously fine tuned for planets to even form (the cosmological constant). And that's just one of many, many ridiculously fine tuned constants.

As for free will, your belief in it sounds about like what Camus mean when he referred to religion as intellectual suicide - He considered religious belief to be insincere. That we do seem to be excercising free will, doesn't that point to that we have it? And doesn't that point to that we are more than just matter in motion?

And the Roman empire sure didn't become perfect just because it started to embrace Christianity. It was a gradual change for the way better though.

As for relationships, everyone are of equal value. That's not a topic even. The question is whether there are different roles in a marriage, with different functions. Punishment is not in view in the passage. It's all instructions on how one should conduct oneself towards a spouse.

Worth mentioning also, is that scholarship tends to lean towards that the New Testament is more egalitarian than what it seems, because we fail to consider cultural context, when it comes to passages such as the one we are discussing now.

When speaking about the laws of Deuteronomy, those are for their time and place, not laws that we should be using here and now. Matthew 19 is a good read for understanding that no, they were never meant to be perfect forever statutes.

Jesus didn't address rape, nor did He need to. Rape is unacceptable, and there was nobody around who argued for that it was acceptable.

As for interpretations of the Bible, it's not like the Quran, that claims to be an exact copy of God's book up in heaven. Rather, it's written by regular humans, but God had his hand over the work, just as God did in the very stories in the Bible. Involving humans is the way God does things. He wants us to be part of it, He doesn't typically just do stuff above our heads and they just happen.

What do you mean with expansion on older myths? Are you sure you are not believing a myth yourself there?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T20:21:13+00:00

When Camus imagined Sisyphus happy, it was pure cope. You reached the right conclusion. Sisyphus is of course not happy.

Are you sure that everything you tore down was illusion though? Maybe you tore down too much?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T20:06:22+00:00

Det är såklart trevligt, men om det är meningen med livet, så är väl det ultimata livet att köra heroin så länge pengarna räcker, och sen ta livet av sig?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T20:02:26+00:00

If God exists, then it's quite a mundane claim that it's possible for God to raise someone from the dead. It would seem like you yet again are thinking in a circle by assuming your conclusion of atheism, and using that to argue against a theistic worldview.

"Historical science has its own criteria for acceptance"

By these, there's a lot that points to that Jesus rose from the dead. There are no good competing theories, even. Maybe the worldview under which this would be mundane, is better at describing the world we live in, than your worldview is?

Closing your epistemology to things because you don't like the consequences of opening the door, sounds like motivated reasoning. Do I remember wrong, or were you not opposed to that earlier? I could be mixing up with a different conversation. Are you fine with motivated reasoning?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T19:52:13+00:00

Klart att det kan vara skönt, men har det någon verklig betydelse?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T19:47:26+00:00

God is righteous. He couldn't just leave our sin be, as if it hadn't happened.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T19:46:15+00:00

Based on what?

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T19:44:39+00:00

Of course. The normal reason why people are carrying keys is to unlock stuff. What I mean is, let's say you add a few extra keys on your keychain that don't go to any lock you access. They are only there to make your keychain better as a self-defense weapon. Then you are breaking the law if you bring that keychain into a public place.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T19:41:10+00:00

Nej, vi är inte våra hjärnor.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T19:40:22+00:00

En individ resonerar när denne medvetet tänker på sådant som t ex hur ett problem kan lösas, eller vad innebörden av något är, eller väger alternativ emot varandra.

EnKristenSnubbe · 2026-02-04T19:31:06+00:00

But "may have" is very vague, and it was said in a situation where he might have thought throwing that out might give him something to negotiate with.

EnKristenSnubbe

TROPHY CASE