Will a "good" atheist go to hell?

[Dave...]

so dave your saying that if you dont believe in Jesus you're bad, so i guess all those christians who kill, steal and rape, theyre better than an atheist, who doesnt follow the sheep (coz A LOT of the people that are christian, just do it coz theyre parents are, or the think, that maybe if all the world belives, must be true), but acts responsible, etc. ? That seems very stupid, but whatever, ill guess il jump back to christianity, damn i can do whatever i want, and then ask Jesus for forgiveness, and its all forgiven!

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteous acts are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Isaiah 64:6

As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; Romans 3:10

Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, Even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:20-23

I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." Galatians 2:21

Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; Philippians 3:8-9

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Matthew 6:33

Anything good that come from me for the Church is an undeserved gift from God. Apart from Him, I can do nothing John 15:5. It's all a gift 1 corinthians 4:7.

Dave

 

[notapseudonym]

I take the two cubes, I push the one so that that one moves the other. I started it, but how was I put in motion? Ultimatley by my birth so from my parents. How about them? by there parents, and them, by their parents, and so one and so forth. Infinte regression.

At some point this infinite regression had to have been made possible. So we have the Supreme mover. He was never put into motion, He has always been in motion, no one, no thing, no phenome has ever started His motion since He has been in motion forever. Nothing put him in motion.

So the infinte regression finds its end in this Supreme mover.

 

[CatholicXian]

I believe Aristotle (from whom Aquinas was drawing) used the term "unmoved mover" (as opposed to "supreme mover"-- "unmoved" is more specific and fits the bill, so to speak)... the entire outline of the argument is drawn up in Book 10 of Aristotle's "Metaphysics". It's a pretty good read.

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

I take the two cubes, I push the one so that that one moves the other. I started it, but how was I put in motion? Ultimatley by my birth so from my parents. How about them? by there parents, and them, by their parents, and so one and so forth. Infinte regression.

At some point this infinite regression had to have been made possible. So we have the Supreme mover. He was never put into motion, He has always been in motion, no one, no thing, no phenome has ever started His motion since He has been in motion forever. Nothing put him in motion.

So the infinte regression finds its end in this Supreme mover.

How do you know that? That Supreme mover is physically impossible by Aquinas logic and your logic. How do you know another god create him and blah blah blah. And how cant the universe be in motion forever, and nothing put it in motion? [Ahh] you bible dudes "disprove" with "science" that all non bible theories are wrong etc, but when it comes to God, you all say, uh no he's almighty he can do everything he wants... :o

-edited by moderator

 

[CatholicXian]

Aristotle
"Metaphysics"
Book 10

Read it. And enjoy.

 

[notapseudonym]

infinite regression has to stop somewhere. Christians reconize this unmoved mover (thank you CatholicXian, I couldn't remeber the correct term) to be God. This unmoved mover has to be outside of time, space and matter.

We know that God was not created by some other god and so on because of revealed truth.

 

[ThinkerMan]

infinite regression has to stop somewhere. Christians reconize this unmoved mover (thank you CatholicXian, I couldn't remeber the correct term) to be God. This unmoved mover has to be outside of time, space and matter.

We know that God was not created by some other god and so on because of revealed truth.

Why do you make such an assumption? Why cannot the "unmoved" be time/space/matter itself?

Why do you decide to grant this "unmoved" item consciousness? Wouldn't, by definition, "unmoved" imply non-consciousness?

To say that "god" exists as the primary mover is as equally tenable or untenable as saying that the "universe" is the primary mover.

And that is ignoring that fact that science may soon be able to peer beyond the big bang into the extro-universe. That may or may not be true, but there is nothing set in stone that we perhaps someday will not.

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

infinite regression has to stop somewhere. Christians reconize this unmoved mover (thank you CatholicXian, I couldn't remeber the correct term) to be God. This unmoved mover has to be outside of time, space and matter.

We know that God was not created by some other god and so on because of revealed truth.

Why do you make such an assumption? Why cannot the "unmoved" be time/space/matter itself?

Why do you decide to grant this "unmoved" item consciousness? Wouldn't, by definition, "unmoved" imply non-consciousness?

To say that "god" exists as the primary mover is as equally tenable or untenable as saying that the "universe" is the primary mover.

And that is ignoring that fact that science may soon be able to peer beyond the big bang into the extro-universe. That may or may not be true, but there is nothing set in stone that we perhaps someday will not.

yeah u got the words out of my mouth...
totally agree

as science evolves , god becomes kinda obsolete, i mean, in the times of the cavemans, god was needed to explain volcanos, lighting etc, but as science evolved, we know that theyre are not comming from god. In a million years, if were still around, we'll prolly be able to understand the big bang, etc.

I prefer answering "I dont know YET", but to answer it with "God did it all, he's omnipotent so he can bend any rule and do what he wants, so there u go i explained EVERYTHING in the universe".

 

[tzalam2]

The Catholic Church teaches that the atheist can obtain eternal life if he leads a moral life and through no fault of his own has never been taught about God and His truthes or if He has it was not good evangilization and did not leave the atheist with the smallest inkling that God exists.

On the other hand he can go to Hell if he has been taught about God, had faith and then became and atheist. Or if he had heard about Christ from some one and had an impulse that this may be the truth but did not look into it further.

It all depends on the circumstances and even then we cannot judge and it all comes down to the great mercy of God when we die.

The Catholic church teaches this?
They're lying, then.

 

[Free]

Thinkerman,

Why do you make such an assumption? Why cannot the "unmoved" be time/space/matter itself?

For the reasons given below.

Why do you decide to grant this "unmoved" item consciousness? Wouldn't, by definition, "unmoved" imply non-consciousness?

No. Auqinas uses slightly different definitions of "motion," moved" and "unmoved". In his arguments motion is anything that changes from a state of potentiality to actuality. It does not refer only to "locomotion," the most common contemporary meaning.

For example, a log has the potential be hot, but it is not, on its own, actually hot. When it is thrown into a fire, that potentiality becomes an actuality, that is, it realizes the state of being hot.

To say that "god" exists as the primary mover is as equally tenable or untenable as saying that the "universe" is the primary mover.

Not at all. What are the most common theories of the beginning and continuation of the universe? The Big Bang shows that the universe had potentiality. A universe that is in a continuous cycle of expansion and collapse is continually changing; again, potentiality.

Nothing can be in the same sense both potential and actual at the same time. A log cannot be both potentially hot and actually hot and neither can a log actualize "hotness" on it's own. It cannot be its own unmoved mover. In order for the universe to be the unmoved mover, it would have to be an actuality. However, in order to be moved, it would also at the same time have to a potentiality. A contradiction.

The unmoved mover must be something completely other than that which it actualizes.

And that is ignoring that fact that science may soon be able to peer beyond the big bang into the extro-universe. That may or may not be true, but there is nothing set in stone that we perhaps someday will not.

So perhaps we should just stick to what we know for now and not argue to the future to get us out of this mess. ;)


Punk-O-Rama,

as science evolves , god becomes kinda obsolete

Not at all. Science continually reveals an increasing complexity in nature, both in how it is "made" and how everything relates to everything else.

I prefer answering "I dont know YET", but to answer it with "God did it all, he's omnipotent so he can bend any rule and do what he wants, so there u go i explained EVERYTHING in the universe".

First, being omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do anything. Second, from what we do know at this point, it is very rational to believe that God created the universe; some would say that it is the most rational answer to the big question of how we got here.

 

[John the Baptist]

... [47] And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.

[48] But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

There is a greater reward for those who know but a harsher judgement if they do not act on what they know.

All men have some accountability as Romans 2:15 clearly states:

[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
[14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
[15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
[17]

The Law of God is written on all men's hearts so that they must follow their conscience. These are some scriptural evidences for Catholic theology in these areas.

blessings[/quote]

******
Genesis 6:3 finds the Holy Spirit STRIVING with all mankind! And you have it pretty well together. :wink: Yet, we must add that these ones were Born Again & did not even know it! :fadein:

But accepting Jesus, they had done! They discovered Him in nature. The Being Born Again requirement is what I call the first heart transplant. This Eternal Covenant of Hebrews 13:20 was now placed in their mind. (and seen in the testimony of their works) Read 2 Corinthians 3:3 along with Acts 5:32's condition!

So what is the 'EPISTLE' (letter of Christ) OF CHRIST? It is His Character personified in the Godheads Eternal Covenant! These ones were not 'just' professed
Christians, they lived the life of Christ as best as they were given the light to do so!!---John

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

First, being omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do anything. Second, from what we do know at this point, it is very rational to believe that God created the universe; some would say that it is the most rational answer to the big question of how we got here.

no, saying god did it is just escaping the answer. Look at the middle ages, people thought angels hold the stars, that was the most rational thing to think back then. But do angels hold the stars? NO.
They just didnt wanted to think more and investigate more, no, they just said angels hold it, and killed any1 who said anything else.
Hehe, probably if we get to be studied in lets say a million years (not me and you i mean our times), people will think "[Aww] those stupid dudes didnt even know the universe was created by (insert random scientific theory no1 understands nowadays), they thought a god did it. Hilarious!"

 

[notapseudonym]

As I said, coming from a Christian's prespective, I reconize this unmoved force as God.
You, being an athiest, can reconize this force as the universe if you so choose.

As Free said motion (In Aqunias' argument) has to do with potentiality and actuality.
This is to say you are sitting. This is the actualiy. While sitting you have the potential of standing, but you are in fact sitting. Standing would be you potential.
God is only actual, he has no potential. That is to say He necer has potentail since He is always in action.

Punk-O-Rama, when you say "god did it is just escaping the answer" did you know any Christian would say the same to you if you tried to disprove God? They, we, would say "science is the easy way out."
This is my reason for saying this:
I am a thinker, I like things I know cannot be comprehended, such as God, where as science can show you proofs and has an ultimatium. I do like science, I really do, but since science cannot flawlessly prove that the universe was strated by some strange phenom, I think I will continue to ponder God and come as close to Him as I can while here.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Assume that "god" is the prime cause, for the sake of arguement, how can you logically move from that point to a specific theological "God".

What I mean is, assuming your logic holds up, there exists a prime cause for creating the universe. The cause is god, of which the only known property he possesses is to be the "prime mover".

How do you go from that "prime mover" (an essentially deist "watchmaker" position) to the specific deity of Yahweh/Jesus, who has a myriad of attributes, meddles with the universe, suspends phyiscal laws, interacts with conscious beings, is perfect, sets down a moral code, etc.

Regardless of whether or not the Aquinas argument holds up, it has zero bearing on any of the specific theological points of ANY religion. The same flaw that Pascal's wager has. Saying or proving "god" exists is exclusive of whether your "God" exists.

 

[tzalam2]

How do you go from that "prime mover" (an essentially deist "watchmaker" position) to the specific deity of Yahweh/Jesus, who has a myriad of attributes, meddles with the universe, suspends phyiscal laws, interacts with conscious beings, is perfect, sets down a moral code, etc.

Saying or proving "god" exists is exclusive of whether your "God" exists.

Yes, quite a conundrum for you, and many others, isnt' it?
May I warn you, despite your disrespect you show towards the God of the Universe, ONE DAY, you WILL stand before Him.
One day, every knee shall bow, EVEN YOURS, and every tongue confess, EVEN YOUR TONGUE, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
So, you might want to temper your hostility towards God, and perhaps seek the One Who created you, and gave you free will.
Freedom to choose, and with that freedom, comes consequences of blasphemous actions.
Just be careful, and try to calmly look at God, as He is.
Because, He IS!

 

[Free]

I agree with ThinkerMan. While I am certain that Aquinas was trying to prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, it is a jump to automatically apply this idea of God to his argument of the unmoved mover, or any of the others. But what he does do quite effectively is provide rational reasons to believe in the existence of a supernatural being, thus deflating naturalism.

Even if we start with only the quality of "unmoved mover," we can immediately begin to infer many more qualities. This being would be pure actuality and the source of all things. From this one can also derive the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence, or at least very knowledgable and powerful without the potential to change. One could also conclude that if such a being created everything, including all life, that we must be here, that everything must be here, for a reason. And many more qualities could be derived from all of this.

This still doesn't point directly to the Christian God, but it narrows the field somewhat. One would have to do a comparison of world religions and their gods to see 1. which beliefs best fit such concepts, and 2. which beliefs are the most coherent.

All five of Aquinas' arguments are quite compelling and worth the effort to really read and understand, not that I do.

 

[John the Baptist]

Assume that "god" is the prime cause, for the sake of arguement, how can you logically move from that point to a specific theological "God".

What I mean is, assuming your logic holds up, there exists a prime cause for creating the universe. The cause is god, of which the only known property he possesses is to be the "prime mover".

How do you go from that "prime mover" (an essentially deist "watchmaker" position) to the specific deity of Yahweh/Jesus, who has a myriad of attributes, meddles with the universe, suspends phyiscal laws, interacts with conscious beings, is perfect, sets down a moral code, etc.

Regardless of whether or not the Aquinas argument holds up, it has zero bearing on any of the specific theological points of ANY religion. The same flaw that Pascal's wager has. Saying or proving "god" exists is exclusive of whether your "God" exists.

*******
Good question! You 'two' are coming along, just slowly. :wink: It takes some study if one is truly sincere?? Matthew 4:4 is the Book! A long with another New Testament verse in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

But proving that God exists is the WHOLE of the [EVERLASTING
GOSPEL]!! See Revelation 14:6 It IS THERE, if one has the final mature 'DESIRE'? See Revelation 3:16-17.

Then: Man came along by creation of God. He looses BIRTH! He is God D-E-A-D! He needs to be Born Again. (ALL FOLKS!!)
Genesis 6:4 see's the Holy Spirit "STRIVING" for this to take place. Man only has what God had verbally told them was needed up until then. That includes His Word of promises if the conditions are met! Answered prayer builds the growth towards the mark of being Born Again, Truly 'MATURE' surrender to the Master! See Philippians 4:13 & 2 Corinthians 12:9 for the ETERNAL GOSPEL CONDITIONS *PROVISIONS!! That was not enough back then for everyone, huh? Cain for one went the way of his free choice.

Bottom line: When one reads & accepts the WHOLE of the Everlasting Gospel, CHRIST as centerfold, then & only then do they HAVE PROOF POSITIVE that there IS A REAL GOD! These in Hebrews 6:1-5 "Are Made Partakers Of The Holy Ghost"! They had been Born Again! They, as Adam, could still make 'Eternal' Shipwreck, see Hebrews 6:6. But still, it was then & only then that one KNOWS for sure of what you want to know! Up until that time, it is called FAITH! and FAITH is just that.

Try it! Think of all of the wasted time & reams & reams of printed forum junk to be avoided? And it REALLY IS THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL thaT you will never know without being Born Again!! John 3:3

---John

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

How do you go from that "prime mover" (an essentially deist "watchmaker" position) to the specific deity of Yahweh/Jesus, who has a myriad of attributes, meddles with the universe, suspends phyiscal laws, interacts with conscious beings, is perfect, sets down a moral code, etc.

Saying or proving "god" exists is exclusive of whether your "God" exists.

Yes, quite a conundrum for you, and many others, isnt' it?
May I warn you, despite your disrespect you show towards the God of the Universe, ONE DAY, you WILL stand before Him.
One day, every knee shall bow, EVEN YOURS, and every tongue confess, EVEN YOUR TONGUE, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
So, you might want to temper your hostility towards God, and perhaps seek the One Who created you, and gave you free will.
Freedom to choose, and with that freedom, comes consequences of blasphemous actions.
Just be careful, and try to calmly look at God, as He is.
Because, He IS!

people like you make me sick. You damn bible fanatic freak... He isn't insulting God or anything, he's just saying that even if theres a prime mover (which wont be, because it has to be moved by something, thus, there is no unmoved mover, coz thats physically impossible), he doesnt have to be a consious one.
Face it, god is just the biggest story ever. There is no physical prove that he is here whatsoever, if he's so mercyful, why doesnt he help those starving children? Your only prove of god is your parents brainwashing and some writing of people that thought a thunder was a god farting.
Dont get me wrong, i wish there was a god, and if there was just a lil prove, i would jump back to the christian train.

 

[DivineNames]

Assume that "god" is the prime cause, for the sake of arguement, how can you logically move from that point to a specific theological "God".

What I mean is, assuming your logic holds up, there exists a prime cause for creating the universe. The cause is god, of which the only known property he possesses is to be the "prime mover".

How do you go from that "prime mover" (an essentially deist "watchmaker" position) to the specific deity of Yahweh/Jesus, who has a myriad of attributes, meddles with the universe, suspends phyiscal laws, interacts with conscious beings, is perfect, sets down a moral code, etc.

Regardless of whether or not the Aquinas argument holds up, it has zero bearing on any of the specific theological points of ANY religion. The same flaw that Pascal's wager has. Saying or proving "god" exists is exclusive of whether your "God" exists.

*******
Good question! You 'two' are coming along, just slowly. :wink: It takes some study if one is truly sincere?? Matthew 4:4 is the Book! A long with another New Testament verse in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

But proving that God exists is the WHOLE of the [EVERLASTING
GOSPEL]!! See Revelation 14:6 It IS THERE, if one has the final mature 'DESIRE'? See Revelation 3:16-17.

Then: Man came along by creation of God. He looses BIRTH! He is God D-E-A-D! He needs to be Born Again. (ALL FOLKS!!)
Genesis 6:4 see's the Holy Spirit "STRIVING" for this to take place. Man only has what God had verbally told them was needed up until then. That includes His Word of promises if the conditions are met! Answered prayer builds the growth towards the mark of being Born Again, Truly 'MATURE' surrender to the Master! See Philippians 4:13 & 2 Corinthians 12:9 for the ETERNAL GOSPEL CONDITIONS *PROVISIONS!! That was not enough back then for everyone, huh? Cain for one went the way of his free choice.

Bottom line: When one reads & accepts the WHOLE of the Everlasting Gospel, CHRIST as centerfold, then & only then do they HAVE PROOF POSITIVE that there IS A REAL GOD! These in Hebrews 6:1-5 "Are Made Partakers Of The Holy Ghost"! They had been Born Again! They, as Adam, could still make 'Eternal' Shipwreck, see Hebrews 6:6. But still, it was then & only then that one KNOWS for sure of what you want to know! Up until that time, it is called FAITH! and FAITH is just that.

Try it! Think of all of the wasted time & reams & reams of printed forum junk to be avoided? And it REALLY IS THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL thaT you will never know without being Born Again!! John 3:3

---John

I guess you have your answer ThinkerMan.

 

[ThinkerMan]

I agree with ThinkerMan.

Free's got my back! Sorry Free, I just don't get comments like that outside of Quath very often. haha!

:-D

Even if we start with only the quality of "unmoved mover," we can immediately begin to infer many more qualities.

As I stated in my previous post, the ONLY thing we can assume about the prime mover is that he/she is the first domino. I am not sure how we can infer other attributes, even conciousness. The first raindrop starts the stream, the first cell begats all of life's diversity (okay, maybe that isn't an easy sell here...haha). Why do you feel is it necessary to infer more than the attribute in question?

Though I do agree that if "god" can be proved, than "God" is easier to prove.

So, you might want to temper your hostility towards God, and perhaps seek the One Who created you, and gave you free will.

I don't believe I exhibited any hostility. I even granted the existance of "god" for the sake of argument. Just not "God".

You agree with me(assuming you buy Aquinas' argument). You agree that the argument proves "god", and your bible and experience proves "God". You also agree with me that all the other "Gods" are false.
It is a two-pronged test.

Yes, quite a conundrum for you, and many others, isnt' it?

No, not a conundrum. An honest logical question, as Free pointed out.

people like you make me sick. You damn bible fanatic freak...

It's cool Punk. Many have fervent beliefs. In my opinion, I have not problem whatsoever with any belief system, so long as it doesn't impede my life.

I'd much rather have debates like this here than on the floor of the US Congress or the Supreme Court, so I think this is good thing.