Page 1 of 1

Only Nontheists go to heaven

Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 2:26 am
by ChristianLoeschel
This is most likely a fairly well known to you guys, but the original argument is here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... eaven.html

The argument was created as a counterargument to Pascal's Wager, and in a nuttshell, it says this:

- Only truly morally good people go to heaven

- Only people who try to find out the truth (as opposed to believing by opportunism ala "nothing to lose") are truly morally upstanding

- Therefore, only critical, intellectual theists and critical, intellectual nontheists meet the initial qualifications for going to heaven.

- This world is a test for who is actually good enough for going to heaven

- God is either evil, or he doesnt exist

- If god is evil, then a good person would reject worshipping such a diety

- Therefore, only people who, through logical reasoning, reject worship of this evil diety as is presented in the bible will gain admittance to heaven as decided by the true, good, non-biblical god (i.e. the bible is a test, in which god is intentionally depicted as evil)


So we established that the only way to gain access to heaven is by rejecting the Christian god. It doesnt say anything about rejection of non-Christian dieties. Wouldnt rejection of the Christian god lend validity to other dieties? Can we find similar arguments for other religions? If so, did the "true" god put ALL these religions out as a test, or is there actually one true religion already out there?
Basically, this argument has one identical fundamental flaw as Pascal's Wager: it assumes that there is only Christianity.

Interesting sidenote: As is presented here, the "true god" that made Christianity as the test for morally good people does NOT require belief in him for admittance to blissful eternity. All that is required is rejection of Christianity. Although this seems paradox in itself, it can be explained pretty easily: Since the original required quality is rationality, and this "true god" as presented did not provide us with proof of his existance, belief in him would be purely unempirical, which would likely be rejected by a rational being. Would belief in the "true god" therefore exclude one again from heaven, or could existance of this "true god" follow logically?

Smith's Wager

Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 4:26 pm
by Doug
DOUG
Counter-wagers are often good rebuttals to Pascal's Wager. Carrier's version is basically the same as that of Herb Silverman.

Herb Silverman claims that if God exists, he (God) would prefer to be with intelligent, honest, rational people who base their beliefs on evidence rather than faith. So he proposes Silverman’s wager: “If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by not believing in Him, while if He does exist, one will lose everything by believing.”

One well-publicized wager is that of George H. Smith, the author of Atheism: The Case Against God. In an online article, Smith writes:
The existence of god can be proven only by reason, and our reason tells us that such a being does not exist, and that, as a consequence, belief in this being should be rejected by rational people. Now the question arises, "But we are fallible human beings. What if our reason is wrong here? What if there is a god who will punish us for non-belief, and whose existence cannot be proven by reason?" Here is where Smith's wager comes in. Wager on reason, Smith says. This should lead you to atheism. There are only four possibilities, as follows:

1) There is no god. The atheist is correct, and consequently lives a happy, fulfilling life free of mindless dogma and emotional tyranny.

2) The second possibility is the god of deism, who was said to have created the universe and then left it to run on its own. There is nothing to fear from such a god; he or she is impersonal and does not reward or punish us.

3) The third possibility is a god that is concerned with humanity. He is a fair and just god. Such a god, in his infinite goodness would never punish anyone for honest errors of reason, assuming of course that there is no moral turpitude involved. Here again we have no reason to fear such a god. In fact, if our reason is what separates us from the animals, then not to use it might be construed as the gravest of "sins." If anyone is in danger of punishment here, it is the theist, and not the atheist.

4) The last possibility concerns an unjust god. Unconcerned with justice, he will burn us whether our mistakes are honest or not. There is, after all, no greater injustice than to punish someone for an honest error of belief, and yet that is just what this fourth god, the Christian god, promises to do. He is unconcerned with issues such as honesty and intellectual integrity and, according to the Bible, will burn us eternally if we doubt his existence. No matter what kind of life we have led, this issue is central in determining where we will spend eternity. Gullibility thus becomes a virtue rather than a vice. Therefore, by definition, this fourth god is a most unprincipalled deity. Christians have always felt that they are in a better position here, but if one thinks about it, they are really in the same boat as the atheist. Why? Simply because, if this god really gets such a thrill out of creating people just to burn them, what could give him greater enjoyment than to promise the Christian eternal bliss and then turn around and burn him too? Certainly, you cannot trust the word of an unjust god when he promises you something, since he must have a sadistic streak in him to begin with.
Read the rest here

Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 9:44 am
by Barbara Fitzpatrick
My belief system is more or less a cross between Smith's numbers 2 & 3 - not so much some greater being I can call on when I have problems as someone I can talk to about problems when, for whatever reason, I am unable to talk to anyone else about them. What I mostly believe is that life is eternal, in or out of a physical body on this time space continuum - no heaven, no hell, just same ol' same ol' - but I can't prove any of that either, so I don't expect anyone else to believe what I believe. Does that make me anti-christian, unchristian, or just non-christian?