Why are heaven or hell the only options

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

LOL. You can not have been both a "serious Christian and a serious Atheist". You can only be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Typically, if someone is one, then they are never truly the other, even if they change their mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

False. No one takes estimates of the age of the universe as an exact fact. Most people understand that scientific theories, including the history of our universe, are constantly evolving.

Conversely, many religious people do take the Genesis story as fact.

Many? Not mainstream religions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

LOL. You can not have been both a "serious Christian and a serious Atheist". You can only be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Typically, if someone is one, then they are never truly the other, even if they change their mind.

You must be new to this topic. Many cases to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

I don't know. And not knowing the answers doesn't make anyone unworhty if the conversation is one worth having nad is had in good faith. That's my view anyway.

The Catholic doctrine says God predestines everyone to live in love (heaven), but also gives humans free will, and so a choice to turn away from love. Is giving humans free will cruel or is it what makes us human?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

False. No one takes estimates of the age of the universe as an exact fact. Most people understand that scientific theories, including the history of our universe, are constantly evolving.

Conversely, many religious people do take the Genesis story as fact.

Many? Not mainstream religions.

Yes, many.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/4-10-americans-believe-god-created-earth-10-000-years-n124701

"Four in 10 Americans believe God created the Earth and anatomically modern humans, less than 10,000 years ago, according to a new Gallup poll."

"Religious, less educated, and older respondents were likelier to espouse a young Earth creationist view — that life was created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago — according to the poll."

"Almost all scientists who study human origins believe that we evolved from other life-forms over millions of years. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

LOL. You can not have been both a "serious Christian and a serious Atheist". You can only be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Typically, if someone is one, then they are never truly the other, even if they change their mind.

Many, many former atheists become Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes i agree with him that humans evolved from other primates. You disagree with that.

Did God create the entire universe 13.7 billion years God? That is absolutely the position of Francis Collins.

What is the evidence for that position?

That is Francis Collin’s perspective. I know you do not agree with that. But stop acting like his position agrees with yours when it doesn’t.

So there is no evidence for that position, and he holds it solely on his faith that the bible is the word of god. You agree with him the same way.

But he and I do agree on the science for human evolution, for which there is massive evidence. You disagree with this position.

Fair enough!

Yes, it's odd that he is rational and looks to evidence in most other aspects of life, but then for this one thing he gets all irrational and uses god to fill in the unknowns. And a lot more was unknown at that time; much has been learned since then. I wonder if he had the knowledge we have now if he'd jump to such a woo woo explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

LOL. You can not have been both a "serious Christian and a serious Atheist". You can only be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Typically, if someone is one, then they are never truly the other, even if they change their mind.

Many, many former atheists become Christians.

They were brought up as Christians. Early indoctrination is tough to erase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

LOL. You can not have been both a "serious Christian and a serious Atheist". You can only be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Typically, if someone is one, then they are never truly the other, even if they change their mind.

Many, many former atheists become Christians.

They were brought up as Christians. Early indoctrination is tough to erase.

Some, maybe. But many others, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

LOL. You can not have been both a "serious Christian and a serious Atheist". You can only be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Typically, if someone is one, then they are never truly the other, even if they change their mind.

Many, many former atheists become Christians.

They were brought up as Christians. Early indoctrination is tough to erase.

Some, maybe. But many others, no.

Do you have a citation for this claim? Or is this just a "belief" that you have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

LOL. You can not have been both a "serious Christian and a serious Atheist". You can only be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Typically, if someone is one, then they are never truly the other, even if they change their mind.

Many, many former atheists become Christians.

They were brought up as Christians. Early indoctrination is tough to erase.

Some, maybe. But many others, no.

Do you have a citation for this claim? Or is this just a "belief" that you have?

Uh...I think everyone on this thread has provided an equal number of citations. So "citation please" comes across as the obvious cope that it is, not the clever retort that you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been both a serious atheist and a serious Christian, I have come to recognize strident fundamentalism when I see it. Atheists are not exempt from radical fundamentalism just because they don't believe in God.

The fundamentalist claims specific, highly accurate knowledge about things that are objectively unknowable. Exact timelines and step by step causes of the origin of the cosmos is the archetypal case.

A lucid Christian will say "In the beginning God" but I can't know much more than that.

A lucid atheist will say "The evidence supports an explosion of matter and energy 13.7 billion years ago, but I can't know much about an ultimate cause based on the current evidence".

A lucid person may even see that these ideas are no mutually exclusive. Many of the church fathers were supportive of a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation account, believing that it was the MOST faithful way to read it. And that literalism was an unfaithful disservice of the rich meaning there. St. Augustine in 4th century north Africa is one such example.

I have been the Christian posting in this thread and I agree with this 100 percent. And I also come at this as someone who has been both a serious Christian and a serious Atheist in my life.

LOL. You can not have been both a "serious Christian and a serious Atheist". You can only be one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Typically, if someone is one, then they are never truly the other, even if they change their mind.

Many, many former atheists become Christians.

They were brought up as Christians. Early indoctrination is tough to erase.

Some, maybe. But many others, no.

Do you have a citation for this claim? Or is this just a "belief" that you have?

Uh...I think everyone on this thread has provided an equal number of citations. So "citation please" comes across as the obvious cope that it is, not the clever retort that you think it is.

I provided the back up for my claim that many religious people do take the Genesis story as fact.

"Four in 10 Americans believe God created the Earth and anatomically modern humans, less than 10,000 years ago, according to a new Gallup poll."

Your claim sounds like BS, to be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes i agree with him that humans evolved from other primates. You disagree with that.

Did God create the entire universe 13.7 billion years God? That is absolutely the position of Francis Collins.

What is the evidence for that position?

That is Francis Collin’s perspective. I know you do not agree with that. But stop acting like his position agrees with yours when it doesn’t.

So there is no evidence for that position, and he holds it solely on his faith that the bible is the word of god. You agree with him the same way.

But he and I do agree on the science for human evolution, for which there is massive evidence. You disagree with this position.

Fair enough!

Yes, it's odd that he is rational and looks to evidence in most other aspects of life, but then for this one thing he gets all irrational and uses god to fill in the unknowns. And a lot more was unknown at that time; much has been learned since then. I wonder if he had the knowledge we have now if he'd jump to such a woo woo explanation.

You are acting like Francis Collins was alive hundreds of years ago. He is very much alive right now. He has heard all of the debates and arguments and this is where he has come down. If anything, his faith has only become stronger over the years, in his own telling.

[Anonymous]

<1% of atheists become more religious over the course of their lives.


https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-switching/