Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Rhondazvous]

Can I get to heaven through good deeds, or am I locked out because I lack faith? Am I going to hell because I'm an atheist, or am I just going to be separated from god? Purgatory? What's hell like? Can practitioners of different religions get into heaven? Can practitioners of different sects of christianity get into heaven? How are sins interpreted by god? If you're saved once, are you always, or does it fade?

I have heard both answers to every one of those questions from christians. Each and every one of them acted as though the opposing answer was simply foolish. So, is this central tenet of christianity, that you labelled "of utmost importance," in another thread just another "peripheral doctrine"?

Which denomination says that good deeds are necessary or sufficient to get you to heaven? Which denomination says practitioners of different religions get into heaven? And which denominations say other sects of Christianity don't get into heaven? 

There's 40,000 denominations, atheists love telling me. There's sooo muchhhh doctrinal differences atheists love telling me. Now give me some specifics! 

Convince me this is more than an atheist fairytale. I want to believe.

I have shown that the Bible itself equivocates about what is required for salvation. If you dismiss this as a fairytale, then you're dismissing the Bibe.

I find it odd that you are ready to concede what you call the "peripheral doctrines" in a book that is supposed to be the inerrant word of god.

[Minimalist]

I can't wait for this guy to discover syncretism. That will be one epic meltdown.

Haven't you heard?  The "devil" did it.

Diabolical Mimicry was the earliest Christian response to the Christ Myth theory, which has plagued Christians who believe in the historical Jesus for nearly 2,000 years. The argument claims that Satan used “plagiarism by anticipation,” or a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was born, by spreading rumors of other god-men who did what Jesus was going to do later.

http://www.holyblasphemy.net/diabolical-mimicry/

[GrandizerII]

Since when does unity necessitate uniformity?  Even in the sciences, there is a diversion on topics.

That would be reasonable if religion was supposed to be like science. But Christianity, in your case, is supposed to be a "message" from God. Why should something so divine be allowed tampering with and staining with all sorts of interpretations, some of which blatantly contradict others?

[Whateverist]

Are you done embarrassing yourself?

Only on an atheist forum can you embarrass yourself by using reason and evidence well.

Oh, I strongly doubt that. I quite imagine you embarrass yourself wherever you go.

[Rhondazvous]

According to the pope good works without faith is enough to get you into heaven.

Hey, give me a good chocolate chip cookie and I'll go to heaven without even dying.

[Rhondazvous]

I can't wait for this guy to discover syncretism. That will be one epic meltdown.

If he discovers anything beyond the lint in his belly button, it will be the dawn of history.

[Esquilax]

Help me understand here.  Are you saying that because Christians don't 100% agree on even basic tenets of "core beliefs" then it negates its validity?  I don't want to assume thats what you mean, but I have seen that premise espoused here by others.  

Since when does unity necessitate uniformity?  Even in the sciences, there is a diversion on topics.  Politics, name a policy/belief that 100% of Democrats agree on.  I just don't think you can state that because there is not 100% uniformity it automatically negates validity.  Talk about the validity of the claim that's being made (how its defined), not negate because it has multiple definitions/interpretations.

The issue here is twofold: first, christians can't agree on the contents of their own religion, and they are all pointing to the same book as proof that they're right and the others are wrong. This raises a very real question of how we determine what is accurate, and the fact that every single one of the disagreements has both sides pointing to the same book as evidence for their mutually exclusive positions raises serious doubts about whether that book should be used to confirm any of those positions at all. If a source can be cited as justification for both sides of a binary question, its use as evidence is highly suspect.

Secondly, the whole premise of the christian religion is that its tenets are an inerrant, perfect, divinely inspired message from god. The sheer number of divergences undercuts this for obvious reasons.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I pointed to the Creed as a way of showing you that 1) we do know what the core beliefs are, contrary to your claim, and 2) we do discuss them routinely, contrary to your claim.

This other issue of whether Christians argue over core doctrines is a separate issue, but one which has also been answered in numerous threads, including this one.

As I said before, name a "core doctrine" on which Christians agree 100%, in your mind, and we will show you that your claim isn't true.

Help me understand here.  Are you saying that because Christians don't 100% agree on even basic tenets of "core beliefs" then it negates its validity?  I don't want to assume thats what you mean, but I have seen that premise espoused here by others.  

Since when does unity necessitate uniformity?  Even in the sciences, there is a diversion on topics.  Politics, name a policy/belief that 100% of Democrats agree on.  I just don't think you can state that because there is not 100% uniformity it automatically negates validity.  Talk about the validity of the claim that's being made (how its defined), not negate because it has multiple definitions/interpretations.

No, I am not trying to suggest that it's impossible that one of the variety of Christian doctrines we observe as mutually-exclusive might in fact be correct. It may be valid even if every single person who is Christian today has it wrong, and no one has figured out what the valid interpretation is.

I only was pointing out that his contention that we don't understand what the core doctrines are, and don't address them, is demonstrably false and misleading.

Edit to Add: And I second what Esquilax answered you, an hour ago. Sorry, I've been dealing with lawyers most of the morning, and juggling business calls of various other sorts, while trying to stay active here on discussions I started early this morning. I don't like Mondays.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1095844' dateline='1445876913']
 I don't like Mondays.

[/quote]

Tell me why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kobdb37Cwc

[Rhondazvous]

The issue here is twofold: first, christians can't agree on the contents of their own religion, and they are all pointing to the same book as proof that they're right and the others are wrong. This raises a very real question of how we determine what is accurate, and the fact that every single one of the disagreements has both sides pointing to the same book as evidence for their mutually exclusive positions raises serious doubts about whether that book should be used to confirm any of those positions at all. If a source can be cited as justification for both sides of a binary question, its use as evidence is highly suspect.

Secondly, the whole premise of the christian religion is that its tenets are an inerrant, perfect, divinely inspired message from god. The sheer number of divergences undercuts this for obvious reasons.

Not only do they point to the same book, but they all claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit that supposedly inspired the book. We see disagreements both among Church denominations and the biblical passages. This cannot be ignored with any degree of honesty.

If the purpose of the Bible and the Church is a message of salvation and that message is unclear, then all you can do is say eenie meenie miney moe and hope you pick the right one. Neither the Church nor the Bible offer the sure road to a promised salvation, though that is what it claims to do.