Can we assure someone a place in Heaven?

[WiiBox3]

Sal.Paradise said:

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Sal.Paradise said:

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Bolded: No, it was an example of how dangerous it can be to teach stories as facts. Now we have wars based on religious matter, for instance.

Underlined: Russell's teapot.

"Russell's teapot"? Really? Hilarious. 

Belief and understanding of the afterlife is not something based in facts or empirical evidence or, I accept this.

You however, place value in 'facts' i.e. empricial evidence, so the burden is on you to produce facts in this argument to support your belief. The fact is, both of our claims are unflasifiable, but you are the one that places value in empirical evidence, and you are the one that must therefore produce 'facts' for your own argument, by your very own claim, to be valid. 

But you cannot, so you defer to a rather ridiculous philosophical concept to make your lack of an argument seem acceptable. 

I said Russel's teapot since there are no evidence of a heaven, hell or God. It is up to believers to prove that they exist.

I based all my theories on unproven matter just to be able to comunicate with the believers. This whole thread is supposed to be a problem for those who believes in an afterlife.

There is evidence of a hell, heaven, a God etc, the problem for many people is that the evidence is not empirical, and many people only subscribe to that form of knowledge. It is a fundamental problem that will never be resolved. Scripture and religious experience is just as valid as 'proof' for the believer as empirical knowledge is to the atheist.  This is why Russell's teapot fails, not to mention the fallacy of unfalsifiable claims not being valuable information, among other reasons.

Your second sentence is fine, accepting traditional science has nothing to contribute to this argument.

I still think it's funny that you would ridicule or pity a religious person for believing in a heaven or hell etc with zero empiricial evidence when you cannot produce any against its existence either. Teaching that something does not exist without any evidence also, to you, should qualify as 'teaching stories as facts'. But  then, it's easy to make jokes at someone's expense, actually thinking about what is actually being said behind those statements takes more effort. 

@ THEONE - Also why do belivers need to prove God/a god exists? Because someone can not back up their religion with Scientific evidence does not make it wrong. Then that would have made the theory of evolution wrong until it was backed up with scientific evidence. Many, including myself, believe in evolution, but it remains a theory, because we can only see evidence of it. We can not say with 100% certainty that we evolved from a one cell organism.

Here is a question for you: How did a one cell organism come to exist for us to evolve from? Can life come from nothing? These are some questions that need to be answered to show prof that there is no God/gods/diety.