thebestofenergy wrote:
I based my definition of heaven on how people I know perceive it, how it is taught in a church, how it is taught in school. How most people know it, basically.
That's debatable. And it's an empirical claim, so you could substantiate it. (For sure, go to a few churches, and interview the preachers- do a survey of well studied church members. Visit a bible study group, and ask them questions)
You may have based your definition on your recollection, or assumption about how people you know see it, what you remember from your prior church, and how it was taught to you as far as you understood it-- but I'm telling you now, that's a straw man.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
You're mistaken, misinformed, and presenting an incomplete and erroneous picture of Christian belief.
Look, Christians are wrong. It's not hard to disprove the things they
actually believe.
I also totally respect your attempts, and I don't want to do anything but encourage you to keep at it and improve your arguments.
But you can't go by second and third hand accounts of doctrine.
You have to understand your opponent's positions better before you attack them, or you risk committing the straw man logical fallacy. You're attacking positions they don't hold- and that won't go over.
If you present this argument to a Christian, even if they take it seriously and can't argue against it themselves, they'll probably take it to a friend or a pastor, and that person will be more informed on Christian doctrine, and will tear the argument apart.
Then they'll think "Oh, I thought the atheist had a good point... but now I see that atheists are just mistaken. If this is an atheists' best argument, my pastor just destroyed it- atheists must be wrong, and Christianity must be true after all"
A perfect place (where time is not frozen),
Yes.
and you don't have the possibility of free will
No. That's not necessarily the case. Where do you get that?
Satan was in heaven as an angel. He had free will to disobey god despite being a celestial being.
and the possibility of seeing the people you loved that went to hell, but you still have the capability to think for yourself.
Close enough.
Not being able to see your loved ones who are in hell is a good point to make- "How could you be happy when your loved ones are suffering? Doesn't that make you a bad person?"
Christians have answers to those things, but their answer reveal some of the moral depravity- so it is by getting the answers that you can make progress in the argument.
But your conclusion (which I pointed out) did not follow from any of this.
That's why I said that a place like that (with those and only those properties) would me go insane pretty quickly.
You claimed much more than that, but you're backing down a little on that now. And that's fine.
You talked in terms of logical absolutes. That it would happen to everybody. Because of psychology, and because of human evolution. Basically that it would be a terrible place- not just for you, but for the human mind- any human mind.
If it's a personal claim (only that you think you would go insane), then that's another matter- both less likely to meet resistance, but also not less compelling as an argument (for you, you might not like it, but for a Christian it might be eternal bliss).
I'm just saying, it's not a good argument.
If you want to keep making it, that's up to you. But you should lead with your strongest argument for atheism that the Christian is likely to be able to understand (some arguments are too abstract for people, and aren't as effective for that reason)- this shouldn't be your best argument, or even your best argument against the concept of heaven (using an argument that doesn't logically follow, in some cases, can even damage your credibility in the eyes of your opponent and make them less likely to consider what you have to say).
Please don't take it personally.
I like you. I just don't like this particular argument.