Are Atheist parents ‘Mini Gods’?

[Wombat]

Drafted prior to seeing edit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
Especially considering the extreme odds against this created being living a life free of pain and suffering and no hope of a counterbalancing afterlife?

life can be good. agreed?
Yes, that is agreed and has been answered...but my question above has not. A potential Atheist parent-believing ‘the problem of evil’ debars the possibility of God- would be bringing forth life certain to encounter the same-“pain and suffering” and with “no hope of a counterbalancing afterlife”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
What, if any, are the moral/ethical calculations of probability that the life created is more likely to be protracted, joyous, successful, fruitful and grateful to be alive...rather than short, painful and regretted in an indifferent and hostile universe (as so frequently described)?

It is a gamble, people should not make poor bets.
Ok...But atheists on this board have repeatedly told me that the only resolution to ‘the problem of evil’ is “total perfection” – zero suffering. No prospective parent can make “zero suffering” a reasonable bet...so how can their “gamble” on the degree of potential suffering be fair if God permitting any suffering greater than zero is unfair/evil?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
Is not consciously/deliberately bringing a life into being a Godlike act of creation?

No it is not.
Well perhaps you would care to explain how and why it is not?

edit: actually I'm done congratulations on winning this debate without even addressing my points..

You allways had the option of re presenting unanswered questions and
receiving (as above) point by point response...you declined that option.

If you feel your questions havent been answered I reccomend asking your questions in a clearer manner.

If you feel any questions have been asked in an unclear manner you allways had the option of providing example and seeking clarification...you declined that option.

"winning this debate" was never an interest, motive, desire...seeking to explore and understand the atheist pov on 'the problem of evil' was.

I now understand, from the majority of atheist responses, that the only way the problem of evil can be resolved is for God to create beings in a state of "total perfection"- zero pain/suffering and no imperfections whatsoever...In other words- God must create other Gods or the problem of evil debars the posibility of God.

"Winning" over that laclustre absurdity is unworthy of "congratulations"...but I appreciate the sentiment.

All the best.

 

[meogi]

Boiling down to a state of &#8220;total perfection&#8221; devoid of the &#8220;slightest imperfection&#8221; would entail >being God<. A I see no evidence that this is an option or a reasonable expectation...even of &#8216;Heaven&#8217;.

So for the Soul of an infant in the circumstances described I would suggest no, the afterlife is not meaningless to them...but by the same token may not be embued with the same depth or degree of meaning as others. An &#8216;eternity&#8217; in &#8220;All the worlds of Gods World&#8221; provides more than ample opportunity for balancing that depth and degree of experience and meaning.

Less &#8220;valid&#8221;?...no. Not as full, rich and deep as those &#8220;who lived a full life&#8221;? Possibly. But again there is an eternity to develop such depth of experience...and who knows what manner such exploration and development might take. All that need be known by reason at this point is that there is no logical reason to presume paradise entails &#8220;total perfection&#8221; or that souls do not continue to advance in that realm.

That's all fine and dandy. It seems to me your afterlife is very similar to the reality which we experience. Growth, learning, experience. The only thing missing is death.

So back to my original post, which was skipped over: Why not create creation in the afterlife?

 

[Penumbra]

Strange...you quote in full 1000 words dedicated to &#8220;debating&#8221; and &#8220;refuting&#8221; your pov point by point...you ignore >ALL< just to tell me I "don't seem particularly interested in actually debating" and your "posts haven't been refuted"....?
Here is the debate and the refutation in a nutshell-
"What your argument cannot face and cannot withstand is an examination of what no suffering entails...because the >ONLY< way to achieve >no suffering, no &#8220;suffering at all&#8221;< is in a godlike state of perfection."
You may plead without evidence or substantiation- "semantics, strawmen,"
But when you cannot/will not answer the most basic pertinent questions regarding your pov "repeating the same points over and over again" is the most effective way to highlight your inability to respond.

If that was the case then there would be some point at which you could articulate, explain and defend your "no suffering" gambit....but you have not and will not because you can not.
It is a failed and refuted proposition...but thanks for putting it in the water and trying to get it to float.
All the best.

Your 1000 words debated, but it did not debate the point I made. That's why I ignored it.

For instance, you said:
You are clearly putting forward the proposition that the only resolution to &#8216;The problem of evil&#8217; is the total absence of suffering-&#8220; If there exists suffering&#8221; the &#8220;discrepancy&#8221; and the &#8220;problem&#8221; remain.

And yet, I am specifically not putting forward that proposition. Back in post 35, I even said:
Generally, I differ from a lot of atheists and don't argue that a universe created by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would include a complete lack of pain and suffering. I even bothered to debate it out of principle against another atheist in the one-on-one debate section.

So there isn't anything for me to respond to, since you've based your entire attempted refutation of my latest post on a point I never made. I realize you're attempting to debate several people in this thread, but until you bother to keep the arguments separate, there's nothing for me to respond to because you haven't responded to my primary points. I'd be willing to respond more thoroughly if you weren't constantly confusing my arguments with others, despite the fact that I've even re-quoted myself a few times to try to make my position as clear as possible.

I'm not going to defend the "no suffering gambit" because it's not even a point I've put forward. I don't mind you trying to refute my points, but do not assert that I "put something in the water" that I did not. Thanks.

 

[Alceste]

It is not true that the only possible way to attain no suffering at all is to become a god. Ask a Buddhist.

 

[Wombat]

Your 1000 words debated, but it did not debate the point I made. That's why I ignored it.

For instance, you said:
You are clearly putting forward the proposition that the only resolution to ‘The problem of evil’ is the total absence of suffering-“ If there exists suffering” the “discrepancy” and the “problem” remain.

And yet, I am specifically not putting forward that proposition. .

Penumbra....This is >YOU< in #102 SPECIFICALY PUTTING FORWARD THAT PROPOSITION-

#102
“The cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem is when there is any suffering at all. You've already received this answer. If there exists suffering, and a perfectly powerful and benevolent deity is claimed to exist, then there is a discrepancy and therefore a problem, and an adequate explanation is required.”

"WHEN THERE IS ANY SUFFERING AT ALL"- "IF THERE EXISTS SUFFERING"


You >>ARE<< clearly putting forward the proposition that the only resolution to ‘The problem of evil’ is the total absence of suffering-“ If there exists suffering” the “discrepancy” and the “problem” remain.

Back in post 35, I even said:.

something that contradicts what you clearly said in #102.

Generally, I differ from a lot of atheists and don't argue that a universe created by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would include a complete lack of pain and suffering. I even bothered to debate it out of principle against another atheist in the one-on-one debate section. .

You "don't argue" "a complete lack of pain and suffering" in #35...You DO ARGUE "The cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem is when there is any suffering at all" in #102.

Complete contradiction in pov from that stated in #35 to that stated in #102.

Let me know if/when you have made up your mind.

I'm not going to defend the "no suffering gambit" because it's not even a point I've put forward. I don't mind you trying to refute my points, but do not assert that I "put something in the water" that I did not. Thanks.

The "no suffering gambit" clearly expressed and confirmed-
“The cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem is when there is any suffering at all. You've already received this answer. If there exists suffering, and a perfectly powerful and benevolent deity is claimed to exist, then there is a discrepancy and therefore a problem, and an adequate explanation is required.” #102

 

[waitasec]

wonder why a natural disaster that claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives isn't considered evil....

 

[Wombat]

That's all fine and dandy. It seems to me your afterlife is very similar to the reality which we experience. Growth, learning, experience. The only thing missing is death.

"The only thing missing is death."?

Well, I could be wrong and won't find out until/if I get there...but I have allways been under the impression that in the afterlife you don't have to >WORK< to stay alive. And that, alone, would make it Heaven for me.

To be in a realm in which creativity could be pursued unburdened by the necessity of work would be Paradise...sheer Paradise.

When regaled- “Oh Winston...What would you do with an eternity in Heaven”?
Churchill responded- “Madame...I would devote the first ten thousand years to learning the basics of oil painting”!

So back to my original post, which was skipped over: Why not create creation in the afterlife?

Not knowing the mind of God I speculate- To learn, through work, through striving, through difficulty, disipline and dreaming what it is that you realy realy want to do and possibly earn or be granted the oportunity of the unencumbered environment in which to do it.

Maybe it is the same dynamic that leads the wise ultra affluent parent not to just give their ofspring everything they want when they want it...but to experience and appreciate what is gained by effort.

 

[Penumbra]

Penumbra....This is >YOU< in #102 SPECIFICALY PUTTING FORWARD THAT PROPOSITION-

#102
&#8220;The cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem is when there is any suffering at all. You've already received this answer. If there exists suffering, and a perfectly powerful and benevolent deity is claimed to exist, then there is a discrepancy and therefore a problem, and an adequate explanation is required.&#8221;

"WHEN THERE IS ANY SUFFERING AT ALL"- "IF THERE EXISTS SUFFERING"


You >>ARE<< clearly putting forward the proposition that the only resolution to &#8216;The problem of evil&#8217; is the total absence of suffering-&#8220; If there exists suffering&#8221; the &#8220;discrepancy&#8221; and the &#8220;problem&#8221; remain.


something that contradicts what you clearly said in #102.




You "don't argue" "a complete lack of pain and suffering" in #35...You DO ARGUE "The cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem is when there is any suffering at all" in #102.

Complete contradiction in pov from that stated in #35 to that stated in #102.

Let me know if/when you have made up your mind.


The "no suffering gambit" clearly expressed and confirmed-
&#8220;The cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem is when there is any suffering at all. You've already received this answer. If there exists suffering, and a perfectly powerful and benevolent deity is claimed to exist, then there is a discrepancy and therefore a problem, and an adequate explanation is required.&#8221; #102

You conveniently left out the rest of my post when you quoted #102.

The cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem is when there is any suffering at all. You've already received this answer. If there exists suffering, and a perfectly powerful and benevolent deity is claimed to exist, then there is a discrepancy and therefore a problem, and an adequate explanation is required.

A problem doesn't necessarily lead to disproof. Being continuous, the more suffering there exists in the universe (in terms of how varied and widespread it is, and how extreme and horrible it can get, and how destructive it can be), the harder the problem becomes and more likely it is to be used as an argument against the existence of a benevolent and powerful god.

The less suffering that there is, the more reasonable some of the explanations might be, such as "god wants people to build character", or "god wants people to cooperate and love", etc. The more suffering that there is, the more irrational and outlandish the explanations become, such as "the universe needs agony of children in order to be exciting" or "flesh eating bacteria must exist in a perfect universe".

There is no cutoff point for when a benevolent and omnipotent deity can or cannot exist, which is why I've said your demand for an answer to that question is nonsensical. There is, however, a cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem, and that's when any suffering exists at all.

Like many problems, it can have an explanation and therefore a solution. However, the more suffering that exists (in terms of magnitude, quantity, and destructiveness), the more outlandish and irrational defenses and explanations become to try to reconcile the two different ideas. People arguing that this universe is the best of all possible universes are essentially arguing that things like childhood cancer, childhood starvation, flesh eating bacteria, Alzheimer's, and the Holocaust are aspects of a perfect universe.

So my main argument is to point out the absurdity of trying to reconcile the worst aspects of suffering that exist with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.

 

[Wombat]

You conveniently left out the rest of my post when you quoted #102. .

None of it was relevant to nor negated the point you clearly stated re "WHEN THERE IS ANY SUFFERING AT ALL"- "IF THERE EXISTS SUFFERING" the problem of evil exist.

It is >the very same< point you make below-

There is no cutoff point for when a benevolent and omnipotent deity can or cannot exist, which is why I've said your demand for an answer to that question is nonsensical. There is, however, a cutoff point for when the Problem of Evil becomes a problem, and that's when any suffering exists at all. .

Wether you start at many sufferings and reduce down to zero....or...
Start at zero sufferings and "when any suffering exists at all" "the Problem of Evil becomes a problem" IT MAKES NO DIFFERANCE. The 'the Problem of Evil', once having become a problem through the existance of "ANY SUFFERING AT ALL" (your words) >means< that a benevolent and omnipotent deity cannot exist.

That's what the Problem of Evil is >all about<...that a benevolent and omnipotent deity cannot exist because of the problem of evil.

All your statement above serves to do is detatch the consideration wether " a benevolent and omnipotent deity can or cannot exist" from the problem of evil (which must exist because there is suffering).

That's fine by me...by your reasoning atheists loose the problem of evil as an arguement against God existing.
Ok by me.

People arguing that this universe is the best of all possible universes are essentially arguing that things like childhood cancer, childhood starvation, flesh eating bacteria, Alzheimer's, and the Holocaust are aspects of a perfect universe. .

Penambra...This is ground you have already refused to go over at lest five times.You can stack up the sufferings/evils all day long...but you (and all other atheist respondents) have steadfastly refused to discuss/examine what happens when you start eliminating them to a cut off point or zero.

You cannot/will not discus or contemplate what that zero or minimal suffering realm should look like.

So my main argument is to point out the absurdity of trying to reconcile the worst aspects of suffering that exist with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.

Yea....Heard, understood and responded to a dozen times over...

ELIMINATE "the worst aspects of suffering that exist" and be born into a realm without them.....WHAT'S NEXT?

Because whatever suffering you >did not< eliminate is now your biggest and "worst" suffering experience.

Unless you go to zero suffering and become a god.

 

[Penumbra]

None of it was relevant to nor negated the point you clearly stated re "WHEN THERE IS ANY SUFFERING AT ALL"- "IF THERE EXISTS SUFFERING" the problem of evil exist.

It is >the very same< point you make below-

Wether you start at many sufferings and reduce down to zero....or...
Start at zero sufferings and "when any suffering exists at all" "the Problem of Evil becomes a problem" IT MAKES NO DIFFERANCE. The 'the Problem of Evil', once having become a problem through the existance of "ANY SUFFERING AT ALL" (your words) >means< that a benevolent and omnipotent deity cannot exist.

That's what the Problem of Evil is >all about<...that a benevolent and omnipotent deity cannot exist because of the problem of evil.

All your statement above serves to do is detatch the consideration wether " a benevolent and omnipotent deity can or cannot exist" from the problem of evil (which must exist because there is suffering).

That's fine by me...by your reasoning atheists loose the problem of evil as an arguement against God existing.
Ok by me.

Penambra...This is ground you have already refused to go over at lest five times.You can stack up the sufferings/evils all day long...but you (and all other atheist respondents) have steadfastly refused to discuss/examine what happens when you start eliminating them to a cut off point or zero.

You cannot/will not discus or contemplate what that zero or minimal suffering realm should look like.

So I've told you specifically what I've argued, and yet you still attempt to say I'm arguing something otherwise. You're arguing against the arguments that you want me to put forth rather than the ones am putting forth.

I haven't "refused" to go over ground. The argument of zero suffering is an argument that's not applicable to my position. You keep attempting to ascribe that argument to me, but it's not my argument. Why would I defend an argument that isn't my own?

Don't tell me what I cannot or will not contemplate, thanks.

Have a look:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/one-one-debates/109262-penumbra-meow-poe.html

My position is that the Problem of Evil is a valid problem for theists. I don't promote it as logical disproof of a benevolent and powerful deity; but I promote it as strong evidence against one.

Consider reading up on the Problem of Evil:
The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yea....Heard, understood and responded to a dozen times over...

ELIMINATE "the worst aspects of suffering that exist" and be born into a realm without them.....WHAT'S NEXT?

A better world.

Because whatever suffering you >did not< eliminate is now your biggest and "worst" suffering experience.

Yes, but the remaining worst aspects aren't as bad as the ones that were removed.

If I have a set of numbers from one to ten, and I am asked to remove the top five numbers, then my highest remaining number is five. It doesn't become a ten in the absence of the real ten.

Unless you go to zero suffering and become a god.

Be careful not to step in the realm of a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Autodidact]

Wombat, I have a question. What's with your bizarre punctuation system. Can you explain it? Thanks.

 

[Wombat]

Quote:
Yea....Heard, understood and responded to a dozen times over...

ELIMINATE "the worst aspects of suffering that exist" and be born into a realm without them.....WHAT'S NEXT?

A better world. .

Trite, evasive and funny...but demonstrates exactly what I was refering to re “ground you have already refused to go over at least five times” and “cannot or will not contemplate”.
Being born into a world devoid of the sufferings identified (ie they would never have existed) you have no point of comparison...the world is not “better” it just >is<, and it is all you know and experience.

Quote:
Because whatever suffering you >did not< eliminate is now your biggest and "worst" suffering experience.

Yes, but the remaining worst aspects aren't as bad as the ones that were removed..

That only works/makes sense if you are born into a world in which those “worst aspects” exist, are known and suffered, and then mysteriously eliminated by God. Which would create a new/weird ‘problem of evil’
The question related to being “born” into a realm in which those sufferings never existed...there are no “worst aspects” to compare and thus no way to determine the existing sufferings “aren't as bad”. The existing sufferings are >the worst< you have.

If I have a set of numbers from one to ten, and I am asked to remove the top five numbers, then my highest remaining number is five. It doesn't become a ten in the absence of the real ten. .

Well played...stick with it- “If I have a set of numbers from one to ten”, and each number represents a degree of suffering, ‘ten’ being “worst aspects”, “and I am asked to remove the top five numbers, then my highest remaining number is five”...five becomes my greatest- “worst aspect” suffering.

If I have never known/experienced a ‘ten’ suffering...I can only imagine it by conceptually doubling a five suffering...five is the “worst aspect” suffering I would have ever known experienced.

The world of five suffering is no “better” than the world of ten suffering if ten suffering never existed...it is only “better” if ten suffering is known/experienced and then removed.

Quote:
Unless you go to zero suffering and become a god.

Be careful not to step in the realm of a slippery slope fallacy..

I will...You be careful to avoid describing how you could have zero suffering without becoming a god...because you (all) certainly can’t describe a realm of reduced suffering in which ‘the problem of evil’ does not still arise.

 

[Wombat]

Wombat, I have a question. What's with your bizarre punctuation system. Can you explain it? Thanks.

Aparently it is a decice I employ as "A whole bunch of personal insults"...(pause)...see #85.

 

[meogi]

Have you responded to my post, #122?

I'm sorry if you have already, but it is somewhat difficult to discern what you're saying. If you have just point me to your post number. Thanks.

 

[Wombat]

have you responded to my post, #122?

I'm sorry if you have already,but it is somewhat difficult to discern what you're saying. If you have just point me to your post number. Thanks.

#127.

 

[Penumbra]

Quote:
Yea....Heard, understood and responded to a dozen times over...

ELIMINATE "the worst aspects of suffering that exist" and be born into a realm without them.....WHAT'S NEXT?

Trite, evasive and funny...but demonstrates exactly what I was refering to re “ground you have already refused to go over at least five times” and “cannot or will not contemplate”.

Being born into a world devoid of the sufferings identified (ie they would never have existed) you have no point of comparison...the world is not “better” it just >is<, and it is all you know and experience.

Quote:
Because whatever suffering you >did not< eliminate is now your biggest and "worst" suffering experience.

That only works/makes sense if you are born into a world in which those “worst aspects” exist, are known and suffered, and then mysteriously eliminated by God. Which would create a new/weird ‘problem of evil’
The question related to being “born” into a realm in which those sufferings never existed...there are no “worst aspects” to compare and thus no way to determine the existing sufferings “aren't as bad”. The existing sufferings are >the worst< you have.

Well played...stick with it- “If I have a set of numbers from one to ten”, and each number represents a degree of suffering, ‘ten’ being “worst aspects”, “and I am asked to remove the top five numbers, then my highest remaining number is five”...five becomes my greatest- “worst aspect” suffering.

If I have never known/experienced a ‘ten’ suffering...I can only imagine it by conceptually doubling a five suffering...five is the “worst aspect” suffering I would have ever known experienced.

The world of five suffering is no “better” than the world of ten suffering if ten suffering never existed...it is only “better” if ten suffering is known/experienced and then removed.

Quote:
Unless you go to zero suffering and become a god.

Suffering isn't just a relative thing; it's also an absolute thing.

Getting one's ear pierced hurts a lot less than getting skinned alive. If the worst suffering is rendered nonexistent, then the moderate suffering is indeed the worst suffering that exists, but that level is significantly reduced from the level that otherwise could be. Once one has a spectrum, they can understand further extremes on that spectrum without ever having to experience those extremes. One doesn't need to be skinned alive to understand how absolutely horrible it would be.

There are some things that cause a human to suffer more than others. Some people have much more agonizing lives than others because they experience a truly higher magnitude of agony. Taking things like childhood cancer, flesh eating bacteria, horribly painful and/or untreatable diseases away is a small subset of the fixes that would make this world a better place without removing any reasonable amount of challenge or excitement.

Taking your reasoning of relative suffering to its logical end, the magnitude of suffering could have been higher without limit than it currently is, and it wouldn't have made a difference. But of course it would have. If pain was amplified, say, tenfold or a hundredfold, then that would truly be worse than this world. This is unless you impose an arbitrary end point to where your theory stops making sense.

I will...You be careful to avoid describing how you could have zero suffering without becoming a god...because you (all) certainly can’t describe a realm of reduced suffering in which ‘the problem of evil’ does not still arise.

The problem of evil will arise in any realm where there is any suffering at all. But its strength will be determined by the magnitude, destructiveness, and quantity of suffering in that realm.

 

[Autodidact]

Aparently it is a decice I employ as "A whole bunch of personal insults"...(pause)...see #85.

Wow, it's really annoying. How do you expect other people to understand your idiosyncratic punctuation system? Obviously, it interferes with comprehension. Why would you want to do that? Among other things, it's very inconsiderate. Unless you have something amazing to say, that will teach me something I've never heard before, I don't think I'm motivated to learn an entire new system of punctuation. It's not like English doesn't have a perfectly good system already.

 

[Wombat]

Wow, it's really annoying.

There are lots of things that are "annoying" on Net Forums-

Entirely ignoring the issue/points/questions to only and exclusively attack the individual.

Employing objections to the individuals style, grammar, tone, "idiosyncratic punctuation", spelling to avoid adressing issue/points/questions.

Demonstrating that it is just a device to evade, distract from and obfuscate the discussion by never once doing the reasonable/logical thing if any of the above " interferes with comprehension"-

i.e. >Quote< the passage in question and ask what it means.


Variation- Repeatedly assert that "comprehension" is diminished by "idiosyncratic punctuation" but never once provide example. "it's very inconsiderate"....but isn't it meant to be?


Thus, lack of "comprehention" may be justifiably put down to other factors.

Unless you have something amazing to say, that will teach me something I've never heard before, I don't think I'm motivated to learn an entire new system of punctuation. It's not like English doesn't have a perfectly good system already.

Unless you have something pertinent to the issue to say, or something to say relating to "idiosyncratic punctuation" that is substantiated by example/ quote to demonstrate how it “interferes with comprehension”...I don't think I'm motivated to take your complaint as anything other than lame attempt to play the man and not the issue.


Essentialy no different than the bizare propisition that punctuation (however "idiosyncratic") could constitute- "A whole bunch of personal insults".

In both instances the clear intent is to avoid/obfuscate the issue and make an issue of something that does not exist....unless and until some evidence/example of its existance is provided.


"it's very inconsiderate" not to have already done so.

 

[meogi]

#127.

Thanks, many apologies for missing that.

Just one quick question (it's a bit off topic): Does your God punish disbelief? Or if I die tomorrow can I get there too? I need to do some Baha'i research...

 

[Wombat]

Thanks, many apologies for missing that....

Hey, that’s no drama...I have no problem with someone not spotting a post...
But those who repeatedly cut, ignore, evade and obfuscate pertinent points and questions...that’s an ongoing issue of concern, but not one that I have seen you give rise to.

Just one quick question (it's a bit off topic): Does your God punish disbelief? ...

I am obliged to preface my answer with a disclaimer...I am an Unenrolled Baha’i, no longer a member of any formal Baha’i community...so my answer, while drawing on and influenced by the Baha’i writings, is purely personal.
Does God punish disbelief? No. I don’t believe so. God (in the Baha’i writings) encourages “The Independent Investigation of Truth’ and the “Harmony of Religion and Science”-
“If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.” Abdul Baha.
The Unity of Religion and Science

So, if by reason and logic you find the notion of God to be no more than “superstition” and “contrary to reason” there can be no “punishment” for such “disbelief”.

if I die tomorrow can I get there too?...

I would point out the great emphasis that the Baha’i writings place on “Deeds” rather than “words”- “Let deeds not words be your adorning”
I hold it to be highly likely that despite their professed ‘words/beliefs’ many theists (myself included) may find that their >deeds< (actions and neglects) may place them a long way from God,
While many atheists/agnostics, despite their words/beliefs and as a consequence of their deeds may well find themselves at the banquette table.
Should that be the case....please put in a good word for me, I’ll need it!

I need to do some Baha'i research......

I would be more than willing to try to answer any questions...but the truth is I am a “broken winged bird”...there is little or no ‘spirit’ here and certainly no flight.
In the end, while reason and logic are vital, any approach to or investigation of God/religion is a romance...a love story.....that, or a marriage/relationship of convenience.
By all means- “do some Baha'i research”...seek out the Sufi poets...investigate and enjoy with rational caution and no commitment just as you would on a date...Then seek out ‘The Royal Falcon of God’ on these boards and have a chat to that soaring bird...for there is a rational and astute Baha’i mind, balanced by insightful good humour and besotted with God.
Just watch out when he starts making the “woot woot!” noise.
All the best.