Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: Awhile back, someone commented on a Facebook post about Stephen Hawking going to Heaven, saying that they should be respectful of his beliefs and that he probably did not go to Heaven because he does not believe in Heaven. I am agnostic so I am uncertain, but I said that that is technically not true. Someone can believe that a god specifically and consciously *chooses* to not send people to Heaven if they do not believe and to send them to Heaven if they believe. However, it is not illogical nor impossible nor in part of the mechanism to believe in it in order to go there. Heaven either does exist or does not exist.

I replied to the person's comment saying that someone who believes in Heaven might not go to Heaven, and someone who does not believe in Heaven might go to Heaven, explaining that it either does or does not exist. This person was not religious, but kept repeating themselves to me as tho I did not get it. Yes, I get that they should be respectful by not making the original post. However, I just said that if Heaven does or does not exist, it is not *impossible* for someone not believing to go to Heaven and someone not believing to not go to Heaven, and they got angry and accused me of not respecting his beliefs. AITA?

saying that just because someone does not believe in Heaven does not mean that they do not go to Heaven? I am an agnostic