An Atheist on Judgement Day
- Thread starter mustafhakofi
- Start date
Omfg.
If there ever was an "atheist inspiration" bit of writing that far surpassed what Christian Inspiration writing does for Christians, this is it.
Brilliant. Brilliant. Kudos.
(Except that I'm in the arms of the Goddess now ... but my gal's too swell to get jealous of a little bit of text like that. Much more compassionate. She doesn't just go about destroying entire cities just because their residents knew how awesome anal sex could be. Get rid of your Jehovahs and Yahwehs and come to your damn senses, like you tell people to get rid of their Baals.)
If there ever was an "atheist inspiration" bit of writing that far surpassed what Christian Inspiration writing does for Christians, this is it.
Brilliant. Brilliant. Kudos.
(Except that I'm in the arms of the Goddess now ... but my gal's too swell to get jealous of a little bit of text like that. Much more compassionate. She doesn't just go about destroying entire cities just because their residents knew how awesome anal sex could be. Get rid of your Jehovahs and Yahwehs and come to your damn senses, like you tell people to get rid of their Baals.)
In response to the piece of writing:
It is indeed a very well written piece of writing. The first paragraph sets the scene vividly, and the following paragraph clearly defines the two "examples" used to display its moral, and brings the setting to life with the mulling of the atheist. The following dialogue is parallel structured in a way that helps the reader clearly understand the point made by contrasting the two human characters by how there responses differ. Thus, even though the writing is short the reader is given the illusion of two fully fleshed out lives.
Thematically the piece is very clever. By setting up the Christian male as someone many Christians can relate to the shock of God discarding him hits home very strongly. He is portrayed with all of the qualities commonly accepted as "good" by many Christians. Thus when he is judged to God's disfavor it causes the Christian reader to either question his or her own values and think deeper about the meaning of the piece (or shut down and stop listening).
The climax is also very powerful, as well as emotionally satisfying, as the atheist chooses to stand for her own beliefs instead of God's, and renounces him as fit to judge. The manner in which the author portrays this is very satisfying to both the intellect and emotion of like minded readers, thus reaffirming their beliefs. It also shows the strength of Atheism to those who are not atheist, which helps convey the meaning even better.
All in all a well written piece.
In response to the debate afterwards:
Omniscience is not Omnipotence, though the God of Christians does claim both. Omniscience is all knowing, and Omnipotence is being able to do everything.
In regards to how God could not be responsible for everyone sinning even though he created them the distinction of those two words becomes important.
Yes God is omnipotent, therefore he could force you to sin (or not sin). However to be truly omnipotent one would also have the ability to restrain and control one's power, thus he would also have the power to not control ones actions, and whether or not he did would be his choice.
However in that case he would still "know" being Omniscient that what he created and gave free will to would sin, therefore, man being his creations and him knowing what would happen, he would be responsible for what man did. However I think that one way to look at this apparent hypocrisy would be to consider your own memory. You know what someone did in the past, but are you responsible for what others do in your memory. Yes before God created the Universe he knew what was going to happen, however it is far from predetermined. Being outside of time itself, He remembers it before it happens. Just because God knows what happens doesn't mean you still don't have to make it happen. Along the lines of what §outh§tar said, you do it, he just remembers it before you have.
Now comes the tricky part, why free will in the first place? Why would God decide to allow his creations to do "evil" if he despises it? Of course if he hadn't we wouldn't be allowed to question his judgment on the topic in the first place, but wouldn't indeed prove him not fully sane, and therefore not fit to judge? (Of-course if God couldn't tell right from wrong it'd be very strange for one his creations to be able to do so, so therefore he didn't create us, he isn't omnipotent, or we are missing something.)
Answering that question seems to be the heart of the theme of this story. What God would make such a decision that seems so obviously stupid? The easy answer out is to say no such God ever made that decision, because that God didn't exist. On the other side, one could say, God is great beyond our understanding and that is why we cannot fathom why he would make such a choice. Well I'll tell you that either person who falls directly on either of those answers is no better than the other. Yes saying there isn't a God would be the easy way out, therefore I challenge you to do better. Saying that God is unfathomable is just as simple, and in the same way I challenge you.
I think that rather than assuming you either know the answer or don't, you should consider what the answer might be. I myself am seeking the answer to the question, and think that perhaps the answers lies in the question itself. Could not the answer be that a God who gives us free will and philosophizing minds gave them to us in order to discover why he chose to give them to us. To seek the knowledge of the truth, rather than accept or discount it out of hand might the purpose.
I don't know if I'm on the right track at all, but I think that it would be close-minded and silly to just assume there isn’t a God because this thing is hard to understand, or assume that it is beyond understand for the same reason. That is my two and half (and probably a few to many more) cents.
It is indeed a very well written piece of writing. The first paragraph sets the scene vividly, and the following paragraph clearly defines the two "examples" used to display its moral, and brings the setting to life with the mulling of the atheist. The following dialogue is parallel structured in a way that helps the reader clearly understand the point made by contrasting the two human characters by how there responses differ. Thus, even though the writing is short the reader is given the illusion of two fully fleshed out lives.
Thematically the piece is very clever. By setting up the Christian male as someone many Christians can relate to the shock of God discarding him hits home very strongly. He is portrayed with all of the qualities commonly accepted as "good" by many Christians. Thus when he is judged to God's disfavor it causes the Christian reader to either question his or her own values and think deeper about the meaning of the piece (or shut down and stop listening).
The climax is also very powerful, as well as emotionally satisfying, as the atheist chooses to stand for her own beliefs instead of God's, and renounces him as fit to judge. The manner in which the author portrays this is very satisfying to both the intellect and emotion of like minded readers, thus reaffirming their beliefs. It also shows the strength of Atheism to those who are not atheist, which helps convey the meaning even better.
All in all a well written piece.
In response to the debate afterwards:
Omniscience is not Omnipotence, though the God of Christians does claim both. Omniscience is all knowing, and Omnipotence is being able to do everything.
In regards to how God could not be responsible for everyone sinning even though he created them the distinction of those two words becomes important.
Yes God is omnipotent, therefore he could force you to sin (or not sin). However to be truly omnipotent one would also have the ability to restrain and control one's power, thus he would also have the power to not control ones actions, and whether or not he did would be his choice.
However in that case he would still "know" being Omniscient that what he created and gave free will to would sin, therefore, man being his creations and him knowing what would happen, he would be responsible for what man did. However I think that one way to look at this apparent hypocrisy would be to consider your own memory. You know what someone did in the past, but are you responsible for what others do in your memory. Yes before God created the Universe he knew what was going to happen, however it is far from predetermined. Being outside of time itself, He remembers it before it happens. Just because God knows what happens doesn't mean you still don't have to make it happen. Along the lines of what §outh§tar said, you do it, he just remembers it before you have.
Now comes the tricky part, why free will in the first place? Why would God decide to allow his creations to do "evil" if he despises it? Of course if he hadn't we wouldn't be allowed to question his judgment on the topic in the first place, but wouldn't indeed prove him not fully sane, and therefore not fit to judge? (Of-course if God couldn't tell right from wrong it'd be very strange for one his creations to be able to do so, so therefore he didn't create us, he isn't omnipotent, or we are missing something.)
Answering that question seems to be the heart of the theme of this story. What God would make such a decision that seems so obviously stupid? The easy answer out is to say no such God ever made that decision, because that God didn't exist. On the other side, one could say, God is great beyond our understanding and that is why we cannot fathom why he would make such a choice. Well I'll tell you that either person who falls directly on either of those answers is no better than the other. Yes saying there isn't a God would be the easy way out, therefore I challenge you to do better. Saying that God is unfathomable is just as simple, and in the same way I challenge you.
I think that rather than assuming you either know the answer or don't, you should consider what the answer might be. I myself am seeking the answer to the question, and think that perhaps the answers lies in the question itself. Could not the answer be that a God who gives us free will and philosophizing minds gave them to us in order to discover why he chose to give them to us. To seek the knowledge of the truth, rather than accept or discount it out of hand might the purpose.
I don't know if I'm on the right track at all, but I think that it would be close-minded and silly to just assume there isn’t a God because this thing is hard to understand, or assume that it is beyond understand for the same reason. That is my two and half (and probably a few to many more) cents.
Last edited:
A good text Nyyark. I can understand the ideas you have, and they seem reasonable. But another important question concerns our existence. Can we be sure that this way we perceive "reality" is really true? Perceptions can be misleading. This existence we have can be an illusion, this would make us unable to determine the truth about god since we are not able to determine the truth about ourself.
Anyway, back to your text. I think that if god is outside time, he may be confused. His memories of the past and future might be all mingled together since for him, there is no future, no past and no present. Thus god might not know if he created us in the first place or if we were always there, or he thinks that we have ceased to exist an eternity ago. For god, we might also be a dream, we might be an illusion. That would mean that god has stopped caring about us, or he thinks different about us than we assume.
Another possibility is, that god is more like a child, his mind is not yet mature. He had no one to educate him what good and evil are. Meaning that he is an omnipotent being, but far from oniscient. One can assume that god started to experiment with his power, he started creating and he learned from that creation. Namely, from us and countless of other beings. This means, that we are some kind of teacher for god. For a god that could destroy us on a whim, but also a god that is uneducated and curious.
But I doubt that we will ever find out the truth about god and ourself.
Anyway, back to your text. I think that if god is outside time, he may be confused. His memories of the past and future might be all mingled together since for him, there is no future, no past and no present. Thus god might not know if he created us in the first place or if we were always there, or he thinks that we have ceased to exist an eternity ago. For god, we might also be a dream, we might be an illusion. That would mean that god has stopped caring about us, or he thinks different about us than we assume.
Another possibility is, that god is more like a child, his mind is not yet mature. He had no one to educate him what good and evil are. Meaning that he is an omnipotent being, but far from oniscient. One can assume that god started to experiment with his power, he started creating and he learned from that creation. Namely, from us and countless of other beings. This means, that we are some kind of teacher for god. For a god that could destroy us on a whim, but also a god that is uneducated and curious.
But I doubt that we will ever find out the truth about god and ourself.
Well it's not 'why did he design us so we could sin', but 'why did he design us so we would sin'. From the very first humans until now- each and every one of us has sinned and does sin.
People keep saying "humans are not perfect", and while this is most certainly a true statement - it also shows how we are not at fault for what we do merely because we have been designed imperfectly - and where we will and do sin regardless.
We can also see that it really bothers god.. To such degree that he drowned every living thing on the planet, bombarded cities with sulphur, and so on.
The reality is that we do not sit down and choose who we are going to be. A pyschopath does not choose to be a psychopath, a queer does not choose to be queer, just like I never chose to like the Eagles music - I just do. It is all a part of what we are whether we like it or not. It is our nature, our being.. and if god doesn't like it, he shouldn't have made us what we are.
Are you saying humans designed it?
SouthStar,
It would be like a car manufacturer deliberately designing a car with a defect that causes the car to explode after 1 hour of use.
If god wanted perfect people why didn’t he design perfect people – in the end after judgment day that is what he will have so why mess with all the interim nonsense of sins, saviors, judging etc?
Kat
And what is your point? How do you interpret that text? All that text is saying is that god does what he wants to do. What we are trying to determine is if there is any meaningful purpose to his decision other than simple bloody-mindedness and vindictiveness. If he is perfect then there will be a good reason. The text attempts to off-handedly dismiss the issue and doesn’t come close to a real answer to my questions.
Why would anyone design something with a defective feature they don’t want or need.
It would be like a car manufacturer deliberately designing a car with a defect that causes the car to explode after 1 hour of use.
If god wanted perfect people why didn’t he design perfect people – in the end after judgment day that is what he will have so why mess with all the interim nonsense of sins, saviors, judging etc?
Kat
§outh§tar said:
Cant find their #'s anywhere.... got an email addy for them ? Please do not direct any scriptures my way... you said ask them..... so hook a brother up.
I read everything here folks and Im tellin you this...if this God is true (biblegod)... its the people on the fence thats gettin into heaven...... the rest of you are going to burn...burn..burn. Mark it down.
§outh§tar said:
No, that is not altogether true, an atheist does not think a god exists, an agnostic just does not believe that god is the way you think he is. He rather doubts the existence of god, but an atheist just thinks there is no god...
also, there are those that believe in other gods, where is their place? Also on the fence or in one of the other areas? It depends on how you construct the scene.
Good thoughts Dreamwalker! Yes the concept of being able to trust our perceptions is the constant bane of all theories, and a nasty one to deal with. Your two examples are neat ideas, one a God with Omniscience, and the other a God with Omnipotence, but neither with both. They could both be very valid ideas, and might be worth being explored. It doesn't however adress the concept of a God who would have both. All very interesting
Well, a god with both would obviously be the ultimate being. He would know all, control everything. He would just be everything. That concept is like the christian one. Alas, I think that an omnipotent and omniscient god could as well not exist since he is everything anyway. Under such a god, everything should be perfect. (At least if it is a sane god...)
But I suppose there are more concepts of god than humans on this planet, so I´ll just go on creating some more as time goes on.
But I suppose there are more concepts of god than humans on this planet, so I´ll just go on creating some more as time goes on.
musta, another excellent example, where are you getting it from brilliant.
Dreamwalker said:
There is only one truth (concerning the matter of who is "wrong" and who is "right") therefore you must admit all can't be "right".
There are those who love Christ and there are those who don't. Agnostics, atheists, polytheists.. do these do the will of the Father?
Either you accept Him or reject Him. I fail to see how there is middle ground in that for by saying He might not be, you are rejecting Him. I might be wrong though.. let's see what other folks say.
There is only one truth? I suppose I can accept that hypothetically, but none can describe it, since in using language to describe reality, something must always be left out.