|
|
a question for all atheist friends.palavra
when you pass away ,if you see there is a god
-we assume this,then please don't tell us you don't believe in god. -like all the mathematicians do assume something , we also assume there is a god(omnipotent) how will you response to his judgment? HereticMonkey
Unfortunately, the argument is pretty spurious, at best...I'm someone who believes in God, and I can easily shoot down this argument...
[Basically, not all mathematicians believe in a god of any kind, so part of the argument is factually wrong. As for proving God after you die, that's definitely specious: You can only prove it by dying, and if that's the only way to prove it, then there is no argument (ie, there's nothing to debate unless you have a way to kill someone and bring them back, and even God is loathe to do that...] Anyway to give a way to argue it? HM palavra
sorry when i write the post ,at the same time i was try to solve a problem then i made a mistake 
i mean this is only an assumption , like mathematicians do everytime. we don't debate or argue. i only want to know ideas of our friends. theists say there is a god and a judgment atheists say there is no god and judgment what they(atheist) would like to say to god if they see there is a god when they pass away? The Conspirator
palavra there are many errors in your posts. First, mathematicians are like every one else, some believe in god some don't. Second, not all theists believe that there is a "judgment" and not all atheists don't. Theism ans atheism are category's of belief and which in them there are innumerable belief systems.
As for the question, fist it would have to prove itself to be God, the, well I can't say what I'd say cause I can only assume what I might say and that would have all of these *. Indi
I dunno. How would you respond if you died and went to the afterlife... and only Carl Sagan, Jean-Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur C. Clarke were waiting there for you, pointing and laughing, and saying "see? no god. told you so."? palavra
ok let's assume there is a god there is a judgment after your resurriction he asks you -conspirator,why you did't believe in me? how will you reply?
i think sartre was believing a god. russell remorsed for all his ex-thoughts and died as a christian(a missionary told me like this.) and leave all the other people because they can not help you. i want to know only your opinion you are alone with god he asks you indi i created you in a beautiful norm with a great intelligence why you didn't believe in me and prayed for me? how will you reply? p.s: by the way. what is the meaning of indi The Conspirator
I require evidence and there is no evidence of God. Faith is not in my nature and it shouldn't be in anyones. korbit
(in response to the first question; i am rephrasing for clarity)
An atheist, who is a moral relativist and a lifelong believer that the Christian-held "God" and afterlife of eternal damnation of non-believers, dies. To his/her chagrin, they find that it was all true, and they are in some situation that somehow indicates that they are being judged and sent to hell. In this scenario, the only plausible outcome is that the lifelong disbeliever continues to disbelieve. People tend to maintain all the beliefs they gain in in their teenage years, so why would the human mind be any different after death? The subject would probably either think they were having a very bad dream and slowly lose memory of life anyhow, or lose their mind and believe they are dead and follow any other beliefs they had about the afterlife. Or maybe their resolve would shatter and they'd say to themselves "Dang. Shoulda had more faith..." livilou
I can't agree with this statement. The Bible clearly states:
I also don't think this question should be put only to the atheist. I think Christians should answer it as well, only the question needs to be rephrased some for us. "What will you say to God when He shows you your life and you see all the wrong you done, either intentionally or unintentionally?" Just because we're Christians doesn't mean that we won't be judged as well. ninjakannon
palavra, theists don't assume that there is a God, they thoroughly believe that there really is a God. It's not a case of one just thinking, 'Oh I expect there is a God'; people who believe in God often come to believe in 'him' through rational and logical thought after pondering other explanations. This or they witness proof of God's existence through a religious experience (of which there are many). If a theist merely assumes that there is a God then they are not truly certain and would probably be relatively easy to sway by talking to an atheist. Yet a true believer in God would not be swayed by proposals of God being the most unlikely explanation - despite logical and rational thought in this direction.
Personally I am not a theist; I don't really believe that there could be a God, however I do realise that I cannot rule it out; this is simply because we cannot prove either way whether God exists or not. Bondings
I think what palavra meant is that if you (an atheist) die and you find out after your death that a god exists (an assumption), what would you say to him; how would you explain yourself?
Personally I do not believe in a god/afterlife. I don't strongly believe that there is no god/afterlife either - I just don't think there is. Why? Because our whole personality, feelings and memory (everything we are) is 'stored' and 'executed' in our mortal/fysical brain and once that stops to function, you're dead and it goes beyond my imagination how that could possibly continue to function in some kind of afterlife with or without a god. However, if after I die, I somehow am able to continue to think (and I suppose I will know that I am dead by then) and a god is sitting next to me, then yes I will know with almost certainty that a god and an afterlife exists - just like I know the chair I'm sitting on exists, but it wouldn't be a belief - it would be a certainty/fact. If that god then asks why I didn't 'believe' he exists, I will simply say that after a lifetime I came to the conclusion that an afterlife/god isn't possible to exist - and that this assumption was just proven wrong. This conclusion might be stupid (or intelligent depending if it's true or not) on my part, but has nothing to do with morality. If I would claim that 2 and 2 is 5, I would be wrong and stupid, but not morally wrong - which doesn't have anything to do with it. In my opinion such a 'judgement' would not be about a 'belief' in a god, but about the morality of your actions during your life.
Doesn't seem fair to me at least.  ninjakannon
Ahh, the assumption being that you find that God exists after your death, not that you assume God exists. I would prefer to call this a hypothetic argument, but never mind. If, hypothetically, I die and find God does exist - although I'm sure that when I die I won't find anything, I will be dead: nothing will happen, my mind will not function therefore I will not be able to think - then I would obviously be rather surprised, hence my previous ramble. If God then asked me why I did not believe that he truly did exist I would answer something like this: As you know, I did not rule out the possibility of your existence, I just preferred scientific explanations and believed that religion is [in general] a waste of time and effort. I believed that people who believed in you need not do anything more than acknowledge your existence and thank you for everything you have ever done for them (everything, therefore) as you - being all-knowing - would know and understand their gratefulness. I believe that going to a church/mosque/synagogue [etc] to worship is therefore pointless and thus religion is crowded with un-necessities which you would not need your believers to take part in. Thus religion appears less like following you but following a set of rules about how to live my life as given to me by a man/woman in authority at my local place of worship. (Not that I don't agree with all the 'rules', most are indeed right and morale. It's just that I don't see the need, for example, for Muslims to worship 5 times a day - whenever the feel the need should be enough; they should not loose faith because the don't worship so commonly as they truly believe in you, Allah.) Thus religion itself is more clouded and I would not want to follow something like that. Furthermore, I do not need something to follow, or a purpose to my life (as I know there is not one which is naturally given) to live happily, I am thus humanist. Perhaps if religion had been more about the faith and believing in God and doing what is right I would have found space and time to believe it or parts of it. But power corrupts and religion gives power over people thus corrupts. Look at the way priests in England used to teach people about the Bible; they used to make things up to suit themselves and also the Ruler (King or Queen (or a mixture over the time period) I do not remember), for example. I appear to have gone off on a number of tangents there, but I can assure you that I would go off on many more if I did die and find God. One final point I would like to make is that if there is a God he will already know my reasons for not believing in him and will thus not need to ask me. Indi
Sartre is a famous atheist. He was interested in the idea of a God and he thought about it often (i think his friend or secretary was a devout Jew, and that inspired Sartre to think about it the nature of the Jewish God). But Sartre himself was always clear that he did not believe in God. He just thought it was a neat idea.
That missionary lied to you. Atheist deathbed conversions are common lore in anti-atheist literature - the most famous being Darwin's. They are almost always false. What Russell said - and he said this all through his life, not just on his deathbed - was that God was possible. Or in other words, he could not prove there was no God. He also believed that it was possible to prove that God did exist. But he did not believe in God. And he most certainly wasn't Christian.
It is a valid and interesting question, if honestly asked. i'm not entirely convinced that this isn't just an attempt to make anyone who doesn't believe in a god admit they're wrong and beg for mercy - even if only in theory. However, if the question is being honestly asked, i suppose i will have to give an honest answer. Is it being asked honestly? And what, exactly, is the question? Is it: - i've died and now find that (the Jewish) God exists. What do i say to him? - i've died and now find myself being judged by God. How do i respond? palavra
but here we talk about only assumption. please answer.
yes ,all of us will be judged.
in our belief both of them are important belief without moral actions and moral actions without belief can not be the reason of salvation.
yes he knows your reasons.but life is an exam and he wants to make a conclusion about your exam by talking to you.
i was thinking he is a theist. belive in god but not to religion.i will try to read about him.
i read a book of him. i don't know the original name."why i am not a christian" or something like this. then i talk with a missionary he told me he got strong proofs. russel changed all his opinions about god before his death.i will ask him again.
really it is an honest questions. i don't have any hidden thoughts about your answers and i will not use them in court against to you.
and i asked this question only to get your answers. because i really like the way of thinking of some of the friends in this forum. i got some foolish atheist friend also. when i asked them why they are atheist. they told me some real ridiculous answers. in here i am sure i got and will get some reasonable answers. And what, exactly, is the question? Is it: - i've died and now find that (the Jewish-i prefer muslim god) God exists. What do i say to him? - i've died and now find myself being judged by God. How do i respond? yes these are the questions. The Conspirator
You asked
And the answer to that question would be "I need evidence." palavra
you are the evidence. Man feels many intuitions and emotions which are a sort of messages from immaterial realms. Among them, the intuition of eternity arouses in man a desire for eternity, for the fulfillment of which he strives in diverse ways. However, this desire can only be realized through belief in and worship of the Eternal One Who inspired this intuition and desire in man. It is in the satisfaction of this desire for eternity that true human happiness lies. ninjakannon
As I said before: God is all-knowing. A not uncommon belief is that he has a plan for every life, therefore he knew what I will do in life before I was born - in fact he always knew. So why, I ask again, would he need to ask. I am interested in the way you talk about life as an exam or test. I believe that, [again] if there is a god, he would not judge people but would bring everyone back and that everyone would be good. As far as I know this is not exactly stated but hinted at in the Bible. Remember that if everyone was judged and only those who had led good and 'worthy' lives to continue in Heaven (assuming that you believe this is where these people will go) and those 'unworthy' will go to Hell (assuming that you believe this is where these people will go) then Heaven would be a terrible place, just as bad as it is here on Earth. Unless of course the people who went to Heaven were changed in some way, but then of course you must realise that God might as well change everyone and send them all to Heaven. As he is all-loving then I would expect him to do this, he would not condemn people to a place wherein they will be tortured; that, above all things, would be out of character and wrong (making him as bad as the people he condemns). EDIT:
For a start, true human happiness does not lie in the satisfaction for this desire of eternity. Why? Think very carefully about the atrocities of this world, think about how terrible and alien we humans really are to each other, think about all the horrible things that go on. Then compare them to the good things that go on, I can think of many bad things than good things, especially as many of the things that at first appear good are bad. Do you want to live in this world with such evil? Many, many people do not, they are glad of motility and many, many people believe that mortality is a gift and blessing, not something to want to combat. (I am talking about our lives on Earth, not about when we come back (if we come back), because this is different entirely.) These people can be truly happy.
The emotions and intuitions that we feel, being very blunt here, are merely chemical processes inside our bodies. Although I must make clear that I do understand that the feeling of happiness cannot merely be described as a chemical process; interestingly you cannot describe happiness (or indeed any feeling).
Perhaps people who worship are led to become too distant from what is really going on. I would expect a true believer and follower of their god to realise that mortality is not something bad, but that it is a 'godsend'. To finally be free from this world of horrors is a probably a welcome break. Indi
That is a common misconception, brought about by the fact that Sartre talked often about how nice it would be to have a god - because if a god really existed, it would mean that there is something greater than life on earth (and because if god really existed, Sartre could blame him for all his mistakes rather than have to accept the guilt himself). This is the classic Sartre quote on God: "That God does not exist, I cannot deny. That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget." You see? He made it absolutely clear that he did not believe. He just wished he could.
All false. When Russell was younger, he did believe - sorta. Not really, but kind of. In his later years, his position was that he could not prove that God did not exist... but he also couldn't prove that Zeus and Odin didn't exist. So why pray to God and not Odin? There's no answer to that question, so why would Russell all of a sudden pick God on his deathbed - despite being harrassed and censored by Christian groups for many years. Deathbed conversions are almost always false.
Well, when i said Jewish, i meant the god of the Jews - who is also the Christian and Muslim god, amongst others. Theoretically, all those religions believe in the same god. They just disagree on the prophets. So you want me to answer both of those questions? Hm, i'll have to take them one at a time. This will take a great deal of thought, because i want to give you a real honest answer. It's not easy taking the hypothetical scenario seriously - not because i think it's a joke, but because it's so far out of my mental universe. i mean, if i told you "imagine a chicken walked up to you and asked you how you feel about eating poultry", you would be hard pressed to really consider the question seriously - the idea of a talking chicken is so absurd to you that getting past it in order to consider what you'd actually say is hard. i mean, it's not like i understand the idea of God and have an idea of what he'd be like, but simply don't believe. To me, the whole idea of God is so bizarre and contradictory - it's like the talking chicken. i can't imagine what i'd say to a talking chicken that asked about poultry because i can't imagine anything that i'd think if i saw a talking chicken but "cool, a talking chicken - i'm so high right now". i can't even imagine how God could possibly exist because he makes no sense to me - so that if i actually finally found out he was real, probably the only thing going through my mind at the time would be "holy shit! God exists! that's f**ked up!". But i'll give it a shot. i'll try to wrap my mind around it and give you an honest answer. i'll just need a bit of time to think this through. The Conspirator
Way, way off. Translation: Every one feels the need to believe God. reality: No, I do not feel a need for any god. Any one who "feels a need for God" actually has a whole in there life that they are trying to fill with God instead of dealing with the real problem(s) in there life. arkebuzer
Then there wouldnt be any doubt I have been wrong all my life, so no use to try not realize it then, lol.
I guess I would just try to save the situation and blame my own stupidity or something Soulfire
And you're at the liberty to make that generalization for everyone? You're the one with the hole in your life, as only God can fill it. But, I don't want this to get personal, just pointing out that you are typically against generalizations (as I've gotten from you. For example, defending Islam against the terrorist generalization). Joker68
Some thoughts:
1) If there is a God, then why would be *so important* to believe or not? He surely don't need this from us to exist or to be omnipotent. To DEMAND or ENFORCE obedience and adoration is so "human" like... does a GOD really need this? Some of us have a "need to believe" in different scales, because faith *is* and can be a form of strength or a necessity in some cases. Just do good, and feel good, and there is no need to further evidence. 2) If you are a budist, then you know or believe that YOU (like everyone else) have "God" inside; your "primal matter" (Christians call it "soul"). Unfortunately, most of us aren't ready to see it plenty because our ego (me included, but I'm working on - and I'm not a budist!) 3) There is indeed something that I believe: if there is no ego, then there is no Satan, neither a "necessity of God" (since there is no ego to fear "death" or judgment anymore). Just think about. 4) All of above may be plain wrong! The Conspirator
I have no hole in my life and I would never fill any hole in my life with God cause thats not going to salv it. People who feel a "need for God" or feel life needs a meaning and purpose, people who are obsessed with Star Trek, Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, these people have holes in there lives that they are trying to fill with something instead of dealing with the problems of there lives ninjakannon
No, The Conspirator, this is not always the case. Remember that there are those people who have lives without any so called 'hole' in and who are still obsessed with Star Trek or some such program; so why are the obsessed with this? Because they like it! Not because they can't be bothered to solve the problems in their life. Indeed it may be true that someone is obsessed with Star Trek but only watches it when they have some free time and have solved all their current problems which need attention. You are, though, right when talking about some people's lives - but most certainly not everyone. I would not say that this was stereotypical at all, just a case which does arise in some people. The Conspirator
I didn't mean fans, just cause you wait in line for 3 days too see a Star Wars movie doesn't make you obsessed, just cause you have DVDs of every Star Wars movie, spin off and parody doesn't make you obsessed, Just cause you have memorised every thing about Star Wars doesn't mean your obsessed, just cause you own every Star Wars toy in its packaging doesn't mean you obsessed, if you do all of the above, you obsessed.
ninjakannon
But what I said still stands even then. Although the people who do all of the above are obsessed they still don't necessarily have a 'hole' in their lives. They may just be going over the seriously top because they really really like Star Wars. Obviously they could probably be doing something better with their lives, but that doesn't mean that they have a 'hole' to fill. Indi
(palavra, i have not forgotten that i promised to give you an honest answer here. i'm just having a difficult time getting into the mindset necessary to give the question proper, honest thought. Belief and faith aren't things that you can flip on and off with a switch - it's really hard to silence the parts of my mind that object to the possibility of a god long enough to really consider how i might respond.)
(i can say this much so far, though. You said you got foolish answers when you asked other atheists to consider the question. i believe it now, because the only answers that have come to me so far are... well... foolish. Because it's hard to get the idea that i'm talking to a fairy tale out of my mind - because i think the idea of a god is a little ridiculous - my first instinct is to give fanciful or ridiculous answers. i keep thinking of sarcastic, smart-ass or snarky things to say... but then i stop and i think for a moment, and realize that if i really were confronted by a living creator of the entire universe... i probably wouldn't be making fun of him. i probably wouldn't be feeling particularly smart-assed at all.) (And then i think about being judged, and my first instinct is to throw the judgement back in the god's face indignantly... but on further thought, would that really be my response?) (So i don't really know how i would respond yet. But i am thinking about it. i do understand why you got foolish answers so far. My first impression was that the people giving you those answers were just being lazy, and not bothering to give the question serious thought. But i don't think that's it. Because even after giving it serious thought, i still find myself trapped by the boundaries of my worldview. This is a really hard question for an atheist to answer.) (But i'll keep giving it my best.) palavra
thanks for your kindness i'll keep waiting. -i want to ask inverse of this question myself but if there is no god i will not able to respond to question
-instead of this i ask myself if really i believe in god ,why i am keeping to commit some sins. mike1reynolds
mike1reynolds
Indi
Yes, i don't imagine i would grovel or apologize, for pretty much the reasons you mention. i may have turned out to be wrong, but nevertheless i would have lived (that is, i am currently living) my life to the best of my abilities. But i'm not sure what i would do otherwise. So i'll keep thinking on it. mike1reynolds
Exactly. A just God could not possibly judge people simply for believing in what they thought was the most logical way to think, especially in a Godless world that doesn't provide very good arguments for God.
On the other hand, if you really had an axe to grind against God, God might take issue with that, especially if you influenced others in that direction (karma). When I was an atheist I didn't have an axe to grind against God, and it would never have occurred to me to imagine saying something flippant in this thought experiment when I was an atheist. I wasn't so fundamentally opposed to God's existence that I couldn't even take the question seriously enough to imagine how I would respond to a real God. gagelynch
Which God? Some versions of God pretty damn vengeful, so even though I consider myself a good person (I don't mean to sound so full of myself) the Abrahamic God wouldn't bat an eye to sentencing me to hellfire it seems.
But what's worse: not believing in god at all or only believing in him just in case he exists? Not only is that cowardly, an omnipresent being would know the difference, so there's no point to it. I'd have to tell him/her/(it) the truth, I was just being true to myself. The Conspirator
The Christan God.
So God wouldn't like it if you criticised him or what he dose? Well that would show how truly bad God would be. The more powerful something is the more it should be criticised. QrafTee
Umm dude... when you die and you don't see anything how would you respond? Hahaha, I think your point is too open-ended and any religion (athiest as well) can use that and the answer would generally be the same. Since you believe it won't happen the answer will pretty much be sarcastic and blasted towards you. livilou
Why? This person is only asking for an opinion. He's not asking you to change your point of view. He's asking an honest question, and since he's not being sarcastic, but really interested in your thoughts, why be sarcastic about it? There's a saying that I really like: "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and be proven wrong, than live my life as is there isn't and be proven right." But this is only my opinion. All I can do is tell you my thoughts and opinions, I believe it's up to God to change your heart. QrafTee
So you're saying that smiley face he stuck on the first line of his question doesn't make his question a rhetorical one just for the sake of bringing up a point? So you're saying he wasn't sarcastic? That's not even reading between the lines, it's blatently there. Kaneda
If we, as you ask to, assume there is an omnipotent god, my first words would probably be along the lines of "thanks for creating this world" and "thanks for letting me live in it". Doubt I'd have more eloquent words prepared, and if I did, I'd probably forget about them and blabber in the same way as when first asking a girl out
 But Richard Dawkins put the essence of it very well:
As for his/her/its judgment, it depends on your assumptions of what this judgment is based on. If, as in the Christian view, it's my morality/deeds and my belief in him/her... I know I've made mistakes, so judgment on that account wouldn't come as a surprise. I can't imagine I've got the same morality as this god (since it seems his/her/its followers don't share one morality either), so even if I feel (and so far I do) that I've "paid back" for my mistakes, there'll probably be things which I don't find to be a problem, but God disagrees. However, since this god is omnipotent, he/she/it probably gave me my morality too, and this morality, I've followed to the best of my abilities. As for judgment on belief - and this is the essential question, I guess - it comes down to Russell's answer: "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence". This is not about: 1. Not wanting to believe (i.e. "not enough evidence to force me out of my disbelief"). I honestly sought out the answers for a good deal of my lifetime so far. 2. Scientific evidence (i.e. "not enough solid scientific facts to support you"). I rarely seek answers to life's important questions in science. This question isn't an exception. It's more about what The Conspirator said - although I'll refrain from throwing mud the other way, and simply agree that, no, not everyone feels the need to believe in a god. I don't. And no, I don't have "a hole in my life that only God can fill" - so please refrain from that overused piece of haughtiness - I don't think God approves of it either. So, anyway, if I'm expected to believe God, there'll need to be more evidence than a book and arbitrarily picked "signs". In that way, God is no different from unicorns, dragons, 9/11 conspiracies or nazi ideas. Actually, in many ways, this question of belief is closest to the latter, since in many instances (book of Job, for example - we'll pick the Christian god), God is demanding belief, submission and acceptance solely based on his power (in this case omnipotence and -science). I don't believe in "power = right", whether you're a nation's leader or a supernatural being. So, to sum up, the statements and answers... And I'll quickly admit that this hasn't been specifically thought through for this post, like Indi is - applaudably - doing, but rather the quickly expressed essences my thoughts on the matter since I started "seeking" 20-or-so years ago - just as they'd be if this hypothetical situation should arise: General important "small talk": "Thanks for creating this world; Thanks for letting me life in it" Answer to judgment for actions: "You gave me my morality, and I believe I lived according to it." If God shows me (not tells me) I did wrong in some specific instances and didn't realize it, I'd probably regret and apologize for this - as I do in other, more human, cases. Answer to judgment for beliefs: "You have not granted me the feeling of needing to believe in you. And you never provided evidence to make me believe in spite of this lack of need. You also instilled in me the idea that even (or especially) an unfathomable creature such as yourself would have no benevolent reason to demand belief or worship from me or anyone else." And like that, I'd be off to hell.  adredwood
I think i'd have to agree with Kaneda's view (and other's previous) - He's not given us a great deal of solid stuff to believe in, so what does He expect?
Unbeliever: Ah, you mean we were supposed to trust the your face appearing in the occasional waffle? But what if the waffles were wrong? God looks serious a moment. GOD: I sent My Only Son and My Waffle Likeness for a reason - that humans would have faith in Me and put aside their differences to live in harmony... Embarassing silence. Silence stretches on. GOD: Bugger. A just God would have directed a bit more divine retribution at TV evangelists and a bit less at the the third world. As such, having given us rationality and a healthy sense of injustice, I think we can be forgiven for our doubts. However, I'm gonna take a specific case of God here for an answer to the original question - lets say he created the Earth and then got locked out of the house ever since, unable to make any changes. Perhaps he'd be lounging in a hammock with an ice tea, swatting away mosquitoes and humming a backstreet boys tune (nobody's perfect). I imagine I'd say something like: 'Hey, how are you? Good job on nature, really nice place. Women - spot on, fantastic, love the curves. Sorry I refused to believe in you' (I'm English, I have to apologise for something) 'but there didnt really seem much point, you know? Anyway, have a nice day - and if you could put in a good word for me to be a family cat in the next life, that'd be great - they seem to have it pretty good.' At which God would murmur noncommitally, nod goodbye and devote some serious attention to his begonias. As i said, a specific case of God, but I'd like to think I've got more right than most world religions. Really, who knows? Andy nondormo
This is Pascal's wager worded differently. I am not technically an atheist but there is an answer to this: and the Catholic Church knows the answer. If a confessed atheist lives his life according to the dictates of right reason, he will be saved nonetheless. The keyword here is right reason. I think that the 4th Eucharistic prayer of the Catholics dedicates a line or two for those who honestly seek the truth. nondormo
If he dies and doesn't find anything, then he won't know it. It won't pose a problem to him since he is already dead. But if there is a God, man, for those who have lived as if He did not exist, it would be a problem. stone1343
Oh you're right, that proves that there must be a God. I hope he forgives me for not believing in him until now.
By the way, palavra, which God do you think I'm going to see and what do you say to all the people who believe in a different one? palavra
believing is something about your heart and brain. you believe or not. you can not easily change what you believe. lots of people have different concept about god. i think you are going to see an all-merciful god. ainieas
I've a better question for you- I'm assuming you're a thiest. So after you die, if you find that there is a God, but then God is actually a very strict/firm head of a different religion. For that matter say there are many Gods. Then what would you reply if you were questioned how you were to be dealt with? BTW, as far as your question goes, if I were to be questioned by a God then my reply would if that He had let so many religions to flourish, I got confused and chose the athiestic (or rather agnostic, in my case) path. QrafTee
So... what? "Better safe than sorry?" Is that what the basis of faith should be? I thought faith is believing what you can't see regardless of the blatent facts before your eyes... So now faith is just a fail-safe just in case the big man makes an appointment with you? That's like... I don't know what that's like... doesn't sound like faith to me though. The Conspirator
Ok. What if when you die you find your self in some spirit would with everything else that dies, no heaven, no hell, no rewords, no punishment, no God. every no goes to the same place. leslewis
How could the judgement concern me when we don't believe in a divine deity?
I will acknowledge that man is spiritual, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are religious. If one really looks at history, it should be self evident that a "god" cannot exist, at least as the judeo-christian religions explain him. Early man was not a very intelligent being, and given to take things as it was. If there was the Garden of Eden, and man has always known god, how could he conceive of more than the one? If you look at history, the "one god" view is quite new. Even the Israelites had many gods up until the time of Babylon. At this point they learned to write, and finally they merged all of their tribal gods into one. palavra
yes i am a muslim and i don't know what i am going to say
quite reasonable. i am a teacher if a student tell me like this. it is ok for me but i should believe he/she did everyting before this point. Deuc
Earlier the conspirator wrote that some atheists believe in a judgment. If you are an atheist and don't believe in any higher power, who is doing the judging?
That has to be one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard. Common sense and "snipes" two things that seem impossible to find but I believe that both of these exist. The Conspirator
The thing about religion is, its all absurd. Gods, heaven, hell, purgatory, reincarnation, demigods, Deva's,, angels, demons, spirit position. Its all absurd and has no bases in reality. NemoySpruce
Dude, reality is absurd. Physics is absurd, special relativity, gravity, big bang,dark matter, evolution... if these things werent absurd, we wouldnt need to conduct experiments to try and prove how they work. All these things are absurd, until we find ways to prove how they work. So God may be absurd to you now, until you think of a way how he might exist.
Indi
Uh... that argument makes no sense. Just because we have to experiment to determine the nature of something does not make it absurd. It could simply be that there are two or more logical (non-absurd) explanations for the thing in question, and we must determine emperically which is the correct one (and that, in a rather huge nutshell, is what science is). None of the things you mention - relativity, gravity, etc. - are absurd either. They are all either real (observed) or potentially real (hypothesised but not yet observed) phenomena, or logically inferred assumptions about the governing systems that describe or control those phenomena. God is an absurd concept - this can be demonstrated easily by considering the description of God logically. But you can't make other things absurd simply by calling them so, or because you don't understand them. Why don't you try to show that any of those things you call absurd are actually absurd? i'm serious. Give it a shot. You may be right. But your words mean absolutely nothing until you at least attempt to back them up. The Conspirator
Non of those are absurd, they are based on observation and experimentation. Religion on the other hand is not, its not even based on reality. NemoySpruce
Ok. i will give it a shot. Gravity. It is practical to say that you cannot create energy from nothing, and yet gravity is constantly at work keeping us from flying outward into space. where is the generator that produces this force? it is observable, we know it exists, but where does this energy come from? is it magnetic? what is the mechanism that causes it? we dont know. the concept is absurd. illogical, but it is observable and so we are able to come up with equations for it. Time. why does it only move one way? why can we not go backwards in time? why does the speed of an object affect its time? an object's mass increases as you propel it through space? why?? that concept is absurd, we would never have thought that would happen if Einstein did not think of using the speed of light as a constant. Big bang. what existed before it? there was no time and no space. we call it a singularity. what is that? when the big bang occurred, space was created. it wasnt an explosion it was an implosion, sort of. space came to be. what is space?? the absence of matter and energy... absurd. Evolution. take a sterilized carton of milk. put it in a vacuum sealed room. wait 4 billion years..presto, life. wait a few more million years, you will get a civilization that is able to ask itself how it came to be. absurd. matter? energy? light? space??? ... what are these things? any explanation you give will be absurd, but since they are observable, we consider them real and we accept it. I know its not as absurd as a teapot orbiting the sun, but does it make you go..oh yeah! that makes perfect sense, dangit whydnt i think of that... NemoySpruce
How do you think religion came about? some geek in a dark room made it all up? all religions are based on reality. people were tortured and died for their beliefs. will you die for e=mc squared? if someone threatened to pull out your fingernails if you keep insisting that the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s, what would you do? Religions are based on reality, not how we understand it today, but it is based on observation as well. Dont get me wrong. I understand what you are saying, and I agree, science is a better system of determining how our world works. but i dont think religion should be tossed out like an old shoe. not just yet. I think they are like training wheels, you know? and i dont think we have learned to ride without it just yet. make_life_better
Sorry to just leap in. I agree with a lot of the comments here again by indi, bondings, etc. I too find it very hard to even put my mind into that hypothetical state. But I have thought about this at odd times for years - I was asked this question in all seriousness by a religious friend ages ago, and it keeps coming back to me from time to time. But I never got really deep enough to satisfy myself that I had really taken on board all the implications.
I too would probably be struck dumb with shock and wonder, but if I could keep my head together long enough I would want to ask "Why" and "What is/was it all for". The answers (if any were forthcoming) would to my mind at least either be: (1) Completely incomprehensible as they are too full of concepts that I can't get my head around (2) Mischievous - like "it was just done for the hell of it" (3) Logical/rational - maybe the universe was created as an experiment and "God" is actually a scientist who wanted to see and learn and understand what would happen and how it would evolve, a bit like some of us! ...although 3 probably goes agains the omniscient side of things in some religions The Conspirator
Religion came about from story's, that people made up, ancient fairy tails (do you actually thing that story's of Hercules, Adam, Noah, and mythology's started out as mythologies?) and cult leaders, crazy people, con artists and people spreading there individual beliefs. In short, yes, its all made up and has no basis in reality.
Just cause people are willing to die for a belief dose not mean they are true or have any basis in reality. Bannik
God is mans creation
God In ancient times had human qualities, anger, happiness, love and a killer. Only recently was he given the status of (we don’t understand him) God is everything humans strive to achieve (ultimate power, wisdom, looks (Aphrodite), its mans creation because man thinks of what he wishes to achieve and compares it to god He was made to keep us in line, law and morality was first seriously established by religion, murder was wrong but there was no punishment for it that was really bad (some people don’t mind prison) but eternal suffering now that’s something worrying. Religion provided us with morality (in my opinion) but it is no longer needed, or culture if far to advanced now to need religion Indi
Things are not absurd just because you don't understand them. Do you know how a DVD player works? Are you saying that DVD players are an absurd concept? Mysteries are mysteries. Absurdities are absurdities. Learn not to confuse the two.
Wrong on all counts. Consult some physics texts. You have no clue what gravity or gravitation is, you are mixing up energy and forces, you wonder whether gravity may be magnetic (!), you imply that forces need "generators" (?)... basically you have less than a decent high-school physics grasp of any of the concepts. All you've shown is that the concepts are beyond your grasp. That doesn't make them absurd.
To answer your questions in order: It doesn't. We do. It doesn't. It doesn't. You have only the most tenuous grasp of the concepts. Once again that means that you don't understand them, it doesn't make them absurd. And for the record, if we hadn't gotten the concept from Einstein, we would have got it from Poincaré. And if not him, someone else. It is a fact of the universe. Eventually, given enough time and experimental data, we could not have avoided coming to that conclusion.
Once again, in order: As you point out in the next sentence, time was created with the Big Bang, so there was no before it. A singularity is a point in space-time were the laws we know no longer work, and thus we are currently working on new laws that will. Space is not the absence of matter or energy, but i can't tell you exactly what it is until you specify exactly what you mean by space. Your conceptions of all of these things are flawed. That makes your conceptions lacking. It does not make the things themselves absurd.
That has nothing to do with evolution. That is abiogenesis. And no, that's not how actually it worked. These concepts only appear absurd to you because you clearly don't understand them. If you actually learn about them, they may not appear so. Ignorance about a thing's nature does not make that thing absurd.
i could answer all of those questions, but it would take a long time. And no, the answer i give you will not be absurd. It may be incomplete, and it may be over your head. That does not make it absurd.
A teapot orbiting the sun is not absurd. Rather it is very unlikely. The idea is used to show the absurdity of other forms of thought. It is not absurd in and of itself. (In fact, one of the reasons it is used to show the absurdity of other ideas is that it, in and of itself, is not absurd.) NemoySpruce
"Ignorance about a thing's nature does not make that thing absurd."
I think this is where I need to clarify the point Im trying to make. I meant to say, Ignorance about something will make it seem absurd. Do you claim to have a 100% understanding of what gravity is? of what space and time are? you are sure that your understanding is not flawed? can you make an anti-gravity device of some sort? why not?? You may have a better understanding of the concept than me, but your knowledge is still incomplete, therefore it is flawed. The idea of a giant teapot orbiting behind the sun is absurd. When you tell your teacher that the dog ate your homework, thats absurd too. It could be true, but the concept is absurd. Our concept of gravity is absurd. The Conspirator
I'd like to point something out.
The original question was.
And the atheists replied and gave an answer. But when I post.
No theist answers. Why is that? Why is it that many theists ignore questions they don't like? Indi
Ah, no. First, i think you should look up a definition for the word absurd. You don't seem to understand what it means. You seem to think that it means unlikely or weird. Wrong. It means totally and completely outside of the realm of logic, and therefore absolutely false. Your examples are all wrong. For example, your dog eating your homework is not even close to absurd. You left your book on the floor and the dog chewed it up. Is that impossible? No. Is it ludicrously unlikely? Not really. So how is it absurd? Ignorance about things does not make them seem absurd. Do you know how i type? One hand? Two? Keyboard in my lap? You don't know how i do it? Does that mean that i type in some absurd way? Of course not. Does that mean the very idea of me typing is absurd? Hardly. So what are you saying? Just because i don't know what the stuff that the universe is made of is actually made of, that doesn't make any of it absurd. If you want to assume it's absurd, that's your choice. i choose to assume that it's rational. Is that an absurd choice? Not really, because everything we have observed of the universe so far behaves rationally. It's not really such a stretch assume that the rest that we don't know is also rational. In fact, it's not rational to assume it's absurd - because every shred of evidence that we have been able to collect demonstrates rationality and regularity. If every garg you've ever seen is blue, and you've seen tens of thousands of gargs... why would you assume that the next garg you're going to see is pink? Everything we know about the universe is rational, and we have a shitload of evidence about the universe... so why would you assume that the things we don't know are absurd? That makes no sense. You seem to be attempting to argue that belief in God is just as rational as belief in gravity, because both are absurd concepts (so you claim). But your claim that gravity is absurd is nonsense. Using the dictionary definition, something is absurd if it is "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false". Let's consider each of those possibilities.
The rest is just repeating those points again. So no, gravity is not absurd, no matter how hard you try to claim it as such. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it absurd. So the argument that God is just as rational as gravity is bunk. The evidence for that is obvious and manifold. How many planes has belief in God put in the air? How many televisions, radios and cell phones did assuming that God exists lead to inventing? Have our advances in structural engineering and space technology been due to advances in our knowledge about God? No. But gaining a better understanding of gravity has given us better ways to contol and use it, and from that we have advanced technology which proves that our understanding has increased. None of that would have been possible if gravity were absurd. NemoySpruce
a spider's web has mass and occupies space, it is common sense and observable that matter occupies space, and that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. So when an object warps a spiderweb, thats not absurd. When a bowling ball warps a sheet of stretchy fabric, thats not absurd. but when you say, a geometry (which is an abstract concept) is warped by matter... that is absurd. I understand the idea, that matter warps space, but i dont know why and how exactly, so to me its absurd. You however, seem to have complete understanding of gravity, ok, make me an antigravity device. The dog ate my homework is an asurd concept, as we all know dogs do not eat homework (unless its about bones or something). It is ridiculous, because the probability of a dog zeroing in your homework instead of the multitude of other chewable stuff in your house is laughable. but its not impossible. and to quote Mr.Einstein If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. ― Albert Einstein (1879-1955) this is just a quote i picked up on the net, i didnt really read the entire text so, i dont know what it means in context, but it could apply to his special theory of relativity. I think reality would be very boring if it wasnt absurd.
really?? I assume your not married and dont have a girlfriend then?
Thats just it, i disagree. We dont know shit about how our universe works. And our ideas of how it works are to me quite absurd. Sure we can make airplanes, sure we can split atoms, but can you predict weather? earthquakes? can we cure cancer? whats the average lifespan of a human? can we travel to the nearest star? we have a long way to go. There is a lot we dont know. A better analogy i think is, a blind man, picking up a pebble on a beach, he feels the pebble is smooth, so he imagines that the entire beach is made up of smooth pebbles. Im not saying that the things we dont know are absurd, im saying our limited understanding of the universe make it seem absurd. smarter
- God is a a he or a she? Or maybe they? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
- Will you be able to talk to him! Has he ears? can he listen to your thoughts? - Is he really omnipotent (allpowerful) omniscient (allknowing)? - Is he good (as we think about good vs evil)? - After death will you remain young - old, fat - thin, stupid - smart, etc? - All pleasures are based on deprivation: when you're hungry any food is tasty, when you're thirsty cool water is divine, when you're cold warm clothes and a fire make life beautiful.... What about after you die? Will you feel hunger, thirst, etc? Is there a sun in Paradise? All I'm saying is this: leave philosophical debates to philosophers and live your life ...and try not to hurt us the rest too much!  The Conspirator
Pointing something out again.
Posted on the 22nt. Still no answer. Atheists are willing to answer the question but if the question is turned on its head the theists are MIA. Why is that? Are theists afraid to answer? Are you theists afraid that by thinking about it it might diminish your faith? If so you theists have week faith to begin with. Indi
Your whole argument boils down to this:
The logic behind that thinking is fundamentally flawed, and i'm going to try to show you how. Does limited understanding make something seem absurd? Let's consider that first. Imagine you had never seen a car before in your life, and had absolutely no idea how one worked. All of a sudden, one day, this big, metal, rumbling thing appears in front of you. Why would that thing seem absurd? It's right there in front of you, so it's obviously logical enough to exist. In fact, that alone pretty much rules out its absurdity. But let's not take the easy road. If you had absolutely no understanding of what this thing in front of you is, what don't you know about it? The obvious answer is you know nothing... but think about it. If you know nothing about a thing... what questions can you ask about it? What mysteries does it pose? When you look at this thing in front of you, what are the unanswered questions going through your head? i say you will only have a handful of questions. "What is it made of?" "Why is it here (what is its purpose)?" and "Where does it come from?" That's about it, really. And these questions aren't really wildly complex questions - in fact, you could expect one word answers to them and not be unreasonable. (Of course, you're not going to get one word answers, but you have no reason to expect that you won't.) Now, consider if you're an average person, who sorta kinda knows what a car is, but really doesn't know how one works. Now you have lots of questions. You want to know why the car needs a battery to start, and if the battery can start it, why can't the battery run it without gas. You want to know why you can't burn all of the gas and have no emissions. You want to know what causes the car's engine to make that noise... and so on and so forth. Not only do you have more questions, but the questions are more complex now, and it's no longer reasonable to expect a one word answer. Maybe a sentence or two would do. A paragraph at the most. Now, consider if you were a car buff, and knew a whole lot about cars. Now you have even more questions that are far more complex. You want to know why the catalytic converter works most efficiently at a 15:1 air-fuel ratio. You want to know how to determine the best time in the piston cycle to open the valves for maximum efficiency. You want to know about the pros and cons of power-assist hybrid design, and whether or not it's possible to control the amount of regeneration that occurs during braking, or whether other regenerative sources may be added as well. So your questions are really complex now, and the answers are going to take much more time to answer. Some of them might not even have answers that we know yet. So you see? Contrary to your assumption, i say that the more you know about something, the more you realize you don't know. But if you know nothing about a thing, you can't possibly know enough about it to have a reason to believe it's absurd. So limited understanding can't make something seem absurd... otherwise ignorance wouldn't be bliss. Your problem is not limited understanding, it is willful ignorance. The universe isn't absurd to you because you don't understand it. It's absurd to you because you can't be bothered to try to understand it. You know there are questions that you don't have the answers to, but you can't be bothered to try to seek answers to them. Instead you call it absurd as an excuse to simply not bother. Dr Carruthers
So, we assume that there is God (that is, the Christians were right).
Also, I assume that I stay exactly the same person as I am now (this is an important point, because basically, this declares my reaction) and I'm in full control over my emotions/feelings/thoughts. I would laugh. Over myself. I mean, you believe in something (more precisely, you don't believe in something) throughout your whole life, you die, and it turns out that the thing exists... (second possibility: if God is a funny bloke, I'd laugh about that.) By the way, a question to all who are Christians and know the Bible better than me: Does an atheist even get to see God? I mean, before the Final judgement. fx-trading-education
OK let's answer the original question.
If I am dead and I am in front of God for judgment I think that I will make 2 points: - I didn't believe in you because in my opinion everything of what happened in the world was a proof of your non existence. Obviously I am mistaken but how can you let so many horrible things happen. - Even if I didn't believe in you I think that my life as been much more in conformity to what you request than many other people that say that they believe. Some of the firm believers are organising wars to kill innocent people in your name. I think that I am much better than this people. So the fact that I believe or not shouldn' t be of such high importance compare to what you have actually done in your life. NemoySpruce
Yeap. Thats basically it.
Misunderstood concepts, caused by limited understanding and a healthy dose of arrogance will make something that is real and logical seem absurd. Your car analogy fails because it is a mundane object. Nothing absurd about that. Why dont we use a car that can travel back to the future. If somebody showed you that it was powered by a small fusion device that runs on garbage, but says its broken at the moment so cannot show you that it really works... would you say the concept is absurd? Would you think that the car can actually do what the person says it does? or would you think thats absurd? Indi
Excuse me? What's more mundane than gravity or space-time? What time, in your entire life, have you not been within the influence of either? But to answer your questions in order. Yes, until proven otherwise, because it contradicts all observations ever made and all known laws of physics. Not unless i see it doing what the person says it does. No, not if i have seen it work. However, consider this. A tribesman from some lost tribe in the Amazon stumbles across such a time machine, and is told the same thing. What would they think about it? Would they think it was impossible? Why? They have no reason to think that you can't travel in time. You show them a fusion generator that runs on banana peels, why would they think it's impossible, or even unlikely? They've never even seen a car, so why would a car with a nuclear reactor that can fly or travel in time seem any more or less absurd than a busted up old Yugo? Or a lightning bug? Or a rainbow? Or... hell... just about anything? By contrast, you who does know a bit about cars and power sources and time can see that there some pretty fishy things about the claims of that person with the car. So, once again, your hypothesis doesn't stand up. You're more likely to decide that something is absurd the more you know about it, and the more limited your understanding, the less likely you are to call it absurd. And that's just logical. The more limited your understanding, the less reason you have to decide that you understand the nature of something. And if you don't understand the nature of something, you can't conclude that it's absurd. Therefore limited understanding does not lead to the conclusion that something is absurd. mike1reynolds
Time travel is a mundane matter? This debate isn't making much headway on either side. mike1reynolds
Lets take another example that is stereotypically subjected to thoughtless knee jerk dismissal by the skeptics, even as they are a minority of less than one fifth of society: UFOs. What is the logical criteria for acceptable evidence in such an arena as 17th century natural science and exploration, or the subject of UFOs? Is there any evidence beyond a hunk of crashed spaceship or a dead alien body that would satisfy the atheists? Taking into account the fact that their conjectured existence would require that this kind of evidence would be extremely difficult to obtain, these aren’t just a bunch of yahoos riding around in a jeep. Its like a Mafia skeptic demanding that the Mafia willingly transparently display it’s crimes for you to prove that they are really a crime organization. What are the rules of evidence in dealing with a conscious subject that knows you are talking about it? That requires a COMPLETELY different methodology from say medical experiments. NemoySpruce
...so, why do you think the concept of a monotheistic God is absurd?
hehe.. I like that. thats pretty good analogy. Indi
First you have to define what you think the concept of a monotheistic god is. (Incidently, that's strike one. The fact that if you ask ten theists what their god is like you will get eleven different answers implies that there is no real universal concept of a god. If the concept of god really were a coherent concept, there wouldn't be so many different versions. That doesn't prove that any given god doesn't exist, but it is the first piece of evidence that suggests that the concept itself is not rational. If the concept is not rational, then the variations in the descriptions of gods would be easily explainable as different people's attempts to rationalize the concept. Either everyone's or most people's concept is coherent and there are hundreds or thousands of different, functional, concepts of gods, or only a handful are coherent concepts and the vast majority of theists are deluded - and in either of the previous cases, you have to explain how, if more than one concept is correct, you can pick the right one - or only one concept of god is coherent - and once again, if you think that's your concept, you are effectively calling all other theists deluded, which should give you pause - or no concepts are coherent but are all just attempts to make the concept coherent, which makes the whole problem go away in a puff of simplicity. Again, this is not proof that the concept is absurd, it's just pretty decent evidence.)
Not really, no. All a reasonable Mafia skeptic would need is evidence that cannot be easily explained any other way without reaching. Given the sheer volume of Mafia leaders that have been found guilty of large-scale institutional criminal activities, i'd say the case is closed. i can do the same thing. i could analogize any theist in any revealed religion as a person who would believe the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is planning a global takeover by holding the world hostage with thermonucluear weapons just because their favourite tabloid rag said so. But it doesn't really serve any purpose other than making me sound closed-minded and ignorant, so i'll pass. Your mileage may vary. mike1reynolds
A higher consciousness is the universal definition. Not so complex. Brahma, Allah, the Taoist “Supreme Ruler” and the Primordial Buddha are all described in precisely the same way, as an unchanging and eternal higher consciousness. Splitting hairs doesn’t make this extremely simply matter any more complex, as much as you try.
If they are all in jail as you say, that still begs the question, what Mafia? The context of the example was from a time when the Mafia actually existed, but the way you changed the context has only served to highlight that this does not alleviate skepticism at all, it just adds another element of skepticism. A defunct crime organization is no longer a crime organization. Yantaal
bloody hell people are noying, i was readint he first page,idont think anyone actualy answerd their question
i would be like, shit, alife of not belieevin in ya and nowi guess ims screwed now? i would have to ask him what the hell he has been doing assuming of course he was real. and say i had no reasont obelieve in you mate, so have i really done anything wrong? Indi
A long, long time ago we promised an answer to this thread's question. As a matter of fact, we promised two answers - one from Anna and one from Indi - to two different formulations of the question. But more on that in a minute.
This is not an easy thing to do. It's a lot easier to ask a theist to imagine a world without a god than to ask an atheist to imagine a world with one, simply because the theist only has to imagine a lack of something that they supposedly already understand (or at least think they do) whereas the atheist has to first figure out which of the many hundreds of god-concepts to actually use, then understand that concept, and then try to imagine it as real, and then try to respond to it. Any atheist that answers the question will have to - even if implicitly - assume some characteristics of the god. And i know most theists will immediately jump up and say "there's only one concept of god, just different ways to worship him (or different prophets)". No. Just, no. So anyway, first we had to decide which concept of god to work from. That wasn't easy. To take biblical revelation literally (whether you're using the Jewish or Christian bible... or any related sources) or to take the claims of the most dominant sects of the most dominant religions at face value leads to concepts of god that are internally illogical. Various apologies and theodicies over the millenia have struggled to plug the logical holes in these concepts with little success. We couldn't even get started until we could have a god-concept that we could suspend our disbelief for. The solution we came up with was to "squint" (Anna's term, not mine (Indi's)). Basically, we would read through the Frihost forums and consider a smattering of apologist texts - things we'd read before like Aquinas - and sort of "smudge" over their concepts of god. We would not look too deeply at the concepts - a violation of our standard procedure - and simply "shrug off" major problems and inconsistencies that we know exist. To put it in her terms - it would be like taking a step back and squinting to see the hidden picture. So we did. It took a lot of squinting, and agreements that we wouldn't poke too hard at the seams so it didn't all fall apart. But we came up with a concept of god that we could work with temporarily. That done, we each took a question. i (Indi) opted to answer "i've died and now find that (the Jewish) God exists. What do i say to him?", and Anna opted to answer "i've died and now find myself being judged by God. How do i respond?". We decided to try roleplaying the exchange. Each of us took turns playing God (which was a load of fun in itself), challenging the other. (Honestly, i got to have a little more fun playing the judgemental god than Anna did playing the not-so-judgemental god.) The very, very brief version of the results we came up with were (with Indi's comments in blue and Anna's in red): i've died and now find that (the Jewish) God exists. What do i say to him? i would express my disappointment with God, based on the existence of unnecessary, pointless suffering. i would essentially tell him that the idea that he could exist with the world the way it is was sickening to me, and so i chose to believe that he did not, rather than believing that a being as warped and evil as him actually existed. You know how much it sucks to be God even for just a little while while someone rattles off a list of senseless atrocities that you're supposed to be guilty for? Like, a lot. What defense could I offer? i've died and now find myself being judged by God. How do i respond? I would tell God that he's got no authority to judge me, and that he's nothing more than a nasty old bastard if he does. And even more, if he does judge me, then it proves that he really was an evil so and so... which means the moral choice to make would be to not bow down to his whims. Believe it or not, she's serious. It was an exchange that lasted a week and a half in fits and starts, but she pretty much showed that God really does have no authority over us. Yeah, i didn't believe it at first either, but she did it. i can expand either answer on request, but that's pretty much the gist of them. If we find an existing, but non-judgemental god, we pretty much shove the evil he did nothing to stop in his face. If we find and existing judgemental god, we shrug off his judgement by virtue of the moral law we follow that says "thou shalt not bow to the whims of evil, in any form". palavra
thanks
-who is Anna? Indi
Two people post as Indi - the real Indi and Anna. Right now Anna is away, so this is the real Indi, but generally speaking, we each take turns. palavra
i also ask the same question myself
-first option is out of question if there is no god , i will not able to answer to the question - if there is a god in another form than i believe(muslim)? this is a difficult question for me? and i don't know what i am going to answer to a different god. but as a believer i am %100 confident there is a god in the way of i believe. this text about a different subject but helps us to our question.
violetgnu
I believe my response would be, "O God, was I ever wrong. Oh no! If only I had worshipped God in the first place, then I would never been in this terrible shituation. If only I could hear myself now, I'd get my ass down to Church and pray and give money to the Church, or synagogue, or mosque, or all of the above! Now how will I escape hellfire and damnation? What of my soul, my eternal SOUL?"
Thank heavens for this topic! Without it I wouldn't have ever questioned my immoral and godless life. Truly it inspires god fear in my heart, and will strike me into the blind folds of theistic life. Soulfire
Then we lost nothing by living a faithful life, and Christianity gave us good morals, taught us to love one another, and that forgiveness is the answer. If God exists, the atheists lose and the faithful win. If God doesn't exist, nobody is harmed, and it's a stalemate. I wouldn't take the chance. Related topics
|
