An atheist on Judgment Day

There are tons of flaws of this story from a theist perspective, but bear with it and you should find it to be an insightful read:

"That, if you can, you look me in the eyes as you do it." 

Taken from here. 

Not bad. Not bad at all. I like the writing but the whole "argument from evil" thing puts me off.

All the same, very very nice.

I like the first three-quarters; the last quarter, not as much. :P God as a character in the story seems a little strange: completely wise until Eve refuses to go into paradise, at which point he does a complete 180.

I also object to God just making Martin vanish... but that's a theological criticism.

I might write a revised ending more in line with my views on this matter later for fun... can't let the "God, if he exists, is a monster" view be the only one with representation. ;)

A tastefully-written (and simple) gaze into the classic Problem of Evil arguement. Makes you think.. Doesn't it?

Quite a good story indeed. Though he wasn't as liberal in his admission as it'd be nice to think the real god (if (s)he exists)would be, it's nice to hear a different story than "accept this or burn for eternity." Maybe I'm just reading a bit too much OT and APUS (which will finally be over this Friday!). The "geneally a good person" view is probably more common among theists, but the fundamentalist view is just more outspoken.

Quick question though. Why exactly is the argument from evil a flawed one? I mean, I can understand the whole free will thing (well, for the most part, anyway), but at the risk of sounding cliche' (pretend that's an accent), if there were a truly just god intervening, wouldn't he at the very least have done something to change the minds of anti-Semetic American officials during the 1940s? Maybe help the real-life plot of Valkyerie succeed? I mean, just one B-17 payload would have been much better spent attacking Holocaust railways than massacring Dresden.

EDIT: Read (most of) Gabu's revision. Answered that nicely.

Okay, here's my "revised ending", so to speak.  It diverges near to the end of the original; I'll include some lines from the original verbatim for context.

------------

God smiled. "Are you finished? Good. Eve, you have impressed me." He paused. Eve held her breath, shoulders tensing.

"You have impressed me a great deal. You may have believed in me for all the wrong reasons, but you disbelieved for the right reasons. You led a good life, and used the intelligence I give to everybody in the correct way. Even though you came to a conclusion about me that was hopelessly wrong, you came to it in a way that cannot be faulted. You may pass into paradise, Eve, with my blessing."

Eve did not step forward. Instead, she spoke once more. "No, I will not".

"No? You refuse Heaven?" The smile had left God's face again.

"Do you think I would want to spend one more minute, let alone eternity, in your company? You allow people to suffer, sometimes for their entire lives, for no purpose, and then judge them on their reaction. You hide yourself from the world and allow your creations to persecute each other over differing interpretations of the lack of evidence. You see all the pain and ignorance caused in your name, and just sit there as this queue grows daily? And then you have the audacity to punish good people for believing in you 'for the wrong reasons'?"

"Eve, the gates of Paradise are open to you.  You don't want it?"

"No. If it is a choice between oblivion and an eternity with a monster like you, I gladly choose oblivion."

God was silent for a moment, before speaking once more.

"A monster?  You think that I am a monster?"

Eve closed her eyes, expecting to disappear like Martin at any moment.  She swallowed, and replied.

"Yes."

"Why?"

"I already told you why.  People suffer - often terminally - and you do nothing.  People die, and you do nothing.  Dictators massacre their countries' populations, and you do nothing.  Did they ask to live in pain?  No, you thrust them into life, and yet you then do nothing when things go wrong.  And Martin - did he ask to be born into a place where he would not gain the ability to question his beliefs?  Of course not - yet he is now gone, and all because you didn't tell him the truth.  How could you let this happen?  Huh?"

God smiled faintly.

"First, I didn't destroy Martin.  I've simply... given him time to think about things."  He shook his head slightly.  "But yes, you're right.  Nobody asks for what they receive in life.  And no, I don't do anything about it."

"Why?"

"Tell me, Eve: if life were simply a movie, in which every player has their parts neatly written by me, and in which no one can stray from the script one inch, would this be preferable to the way things are?"

"But you could fix things!  You could stop dictators!  And you don't!  Why?"

"Why do you think the world has laws that don't change?"

'I..." Eve shook her head.  "What does that have to do with anything!?"

God ignored her question.

"The answer to that question is because, if I were constantly intervening in your lives, you would effectively be little more than puppets dancing on a string.  Sure, I could stop dictators from doing the horrible things they do.  But ought I then to also stop murders in general?  Surely, a murder is no less a concern and a tragedy if it comes as a singleton than if it comes in large numbers, no?"

Eve fell silent.

"And, if I were to stop murders, then ought I not also stop thieves, vandals, arsonists - tell me, where is the cutoff point?  At what point does the negative effects of an act become small enough that I ought to let it happen?  And if there is no cutoff, then what is the point of life, if everything is perfect, and if nothing goes wrong?"

"We would be happy.  Right?  Why must there be suffering, when you could make there be happiness?"

God shook his head.

"Do you know why Martin never questioned his belief in me?  Because he was sheltered.  Ironically enough, the very reason why he became the way he is today was precisely because nothing truly terrible ever happened to him - precisely what you are asking me to do for the entire world.  If a parent gave her child everything that child ever asked for, would that child be happy?  No.  He would simply come to accept whatever the way things are as given, and would only ask for more, and more, and more, as he became increasingly complacent in what he already had."

God smiled.

"Do you know what the word 'appreciate' means?  It comes from the Latin word for 'appraised', past tense - and to appraise something is to determine its value.  Thus, to appreciate something is to fully understand its value.  So, how, then, can one determine the value of something?  Certainly one can put a monetary price on something.  But that does not say anything about how any given human values it."

He nodded.

"But there is a very easy way to determine just what something means to you: to experience its lack.  If you do not have something, the benefit it brings to you becomes readily apparent when you want it and find it missing.  The only way you can truly value your health is to be sick, and then recognize the change when you become well again.  The only way you can truly value a loved one is to be away from that loved one and recognize the hole that is left from his or her absence.  People do not derive happiness from things themselves - people derive happiness from the value they realize those things bring to their lives.  You say that I do nothing to prevent people from suffering, but it is precisely that suffering that makes them whole people who can truly speak with wisdom and insight."

"But what of the people who never get better?" protested Eve.  "What about the terminal cancer patients?  What about the children in Africa who never know a day of happiness from birth to death?"

God shook his head.

"And, again, we are back to the laws of nature.  I have already told you why I cannot intervene.  And it is unfortunate that some incur suffering that does not cease until they die.  But, rest assured - that suffering most certainly does end, as all suffering eventually does, whether in life or through death.  'This, too, will pass.'"

"I..."

"Eve, do you know how easy it would be to have a world without happiness?  Without love?  Without light?  'Darkness' does not exist as something unto itself; it is the default, the state in which no light exists.  Similarly, unhappiness, too, is the default, the state in which no happiness exists.  The only reason why happiness, love, and light exist is because I brought them into existence.

"Eve, I know you've been in pain.  I know very well that you were in enough pain that you lost your faith in my existence, just as Martin might have had he experienced the same thing.  But it wasn't there because I hated you.  I didn't cause it.  I have never wanted such things in the end.  But I can't force you to be happy.  I can't make others feel love and to spread love to others.  I could alter humans' brains to go through the motions, but it wouldn't be real - from that moment forward, they would just be zombies controlled by me, and I can scarcely think of a worse fate.  And I can tell you right now, I love every creature in existence far too much to ever have someone experience such a thing.  You might suffer, but no matter how much you suffer, you're still you, and that is an unsurpassed blessing.

"I know, just as well as you, that many, many humans have corrupted my instructions and have done terrible things.  So, do you want my real instruction to all humankind?  It is simple, and you would know it best as the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  There is a reason why this instruction appears in one form or another in every single holy book in existence.  But you are not to do it because I said so, for doing it for such a reason fundamentally corrupts it to its core.  Rather, you are to do it because you truly love the person for no reason other than that they are who they are, no matter who that might be.  That, in short, is my ultimate wish for humanity.  There is a reason why love is the strongest and most beautiful emotion in the world: it is because it is the emotion that all life in the universe ought to embrace, fully and without regret, to the exclusion of all others.

"But... as I have said, it is not at all something that I can impart on you.  It is something that you must find for yourself.  And those who can never find it from birth until death, far from being people whom I will punish for eternity, are those who are most in need of help from people just like you, who were able to find it and who can help others to find it.

"Thus, I can say no more.  Eve, I can't force you to be with me in Paradise.  But I can tell you that I love you unconditionally even if you choose not to, and that I will always be here if you ever wish to reconsider."

------------

Well, that got a bit longer than expected. :P

Nonetheless, the above (if anyone actually read it...) is pretty much my vision of the god whom I believe to exist, and the god to whom I dedicate my life (although my actions on Earth are certainly not contingent on his existence).  That so many have an impression of God as the original version conveys leaves little wonder in my mind why so many people find his existence as told by other humans difficult to fathom.

To be honest I found this story (the original, not Gabu's) to be as head-banging-against-a-desk aggravating as it would have been had a Christian wrote it with the type of outcome you would expect from such an author. Whoever wrote it lacks a good understanding of Christianity, and that ignorance only serves to make the story's lauding of atheism as well-thought and righteous and dismissal of theism as blind and foolish all the more disgusting.

Just to make my position clear, I'm an atheist and I don't exactly look upon theism very kindly. That said, a big reason why I became atheist is because of how annoyed I got with all the Christians around me ignorantly bashing other beliefs and promoting their ideology as the correct and righteous one despite having almost no knowledge of any other ideology and, ironically, little knowledge of their own. As a result, I'm just as annoyed whenever an atheist or agnostic starts talking like a fundie, and I especially hate stories that serve no purpose other than "look at how right we are, and how foolish the other side is! See how ridiculous they look in this hypothetical scenario that betrays my ignorance of the very topic I'm mocking?".

While there were some problems that I had to ignore to allow me to keep reading, it was a very interesting read.

@Gabu: I didn't quite read the entirety of your alternate ending (skimmed at parts ), but I also think that if there is a god, (s)he would be much more akin to the character that you described.

@Gabu: I didn't quite read the entirety of your alternate ending (skimmed at parts ), but I also think that if there is a god, (s)he would be much more akin to the character that you described.Forerunner-117

Oh, and another thing that you brought up, God would be a she. :P 

Just to make my position clear, I'm an atheist and I don't exactly look upon theism very kindly. That said, a big reason why I became atheist is because of how annoyed I got with all the Christians around me ignorantly bashing other beliefs and promoting their ideology as the correct and righteous one despite having almost no knowledge of any other ideology and, ironically, little knowledge of their own. As a result, I'm just as annoyed whenever an atheist or agnostic starts talking like a fundie, and I especially hate stories that serve no purpose other than "look at how right we are, and how foolish the other side is! See how ridiculous they look in this hypothetical scenario that betrays my ignorance of the very topic I'm mocking?". gameguy6700

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]"First, I didn't destroy Martin.  I've simply... given him time to think about things."Genetic_Code

:lol: I'm sorry, but that cracked me up. 

Well, good, it was supposed to be amusing. ;)

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

"Thus, I can say no more.  Eve, I can't force you to be with me in Paradise.  But I can tell you that I love you unconditionally even if you choose not to, and that I will always be here if you ever wish to reconsider."

Genetic_Code

Oh my gosh! There should be tears in my eyes! :cry: May I have your permission to use this on the site I found it from?

I can't tell if you're being serious, but if you are, sure. :P

Oh, and another thing that you brought up, God would be a she. :P 

Genetic_Code

A fair point, but I think this is more a problem with English than with anything else - there's really no good pronoun to use for something like God.  If God does exist, I have a feeling that the concept of gender is probably completely inapplicable to such a being, so neither "he" nor "she" works... but "it" is largely only for inanimate objects, so "he" I use pretty much just because it's the more widely used of the pronouns and because there isn't anything better.  Not because I think God is actually male (a concept that I imagine probably evolved out of the largely patriarchal formation of society that existed long ago).

Well, if humankind truly is created in God's image, then God is both male and female, or more likely a sum of the two that is somewhat larger than the parts. Just a thought :)ChiliDragon

Eh, I've never taken that statement to refer to physical image, because otherwise you'd have to assume that God has physical characteristics like height, weight, and so on... which wouldn't exactly make much sense if he's supposed to be infinite. And, considering that humans come in tons of shapes and colors, the statement doubly makes no sense.

To be honest I don't really know quite how I interpret the statement that humans are created in God's image. Because so much else in the Genesis creation story is (in my opinion) parabolic in nature, it's difficult for me to know just what we're supposed to glean from that statement. I suppose many would say that, since it's immediately followed by the statement that we're supposed to rule over everything else on Earth, it's saying that humans are special and that the world and everything in it was put here for our pleasure... but considering my animal-lover and environmentalist streaks, I find that interpretation difficult to swallow.

To be honest I don't really know quite how I interpret the statement that humans are created in God's image.GabuEx

I've always assumed that us being sentient, and animals not being sentient, was the most important point.ChiliDragon

Yes, but I find it hard to make any sort of absolute divide between other animals and us, as it seems to just be a continuum with us at the far end rather than an uncrossable chasm between them and us. Of course we don't see them as sentient... but that's largely just because we can't interact with them as we can with other humans. Perhaps if we were a dog or a cat, we would find other dogs and cats to be perfectly sentient.

Other animals have been shown to be self-aware; other animals have been observed using tools; other animals cooperate with one another and work together; other animals use both bodily and sound-based communication; other animals experience emotions (perhaps less complex emotions, but nonetheless); and other animals can use basic forms of logic ("if I go to my bowl, the human will feed me"). As a result, I really am at a loss to see anything that we do that other animals don't; it's just a matter of the extent to which we do it.

There are certain things I could think of that might be candidates, such as our perception of beauty, or our desire for something more than simple day-to-day living... but I really don't think I'm equipped to say in any form that animals cannot appreciate beauty (how would we know?) or that animals would not, if able, do the same things we do to increase their comfort and security in life.

As for ruling, I disagree. I think we were meant to care for it in His physical absence. God is still here, but has decided to work through us. We're his hands in this world, he is entrusting us with its care. So we're caretakers more than rulers.ChiliDragon

Well, the Bible, if that's what we're working off of, does specifically use the word "rule" in Genesis 1:26, and I can confirm that the Hebrew word radah from which it is translated does indeed mean "to rule; to have dominion over"... but I did actually decide to go look it up, and I found this page which offers an interesting look into it. I hadn't really investigated the word before this moment, and it seems to be the case that it does not, in fact, mean what I thought it meant; the relationship it establishes is one more of a shepherd to his or her flock than of a king or queen to his or her subjects.

Huh. Well, I'll be. :P I have to say, it's always kind of weird looking up stuff in the Bible myself and finding something entirely different than what I've been told or have heard repeatedly...

But I also happen to think that if we are, then that in and of itself means that God is neither of our genders. Because mankind has both, so God must have both too, right? or have more than both, or have something totally different? Either way, the fact women are at least half the human race means that God can't be exclusively male, which of course is the important part. ;)ChiliDragon

Well yes, God definitely is not male in the sense that organisms are male; that much I'm certainly not arguing against.

To be honest I don't really know quite how I interpret the statement that humans are created in God's image.GabuEx

The interpretation that I always hear is that the soul is the image of God. God of course is incorporeal and so he put some sort of incorporeal element into mankind as a reflection of himself.

The interpretation that I always hear is that the soul is the image of God. God of course is incorporeal and so he put some sort of incorporeal element into mankind as a reflection of himself.

domatron23

Yeah, there's that... but to be honest I don't like that interpretation at all.  As I've said before, I can see nothing that would constitute evidence of a soul that does not also appear to be present to one degree or another in other animals.  Sure, we can build architectural wonders and technological marvels, but surely that of all things isn't what proves we have souls.  I've always felt the idea that only humans have souls comes more from the strictly human-centric way of thinking that so many humans have than anything else.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

The interpretation that I always hear is that the soul is the image of God. God of course is incorporeal and so he put some sort of incorporeal element into mankind as a reflection of himself.

GabuEx

Yeah, there's that... but to be honest I don't like that interpretation at all.  As I've said before, I can see nothing that would constitute evidence of a soul that does not also appear to be present to one degree or another in other animals.  Sure, we can build architectural wonders and technological marvels, but surely that of all things isn't what proves we have souls.  I've always felt the idea that only humans have souls comes more from the strictly human-centric way of thinking that so many humans have than anything else.

Oh it's certainly human-centric thinking yes. Nevertheless even if he soul wasn't responsible for any distinctive function it could still be said to be present and perhaps that part of us which survives death.

Anyway I've heard the following things applied to the "made in God's image" part: emotions, consciousness, morality, qualia, intelligence and a mind. I figure that if you don't believe that the brain accounts for all of those things then a non-physical soul which is a reflection of the God who made you fits the bill nicely.

Oh it's certainly human-centric thinking yes. Nevertheless even if he soul wasn't responsible for any distinctive function it could still be said to be present and perhaps that part of us which survives death.

domatron23

Right, but if it's just something that's there and which has no outward indication that it's present, that doesn't strike me as anything remotely approaching an "image" that someone could be made after.  Surely an image would be something that was actually visible or perceptible.

Anyway I've heard the following things applied to the "made in God's image" part: emotions, consciousness, morality, qualia, intelligence and a mind. I figure that if you don't believe that the brain accounts for all of those things then a non-physical soul which is a reflection of the God who made you fits the bill nicely.

domatron23

Animals (or at least some animals) pretty clearly have emotions, consciousness, intelligence, and a mind.  The question of morality is a pretty hazy one, as we have no real way of determining with any certainty the way animals approach the world... and similarly the capacity for abstract thought (which I assume is something akin to what you mean by qualia) is something that we can't really say with any certainty that animals don't have.

I'll always remember this one time when we had two cats as pets who were brothers, and one of them was hit by a car and killed.  The surviving cat for a good period of time thereafter seemed very lethargic and didn't have much appetite - by all accounts, he was exhibiting classic symptoms of depression.  I don't think I ever questioned whether or not other animals had souls after witnessing that.

I don't think I ever questioned whether or not other animals had souls after witnessing that.

GabuEx

I have said that at another post, and again responding to you. Coincidence, or fate? I don't think anyone who has a pet and half a heart can say that animals don't possess a soul, if this is what is in charge of oir showing emotions. Even if that is not the case, and the brain is actually responsible for said emotions, surely animals are as capable as us in this field.

Now, to return to the story. Both Genetic Code's and and GabuEx's stories were interesting to read. Although I did like Gabu's ending better, Eve's last phrase in Genetic's version was really impactful, ending the story with a dramatic "BANG", whereas Gabu's story more like faded away, giving the reader something to consider.

As far as the content is concerned, I also think that Genetic's story is quite biased. I also consider myself an atheist, but I liked the image of God Gabu presented. It more closely represented my very own view on what Judgement will be like, if an atheist is to be judged. If God is fair, (s)he should judge based on our actions in life, not our faith or lack thereof.