God Stops Time For Atheists

[Kahalachan]

Right before any of us atheists die, god stops time for us. One unit of Planck time just shy of us dying.

In this period, god completely addresses our arguments. QED. We have no response and god proves any possible argument against his existence or qualities to our full understanding. We have complete proof god is real.

God may also allow us to completely comprehend hell and what it is like. We fully comprehend how bad hell is.

God now offers us the ability to accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior, which I would do. Anyone else who doesn't chooses hell with full realization of the consequences of their choice.


Is there reason why this cannot be true? In fact, it almost has to be true for an all loving and god who is a perfect judge.

"It's not in the Bible" Neither are cars. The existence of cars is true, even though it's not in the Bible.

It doesn't have to be in the Bible for it to be true, the only issue is that it cannot contradict the Bible.

Which my "God stopping time" theory doesn't do.


What possible objection can there be for this aside from a desire to bully us into Christianity?

 

[noreligion]

What possible objection can there be for this aside from a desire to bully us into Christianity?

That it's just as delusional and based on faith as Christianity is.

 

[godless dave]

Shouldn't this be "God stops time for non-Christians?" Atheists are far from the only people who refuse to accept Christ as their savior.

 

[money]

What possible objection can there be for this aside from a desire to bully us into Christianity?

One possible objection: A giant lack of supporting evidence...

 

[willhaven]

"It's not in the Bible" Neither are cars. The existence of cars is true, even though it's not in the Bible.

There were many things in the new testament that were not in the old testament. How do we know there won't be a NEW new testament that supersedes or appends the bible we have now?

I always like the "why not convert after death" argument. The only way the logic makes any sense is if it were a human creation to coerce belief.

If we have free will to choose or not choose to believe in Christianity, why would that free will be taken away after death? It would serve no purpose for god to have this arbitrary rule, but that seemingly arbitrary rule of god looks a lot less arbitrary when viewed through a lens where it serves a purpose for those wishing to spread a religion.

I always like to bring up conversion after death and sinning while in heaven as the ultimate examples of free will that Christians don't seem to believe would be possible. I never seem to get a coherent answer that makes any sense, not that I expect to, but it is interesting to see how they think. Sometimes it seems like it's never occurred to them.

 

[Vortigern99]

I started a thread about this, from the biblical angle, about two weeks ago:

Christ Ministers to the Dead; Hence, No Hellfire for Anyone

It's still on page 1 of this Forum and raises the same points as the OP.

 

[Fnord]

Right before any of us atheists die, god stops time for us. One unit of Planck time just shy of us dying.

Evidence, please? Also, the claim begs the question of the existence of God.

In this period, god completely addresses our arguments. QED. We have no response and god proves any possible argument against his existence or qualities to our full understanding. We have complete proof god is real.

Evidence, please?

God may also allow us to completely comprehend hell and what it is like.

That weasel-word "may" indicates doubt and a possible opinion, so no call for evidence is warranted.

We fully comprehend how bad hell is.

Evidence, please? Also, the statement begs the question of whether or not Hell (Biblical realm of eternal torment) exists.

God now offers us the ability to accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior...

God ... or an hallucination produced by an anoxic brain?

... which I would do.

Go for it. Let us know how it goes.

Anyone else who doesn't chooses hell with full realization of the consequences of their choice.

Evidence, please?

Is there reason why this cannot be true?

If there is no God, no Heaven, no Hell, no soul, and no form of 'afterlife' for an alleged soul to experience in the first place.

In fact, it almost has to be true for an all loving and god who is a perfect judge.

Evidence, please? Don't forget that He is also supposed to be "Wrathful and Vengeance-Seeking".

"It's not in the Bible" Neither are cars.

Fallacy of False Analogy.

The existence of cars is true, even though it's not in the Bible.

Ditto.

It doesn't have to be in the Bible for it to be true, the only issue is that it cannot contradict the Bible.

Then you may very well be a troll of the Atheistic persuasion, trying to trap Bible-based Religionists into revealing their contradictory data base, mad circular reasoning skilz, and their reliance on faith in 'goddidit' conclusions. If so, then welcome to the forum!

Which my "God stopping time" theory doesn't do.

Congratulations. You are now a heretic, spreading your own version of theology. In a while, you may become a cultist. After that, a fringe sectarian, then a mainstream sectarian, then maybe a Bit-Time Religionist with full tax-exempt status. May you live so long.

What possible objection can there be for this aside from a desire to bully us into Christianity?

You didn't appoint me as Supreme Pontiff Incarnate of your belief system. Remember, I am the Fnord, not a clod ... although there have been many other clods before me...

 

[roger]

What possible objection can there be for this aside from a desire to bully us into Christianity?

You just completely made it all up?

 

[theprestige]

That it's just as delusional and based on faith as Christianity is.

One possible objection: A giant lack of supporting evidence...

You just completely made it all up?

Y'all are missing the point.

This is the stock anti-Christian argument of the form:

1. Christians claim their god is awsome; but
2. The Christian god is, objectively, a jerk; and
3. We already know Christians have made up a false god to suit their purposes; therefore
4. Christians are, objectively, jerks.

Seriously, this argument appears so often on these fora I'm surprised you hadn't figured it out by the time you were halfway through the OP.

 

[caniswalensis]

I think a lot of posters here are missing the point. If I see it correctly the OP is putting this out as a hypothetical to illustrate a percieved unfairness in demanding a lifetime of faith-based belief with no evidence, the punishment for failure being an eternity of suffering.


Be that as it may, I have asort of secret fantasy I'd like to share:

I live my life out as an athiest, seeking to do the best job at it that I can, and make the most of it.

I die.

Surprise of surprises, I find that there is an afterlife of some sort, and I am confronted by a mighty diety, who tells me there is to be a judgement.

And then this awesome diety says to me:

You didn't believe in me.

You didn't fear me.

you didn't whorship me.

Yet, you did all the right things, just because you knew they were right.

Welcome.

Hey, I said it was a fantasy, right?

 

[ThermionicScott]

Back when I was a believer with doubts, I consoled myself thinking that God would forgive those doubts when I died. "Well, at least you were using that noggin I gave ya." Now, of course, it's a non-issue.

- Scott

 

[nchammer326]

"It's not in the Bible" Neither are cars. The existence of cars is true, even though it's not in the Bible.

That was the dumbest thing I've read all day. If that post had a face, I would kick it in the balls.

 

[gnome]

What possible objection can there be for this aside from a desire to bully us into Christianity?

This doesn't seem too different, except that it's God bullying me into Christianity and claiming I have the free will to choose.

Sure, you can choose. But no matter what you think you'll burn in hell forever if you don't pick what I want you to.

Thanks for that marvelous gift of free will, there, Mr. God.

 

[Loss Leader]

Is there reason why this cannot be true? In fact, it almost has to be true for an all loving and god who is a perfect judge.

Well, there's the problem of energy usage. If God is going to show you anything, he's going to have to use energy to do it. And if your brain is going to process anything, it's going to use energy to do that.

The problem is that you want all this to happen within one single unit of Planck time. To my knowledge, that amount of time is insufficient for any energy to radiate anywhere.

Even if we hand-waved this away, one still must come to terms with the stunning immorality and/or stupidity of God. He rewards those who worship him with perfect happiness but punishes those who don't with unending torture. Why would anyone want to worship a god who defines good and evil as whether someone does or doesn't like him. Why would God be such a jerk?

On the other hand, the atheist may make the rational calculation to just go along with everything in order to get into heaven. In that case, how could God not detect such insincerity?

What possible objection can there be for this aside from a desire to bully us into Christianity?

That it's nonsense?

 

[Wowbagger]

What possible objection can there be for this aside from a desire to bully us into Christianity?

I might object on the basis that it has no relevance to the living. If, for argument sake, what you say is true, then when it happens - it happens. I don't see how such a thing would make any impact on our lives, right now.

We can't prove it does happen, and strictly speaking, we can't prove that it does not happen. Therefore, it is superfluous, and I think it would make better use of my time discussing more productive thought exercises.

 

[Kahalachan]

I think a lot of posters here are missing the point. If I see it correctly the OP is putting this out as a hypothetical to illustrate a percieved unfairness in demanding a lifetime of faith-based belief with no evidence, the punishment for failure being an eternity of suffering.

Thank you. That's some of it.

And it's more of a "Why can't this be true within Christian doctrine" Obviously there is no evidence and I just made it up. That's an objection for us who already do not accept Christianity to begin with as much of it lacks evidence.

Making stuff up and adding onto a doctrine in order for it to be logically coherent is far better than stubbornly holding onto something that makes absolutely no sense. God being all powerful is sort of a "plot device" that could allow god to take any means in order to reconcile any contradictions.

As a matter of fact, this line of thinking is what kept me as a Christian longer than normal. Eternal hell just for not being Christian makes no sense. My mind had to do these mental gymnastics in order for it to make sense.

There are ways for Christianity to make more sense. I don't see why more Christians opt for this route rather than respond to contradictions with non-sequitors.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

us atheists

I'm skeptical you are an atheist. Perhaps I totally don't get your OP.

 

[roger]

There are ways for Christianity to make more sense. I don't see why more Christians opt for this route rather than respond to contradictions with non-sequitors.

Because adding things to a hypothetical make it less likely, not more likely.

For example: Susan always liked dancing, and wanted to be a dancer when she grew up. Which is more likely

a) Susan works in the insurance field
b) Susan works in the insurance field, and dances Ballet with an amateur company for fun.

A, of course, is more likely, even though it seems that B better explains Susan's personality.

Likewise, just making stuff up makes the story less plausible because you are positing 1) the bible and 2) something you made up, whereas someone else is just positing 1) the bible.

 

[Southwind17]

Because adding things to a hypothetical make it less likely, not more likely.

For example: Susan always liked dancing, and wanted to be a dancer when she grew up. Which is more likely

a) Susan works in the insurance field
b) Susan works in the insurance field, and dances Ballet with an amateur company for fun.

A, of course, is more likely, even though it seems that B better explains Susan's personality.

Likewise, just making stuff up makes the story less plausible because you are positing 1) the bible and 2) something you made up, whereas someone else is just positing 1) the bible.

I like!

 

[Kahalachan]

Because adding things to a hypothetical make it less likely, not more likely.

For example: Susan always liked dancing, and wanted to be a dancer when she grew up. Which is more likely

a) Susan works in the insurance field
b) Susan works in the insurance field, and dances Ballet with an amateur company for fun.

A, of course, is more likely, even though it seems that B better explains Susan's personality.

Likewise, just making stuff up makes the story less plausible because you are positing 1) the bible and 2) something you made up, whereas someone else is just positing 1) the bible.

I understand the conjunction fallacy. But when working with something impossible, more information to clarify would be needed.

Going with your example


a) Susan is a human with chicken wings and feathers.
b) Susan is a human with chicken wings and feathers in this children's book entitled "The Chicken girl".

The added information clarifies the statement and helps it make sense.