Creator Failure / Conquering the Eastern Frontiers

This is a very famous quote, and probably everyone already knows of it, but in the event that someone does not, or has missed out, it is a great quote for many reasons, which I shall highlight a little later.

Some foolish men declare that Creator made the world.
The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.

If God created the world, where was he before creation?
If you say he was transcendent then, and need no support, where is he now?

No single being had the skill to make this world --
For how can an immaterial god create that which is material?

How could God have made the world without any raw material?
If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.

If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy,
For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen equally naturally.

If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material,
Then it is just his will and nothing else -- and who will believe this silly stuff?
If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him?
If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.

If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world?
Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.

If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man,
So what advantage would be gianed by creating the universe?

If you say that he created to no purpose, because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless.
If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.

If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation],
He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else....

If out of love for living things and need of them he made the world,
Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?

If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free;
Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty.

Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all.

And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created.
If you say he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?

Good people should rebuke the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine.

Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is without beginning and end,
And is based on the [Seven] Tattvas, Jiva and the rest.

Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature,
Divided into three sections -- hell, the middle world, and the heavens.

Jinasena (fl.778-838)
Mahapurana

What is so startling about this, is that this was said in the 9th Century, and Jinasena was not met with widespread criticism, accused of being an "anti-Christ", beheaded (even if only symbolically), within a deeply "religious" society of the Hindus.

Jinasena is considered one of the greatest thinkers, by his Jain followers as well as Hindus alike (for Jainism was born out of discontentment of the corruption of religious practices) and more recently world renowned. it shows how both forms of thought were accepted, allowed to flourish and the individual given the right to choose what he perceives as correct. That, to this day, is missing in the western civilization and a "westernization" of eastern thought has led to a collapse of this freedom.

The Indian (due to the ignorance of the correct geographical/anthropological term) civilizations of the time, showed what it meant to be truly progressive and is surely an indication of a golden age gone by, forgotten and buried into the annals.

I only wish, more atheists armed themselves with the right questions, answers and patterns of thought, for when asked by an equivocal individual of questions (which within the atheist community are accepted to be inconsequential for our existence), appearing to be unable to answer, is seen as a sense of confusion within our scientific reasoning, as "an inability of science to answer all the questions".

I am sure a lot of "veteran" atheists are questioning my right to sermon them on that which they have been following, perhaps even propagating for such a long time, but it is the lack of this pattern of thought amongst atheists I happen to know (and in myself too) that propel me to put this forth, so that the tide may change.