Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Convincing atheists

When you approach an atheist and try to change the person through logic, leave the atheist to God, after presenting the final logic, which is that there is a 50-50 probability of the existence or non-existence of God. You should say the following to the atheist:

“This space is infinite and neither you nor I can find its boundary. I cannot show you the existence of hell, heaven or God in this infinite space. But you too cannot show me their absence in this infinite space by taking me up to the boundary of space. Hence, hell may exist or it may not exist.

Here is where a 50-50 probability has to be accepted. Suppose, I believe in the existence of hell and hence, I do not commit sins. Even if, after my death, I find out that there is no hell, there is no loss for me. While I am still alive, I have already enjoyed the benefit of living a tension-free life and not having to bother about the police and courts, since I have not committed any sins. On the other hand, if you commit sins believing that hell does not exist and after your death, if you find out that unfortunately, hell does exist, you are totally lost!

So, whenever there is a 50-50 probability, a wise man always errs on the safe side. One must always choose the side with a lower risk. Let us say there is a blind person walking on the road. One person tells him that there is a fire ahead in his path and another person tells him that there is no fire ahead. Whom should the blind man choose to follow?
Certainly, if he is a wise blind man, he will turn back because even if the fire is absent, there would be no loss to him. But if the blind man is foolish, he will choose to disregard the warning and take the risk of going forward. If unfortunately, there is actually a fire ahead, he will get burnt!

Therefore, choose the side of lower risk given the 50-50 probability and believe in the existence of the unimaginable God, heaven and hell. Worship God with devotion and do meritorious deeds without committing any sins. Even if God, heaven and hell are absent, you will get enough benefit of believing in God, heaven and hell, which is a life of happiness, peace and freedom from even a trace of tension of the police and the courts.

After all, whether a person is a theist or an atheist, all the efforts the person makes in life is only to get this benefit of a peaceful and happy life. Apart from this benefit in this world, there is also the possibility of you getting a huge benefit in the upper worlds after your death, which is very clearly stated by several Godmen and divine scriptures.”
Top | New | Old
ArtieKat · M
And how do you defend the crimes of "men of the cloth" and the institutional corruption of religious organisations?
ArtieKat · M
@kodiac Precisely
sree251 · 41-45, M
@dattaswami You said: "the fire on the hill is inferred by its smoke."

Great explanation. I agree that "The logic of atheists is based on perception". Instead of perception, I prefer the word "cognition".
SDavis · 56-60, F
@ArtieKat I will reply and then cut this conversation off. Christians don't defend crimes of the priest or any other crime. Christians and none Christians believers and non-believers are all sinners we all do wrong and a large percentage of the human population commit crimes.

And the Bible speaks explicitly against sexual sins.

The Bible speaks explicitly against fake teachings, fake prophets, fake Sadducees, fake Pharisees, and in modern day English it boils down to pastors, ministers, evangelist, priest, bishops....... Jesus said many will come to him saying they did this and that and his name and he will tell them apart from me you that working iniquity into hell which was made for the devil and his angels..... Who are they fake -ministers / priest / Christians.
Matthew 7:15 & 22 & 23 __ 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15 _ 2 Peter 2:13 _ from fornication, to polygamy, to bestiality, to rape, and all sexual sins God is against. And he only approved one type of sexual activity and that was between male /females who are husband & wife. And what priest have done as well as any who do such acts - it falls under the category of rape/fornication/lust.

Matthew 18:6 if anyone causes any of these little ones to stumble - it would have been better for them if they had been hung and drowned.
Bumbles · 51-55, M
Why not leave us alone? Nice try with your risk analysis, but belief doesn't really work that way. I'll stay atheist, thanks.
“[R]eligion was the race's first (and worst) attempt to make sense of reality. It was the best the species could do at a time when we had no concept of physics, chemistry, biology or medicine. We did not know that we lived on a round planet, let alone that the said planet was in orbit in a minor and obscure solar system, which was also on the edge of an unimaginably vast cosmos that was exploding away from its original source of energy. We did not know that micro-organisms were so powerful and lived in our digestive systems in order to enable us to live, as well as mounting lethal attacks on us as parasites. We did not know of our close kinship with other animals. We believed that sprites, imps, demons, and djinns were hovering in the air about us. We imagined that thunder and lightning were portentous. It has taken us a long time to shrug off this heavy coat of ignorance and fear, and every time we do there are self-interested forces who want to compel us to put it back on again.”
― Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever
Northwest · M
You do realize that the fatal flaw in your theory, is that for Atheists, hell/heaven is a non-issue, AND, and most importantly, a moral existence, as far as they are concerned, is an imperative, not an after-life incentive.
kodiac · 22-25, M
Why do you feel this dire need to convince anyone? Your truth is yours why not accept that your truth may not be the same for everyone?
Bumbles · 51-55, M
@kodiac Something about the nature of Christianity. Islam was more efficient in the 6th Century -- believe or die. Oh wait, that was Christianity up to about 100 years ago.
kodiac · 22-25, M
@Bumbles Christianity isn't about a choice, it was forced on native Americans on jungle tribes and without question it was the downfall of both societies. People lived in harmony with nature until they were forced to comform. I agree with your responses.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SW-User
Why are you trying to change anyone?
dattaswami · 51-55, M
@ArtieKat A sinner will be punished by God whether he is a theist or an atheist. God is impartial. He person who do good deeds will be blessed by God whether he is a theist or an atheist.
ArtieKat · M
@dattaswami You're not going to answer the question of why churches - of whatever religion - conceal the temporal crimes of their ministers, are you? Simple moral issue.....
dattaswami · 51-55, M
@ArtieKat Even if human beings suppress their sins God will punish them in many ways either in this world or in the upper world. You are not watching them 24 hrs in a day. God has many plans to reform the sinners. If one realize, repent and do not repeat any sins further till their death all their past sins will be forgiven by God. This is the promise of God to us.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
Almost Pascal´s calculus.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@ArtieKat
Ohhhhhhh don´t worry.
It only shows about Pascal (as with Descartes) that being a genius on Math don´t prevent to be a poor philosopher.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@ElRengo I've always seen it referred to as Pascal's Wager.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@ninalanyon
Yes the Pascal's Wager, that´s the way it´s usually called. A kind of "rational" / calculated bet.
In some sense, it involves the concept of Expected Value as a guide for decision making, anticipating it´s use in game theory.
Applied to "theological thought" and in somehow philosophical terms, it haves precursors (the Rhetorical "logic" of some medieval scholastics) and more recent descendants (as the poor use of probabilities of William Dembski).

By the way, I´m not at all debating / criticizing religious faith.
But some sophisticated arguments would be funny if not cos they are sad ones.
Why not just leave the atheist alone ? Seriously ? Proselytizing is the ultimate in disrespect, imo. Even if the person isn’t actually an atheist (contrary to what theists often believe when a person doesn’t wish to discuss their religion or faith), they may have personal beliefs associated with their culture that are equally important to them.
SW-User
@bijouxbroussard I identify myself as agnostic, not from a possible belief in a great god in the sky, but more as I understand what value it gives some. Why, if it's gives someone purpose, meaning for their life, often needed, would I question theirs? I see too many who want to argue over this, and I question what purpose it brings them? Not unique to theists, as it happens both way?

The keyword in your words is theirs, always. I sometimes wish I belonged to a different society, even though I give the weight it holds for some this weight, there are much more important communal things to argue about than what one can never know that are real.
@SW-User I also identify as agnostic now, so I understand. But I know people who have faiths from indigenous cultures, or who are Wiccan, for example, and they’re constantly hassled, usually by fundamentalist Christians. The amazing thing to me is that in spite of the fact that no atheist ever stopped me on the street or knocked on my door questioning my beliefs when I was Catholic, I see and hear theists complain about persecuted for their beliefs ! It’s much more the other way around.
SW-User
@bijouxbroussard I appreciate this, thank you. I have no other way to say, I don't understand how some people in faith don't see another's as holding the same value? I only really learned the value of faith when my father died, the solace it can offer, and since I see most people looking to faith for understanding life and love, that's where I respect the value.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
there is a 50-50 probability of the existence or non-existence of God.

Sez who?

This space is infinite

It is not proven that space is infinite.
dattaswami · 51-55, M
@ninalanyon This is the basis for every confusion in spiritual knowledge. The unimaginable God burns the world into ash and immediately you will conclude that God is the physical fire based on your worldly logic developed by worldly observations.

Similarly, if I say that God thought to create this world, you will immediately ask that God is awareness or God has awareness so that God is inert energy to burn the world or God is the awareness or having awareness, which is generated from His inert energy and nervous system present in Him.

What I say is that God is neither fire to burn nor has awareness to think and God has burnt the world by His unimaginable power and God thought by His unimaginable power. You shall not judge the unimaginable actions of unimaginable God with the help of your imaginable worldly logic based on imaginable observations of the imaginable world.

When there is no logic between God and His action, how can we put such questions like God is having space in Him or not? If He has already space in Him, He can’t be the generator of the space because the space already present in Him came out and is expressed as space. If God has space in Him, He must have spatial dimensions and must be seen by the naked eye or at least by a nanotechnologist with the help of a powerful microscope.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This message was deleted by its author.
dattaswami · 51-55, M
@SW-User Social justice cannot be maintained if the existence of God is not accepted. If God does not exist, what is the use of reducing the over attachment to this world? If you say that the over attachment to worldly bonds leads to sin and injustice, which in turn disturb the balance of society, nobody understands the overall effect of it. In such case, everybody wants that all other human beings should follow pravrutti to maintain the balance of the society and individually commits sins. This becomes the famous story that everybody should pour a cup of milk in the empty tank kept by the king so that everybody can pour a cup of water, which cannot be detected.

Everybody wants the social justice and balance of society, but at the same time wants his or her over attachment result in the sin, to proceed in undetectable way. You cannot control every human being through the law of court and the police department. The reason is that every individual working in any department is with the same psychology. Today, you are hearing the news that an honorable judge of the honorable court has taken huge bribe to protect the injustice! Every employee in every department is influenced by the corruption. The employee may belong to government or administration or parliament or assembly or even judiciary system. Very few only exist, who follow justice due to fear of God.
deadgerbil · 26-30, M
I've had some success in bringing atheists to Mormonism, so it's definitely possible
ArtieKat · M
@deadgerbil
it's the magic underwear for me
Does that equip you to be a moron?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ArtieKat · M
@deadgerbil You've obviously not actually got a sense of humour, have you?
MadraLaska · 31-35, F
I dont think is possible to be complete atheist, and is no point in try to prove of course because is the same as try to prove God exists or does not exist, it is only for belief, and people can find proof for yes or no if they want but is only for them to make in mind up
pdxlinux · 41-45, M
i hope that you feel good about this post. i like watching Todd White videos. he has a good personality. he makes people feel good, hopeful, positive.
pdockal · 56-60, M
Logic ?
There is only faith and that's why they don't believe !
specman · 51-55, MVIP
Let them( Atheists) believe what they want nobody but God can change them.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment