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.”

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ArtieKat · M

And how do you defend the crimes of "men of the cloth" and the institutional corruption of religious organisations?

dattaswami · 51-55, M

@ArtieKat The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), which was propagated by the sage Charvaka. Perception means the knowledge derived from the observation with the naked eyes. Infact in the logic (Tarka Sastra) all the means of knowledge are based on perception only. In the inference (Anumana) also, the fire on the hill is inferred by its smoke. But the relationship between the fire and smoke is perceived with the naked eyes only. Similarly other means of knowledge are also based on the perception only. Thus Charvaka forms the basic of the entire logic and without logic there is no knowledge.

The statement that the God is above logic must be proved only by perception. The divine miracles performed by the human form of Lord prove that there is a power above the logic. These miracles are seen by the naked eyes. The atheists must be allowed to prove whether the miracles are simply magic tricks. When they cannot prove, they must accept the existence of super power above the logic. If they do not accept this they are contradicting their own basis, which is the perception. The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. If the experience is contradicted, the experience of the atheists is also contradicted. Therefore atheists must be open-minded and should not be conservative. If they are conservative they have no right to criticize the religious conservatism.

ArtieKat · M

@dattaswami Just answer the fucking simple question about sexual predators spawned and shielded by religious institutions. Is that too difficult for you?

BlueSkyKing · M

"Science flies people to the moon, religion flies people into buildings."
—Victor Stenger

ArtieKat · M

*ArtieKat taps his fingers impatiently while @dattaswami consults his crystal ball for a concise, coherent answer*

kodiac · 22-25, M

@ArtieKat The will say free will. If they answer at all .

kodiac · 22-25, M

@BlueSkyKing Nailed it!!

sree251 · 41-45, M

@ArtieKat You said: "Just answer the fucking simple question..."

This is not a discussion. dattaswami is here to preach Hinduism.

ArtieKat · M

@sree251 He [or she] is preaching theism, not necessarily Hinduism.

sree251 · 41-45, M

@ArtieKat It is Hinduism, a derivative of Hindu philosophy. Sai Baba, who was dead by then, was the rave there when I visited India. He is dattaswami. He cannot be talking about anything but Hinduism even if he tried.

SomeMichGuy · M

@ArtieKat Those crimes are indefensible.

But the bad behavior of leaders is a red herring with respect to the question of the existence of God.

ArtieKat · M

@SomeMichGuy My question was based entirely on this paragraph:

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.

SomeMichGuy · M

@ArtieKat Ah, yeah!

More fundamentally, the OP seems to give up on a notion of the spiritual, putting such things in actual, infinite space... lol

ArtieKat · M

@kodiac Still no reply lol

kodiac · 22-25, M

@ArtieKat Seems to happen with the hard questions, doesn't appear to be a Bible quote that covers pedo priests

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.