Strategy for defeating a weak atheist

[Guest guest]

>For defeating weak atheist I'd suggest irimi-nage, for strong atheist

>kotegaeshi. What do you think. Jahnu? 8)

 

I think some persons here are waiting for some further enlightenment on the

two interesting words??

 

> As we know from the Vedic literature we can't absolutely prove God

> by logical and empirical means, so therefore there's always a

> loophole for the atheist. In such a debate you can maybe convince

> open minded readers that your arguments for God and against atheism

> is better then the atheists arguments, but you will never convince

> the hard hearted atheists and close minded sceptics.

 

Aside tarko apratisthat, was it Ramanuja who said that logic cannot

prove existence of God? It can, however, defeat atheism.

 

Well, are there more than these two options:

 

1) An almighty God exist

2) An almighty God does not exist

 

If there are no third option then if you can disprove one you have proven

the other, is'nt it? So I don't think you can absolutely disprove atheism as

logically impossible if you use logic and reason. But you can diffinitely

show that it is foolish and unsubstantiated. And that's enough

 

>Hardcore types are invincibly ignorant. They need lots of ajnata

>sukriti first.

 

Oh, yes!

 

>In Czech Republic, many people claim they believe in "something

>higher" but not God. Most often they mean the Christian idea of God

>and since Christianity in our country is pretty discredited, the

>result is this "somethingism", or agnosticism.

 

Sounds like Denmark minus new age.

 

>We should also list reasons for atheism. Disillusion with religious

>structures and 50 years of totalitarian atheistic regimes are major

>ones, at least here.

 

Yes, the christians non-philosophical or bad-philosophical religion.

 

>Another interesting matter are theists's attitudes to God. I've seen

>some pretty materialistic - some take Him as a soap for sins, some as

>a tool to achieve their goals, etc.

 

Here in Denmark it was just decided in court that it is ok for a priest to

be an atheist *LOL*

 

And a few months later it was decided that it's ok for them to believe in

reincarnation. This is of course good, but it just shows that they can't

make up their minds and that their philosophy is very vague.

 

And they can of course also be homosexuals and the like.

 

> To say that it is all right to assert that there is no proofs for a

> given object as long as no one has given a proof for the existence

> of that object is a logical fallacy called an appeal to ignorance

> (argumentum ad ignorantiam.) See

> http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Appeal%20to%20Ignorance

 

We have a compilation of these arguments at

veda.harekrsna.cz/library/Logic.zip

 

I just downloaded it, and I will read it later. Looks good. I try to point

out these logical fallacies in atheistic arguments as much as possible.

 

>> Be aware that the weak atheist will most probably freak out and

>> start to call you names, attack your religion, divert to an other

>> subject matter, call his friends for help etc. But don't let

>> yourself be diverted. Keep hammering on the same question and don't

>> go any further on your list, or to other matter, before the atheist

>> has answered your question. Prabhupada never allowed anyone to get

>> away with such things. If you do that he will be forced to admit,

>> but most likely not publicly, that he can't prove his assertions,

>> and you will send him in the isolation booth for some time.

 

>If this discussion happens in an online forum with majority of

>atheists, one will have a bit tougher time. 8) One thing is, that

>atheists have a hard time to accept defeat (almost like rtviks).

 

They won't accept defeat to other persons, but maybe they will be forced to

accept it for themselves. At least after I used my strategy for some time on

such a forum they stopped using their arguments, because they knew I could

expose them as faulty. So they just started name calling instead, and did

some research on the history of ISKCON so that they could divert the readers

attention away from the fact that they could'nt support their statements.

 

Ys, AKD