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??

 

That was a joke mainly for Jahnu P. 8) These are aikido techniques.

 

> > 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?

 

Yes, philosophically it is one or the other. But the actual acceptance

of the Lord may be a long way for a merely defeated but not internally

reformed atheist.

 

> 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

 

Sure.

 

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

 

I'm personally not as skeptical about Christianity as a general ISKCON

devotee may be since I got a chance to learn some more about it.

Catholicism (with its more than 20 rites aside Roman Catholic one) and

Eastern Orthodoxy, aside from their history and power misuse of all

kinds, have the best preserved theology culminating with the message

of bhakti. Still, the lack of karma and reincarnation is a serious

philosophical weak point. (One could say that this is similar to

Buddhism where Sakyamuni Buddha didn't want to speak about jiva and

isvara since they were unnecessary to his eightfold path. So

similarly, one can become a bhakta even without bothering about karma

and reincarnation. Especially if he is not too inquisitive...)

 

> 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.

 

The usual way. Someone said that one uses a stick when

lacking/exhausting arguments. But the ISKCON history can be quite

damaging in this regard and unfortunately it cannot be changed.

I know people who don't want to have anything to do with ISKCON

because of this and some young devotees left after finding out about

it.

 

ys Jan