Is God a self-deception?

[Guest guest]

> Quite a few times in my debates with atheists I have encountered the

> following answer to my question about whether or not the atheist can

> prove that there are no good reasons to believe in God.

 

Well, often they don't offer any arguments, just name-calling. E.g.

 

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=9751&postdays=0&postorde

r=asc&start=0

 

> The first premise in this atheistic argument is self-contradictory,

> because if you know that God is a self-deception, then you must also

> know that God doesn't exist.

 

Yes.

 

There is a fallacy of 'begging the question' (i.e. considered already

proven that existence of God is a self-deception).

 

Also: mere impossibility to prove something is not a dis/proof.

Thus the atheist's answer must start with "No,...".

 

....

 

end

 

> But to make things worse for the atheist we can also argue that to

> postulate ”God is a self-deception” (premise 2) is to postulate that

> God is unreal, and therefore that God doesn't exist.

 

....tarko 'pratishthat

 

ys Jan

[Guest guest]

> Exactly, so YOU cannot defeat the non-believer, only Krsna can.

>

> False, just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean it

> doesn't

> exist. That's an "appeal to ignorance"

>

> True, but you can't defeat my position. As long as you can't prove God's

> existence he will never exist, except by His mercy. You can't defeat this.

> If I am blind I will never in my life see colors, no matter how many good

> arguements you present.

 

That's a good point. Therefore it is not the atheist really we preach to. To

be an atheist is a choice. It has nothing to do with proof. You can't

convince someone's choice by argument, unless that person is extremely

intelligent, and atheists are characterized by being less intelligent.

Otherwise how can you be an atheist? So they'll never be convinced. That's a

given.

 

Rather we preach to the innocent onlookers. Prabhupada said that we had to

defeat atheism, and that we can only do by argument, but the question is, as

you also hint below, who is our target audience? When we preach against

atheism our target audience should not be atheists but ourselves and others

who are interested in knowing the truth. But by arguing with atheists we can

learn how they think and thus defeat them, at least ideologically. And then

we can also recognize atheistic elements when they pop up in ISKCON, or in

our own minds.

 

To take a practical example, I consider the atma yoga seminar a symptom of

atheism in ISKCON, and it is because I have been arguing with atheists for

years that I can detect that.

 

> As above: God can reveal Himself to us, or He can give a devotee

> the power

> to prove His existence.

>

> Good, therefore stop arguing with people and teach them how to pray to

> Krsna and beg for His mercy. Teach them to surrender to a devotee of

> Krsna. The mercy of Krsna's mercy is mightier then logic and reason.

 

That's another aspect of the mission. I don't think you can say that Ajit

apart from preaching against atheism, doesn't also teach people to surrender

and chant Hare Krishna. He had the initiative of introducing the mahamantra

electronically to a cyber audience, and he got many young people to chant

and meditate on the HK mantra. That's innovative and shows enthusiasm for

preaching. That should always be appreciated.

 

> You haven't even come close to show that.

>

> Voltaire said, If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.

> He is in your disciplic succession. He proves it.

 

We have to educate ourselves about how the opposition acts and thinks.

Otherwise we might not be able to recognize them when we see them. The

preaching against atheism should be to protect ISKCON and Prabhupada's

mission as well as our own minds, not to defeat unintelligent people. They

are already defeated. But we have to know how to defeat them, anyway. If we

don't we'll be victimized ourselves.

 

ys, jdd