Is Pain And Suffering The Only Way To Convince Atheists That There Is A God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

. I was going to give you a facepalm, but an eyeroll should suffice.

What part did you not understand of "the Bible says otherwise. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists>"

IOW: the atheists you describe want reasonable evidence and you respond by saying that your beliefs have no evidence.

If that's the case, then there's no problem: the rational thing to do is to not accept your claim.

 

[Onyx]

I'm not an atheist, but I'm also not convinced that pain and suffering is anything but an unfortunate consequence of physical existence. Being a jesus freak won't help one bit, but taking care of your body and being careful on the freeway might.

 

[Skwim]

That wouldn't make me convert from atheism to any brand of theism, and nothing makes faith based thought seem like a good idea.

How about a good old fashioned threat?

.​

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheists always claim they have to have evidence that God exists, but history shows us different. Once you provide the evidence, then end up forgetting like that which happened to Jesus Christ or they want even more evidence such that every atheist must be convinced.

Then the Bible says otherwise. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists:

"Jesus performed countless miracles, yet the vast majority of people did not believe in Him. If God performed miracles today as He did in the past, the result would be the same. People would be amazed and would believe in God for a short time. That faith would be shallow and would disappear the moment something unexpected or frightening occurred. A faith based on miracles is not a mature faith. God performed the greatest “God miracle” of all time in coming to earth as the Man Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins (Romans 5:8) so that we could be saved (John 3:16). God does still perform miracles—many of them simply go unnoticed or are denied. However, we do not need more miracles. What we need is to believe in the miracle of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ."

Does God still perform miracles?

Lawrence Krauss is a professor of physics at Arizona State University. He said evidence for God would be as follows.

"Now, it would be easy to have evidence for God. If the stars rearrange themselves tonight and I looked up tonight—well not here, but in a place where you could see the stars, in Arizona, say,—and I looked up tonight and I saw the stars rearrange themselves say, “I am here.”

The Craig - Krauss Debate at North Carolina State University | Reasonable Faith

Later, another atheist responded that he would not accept the stars rearranging themselves because people south of the equator would not be able to see this.

Thus, the only way I see to convince atheist is pain and suffering. If they knew God brought this upon them, then they would have to believe. It's like they brought it upon themselves. You asked for it. You got it. Of course, this is what I think happens in the afterlife. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved in this life.

I have a video on pain and suffering. Maybe this is one of the methods.

Interesting.
Why do you prefer pain and suffering to God arranging the stars twice?

Anywhoos...
Step 1 would be to get atheists to believe in God, if God cares about that.
Step 2 would be to get atheists to worship him and see him as saviour.

Pain and suffering could be counterproductive in that sense. But hell, if you just want blind obedience, I guess it could work, in general terms. God could inflict pain on my kids, for example, and I'd go through the motions of worship. Yay, God!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"I am in a building with 4 rooms, and I have only been in 1 room. In order to say that every room is empty, I would have to have knowledge of all 4 rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know.

However, to state the opposite, that the building is not empty, I would at the very least only need to know about one room."

Atheism is me saying I haven't seen any furniture. Theism is saying you have, or have faith there is furniture. A specific denomination is saying that there is furniture, it was bought at IKEA, there's a coffee stain on the table, and it doesn't like gay people.

I apologize to religious people for my over-generalisation, just trying to make my point clearly.

 

[ronandcarol]

Is Pain And Suffering The Only Way To Convince Atheists That There Is A God.
No. by your love they will know you. Love you neighbors, love your enemies, show them love in all you do and all you say.
ronandcarol

 

[Stevicus]

Atheists always claim they have to have evidence that God exists, but history shows us different. Once you provide the evidence, then end up forgetting like that which happened to Jesus Christ or they want even more evidence such that every atheist must be convinced.

Then the Bible says otherwise. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists:

"Jesus performed countless miracles, yet the vast majority of people did not believe in Him. If God performed miracles today as He did in the past, the result would be the same. People would be amazed and would believe in God for a short time. That faith would be shallow and would disappear the moment something unexpected or frightening occurred. A faith based on miracles is not a mature faith. God performed the greatest “God miracle” of all time in coming to earth as the Man Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins (Romans 5:8) so that we could be saved (John 3:16). God does still perform miracles—many of them simply go unnoticed or are denied. However, we do not need more miracles. What we need is to believe in the miracle of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ."

"A faith based on miracles is not a mature faith"? But the Bible recounts the miracles of God and Jesus and uses that as "proof" of God. And, as pointed out here, God coming to Earth as Jesus Christ to die on the cross so that sinners could be "saved" (from what?) is viewed as the greatest miracle and also considered "proof" of God's existence.

It would seem to me that, in order for faith to be real and genuine, it would have to come purely from the heart. It would have to be internal and instinctive - something that would occur even if Jesus never came to Earth, even if there was no Bible, no Christianity, no religion whatsoever. People would just naturally arrive at it through their own thoughts and contemplation, not through any "teachings" or indoctrination. What kind of "faith" is it when it has to be taught by others?

Does God still perform miracles?

Lawrence Krauss is a professor of physics at Arizona State University. He said evidence for God would be as follows.

"Now, it would be easy to have evidence for God. If the stars rearrange themselves tonight and I looked up tonight—well not here, but in a place where you could see the stars, in Arizona, say,—and I looked up tonight and I saw the stars rearrange themselves say, “I am here.”

The Craig - Krauss Debate at North Carolina State University | Reasonable Faith

Later, another atheist responded that he would not accept the stars rearranging themselves because people south of the equator would not be able to see this.

One thing that came to mind was from an episode of Star Trek TOS, "Errand of Mercy." This is where Kirk and Spock end up on a planet (Organia) in a disputed zone between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. The inhabitants of the planet are deceptively primitive, but are actually extremely powerful. At the end, they prevent a war between the Federation and Klingon Empire by making every instrument of violence radiate a temperature of 350°, thus making them useless. They couldn't even do hand to hand combat, since that would have the same effect.

That's something that God could do, if He really wanted to "prove" His existence. It would have to be something that totally violates the laws of physics as we know it, and it would have to be something that occurs planet-wide, not something that would only be seen by a handful of people in a limited area. He could also announce His presence with a loud, reverberating voice which can be heard by everyone all over the planet (each in their own native language).

Thus, the only way I see to convince atheist is pain and suffering. If they knew God brought this upon them, then they would have to believe. It's like they brought it upon themselves. You asked for it. You got it. Of course, this is what I think happens in the afterlife. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved in this life.

Well, if there is an afterlife, then that by itself would prove the existence of God.

But it's a kind of guessing game in this life. It's not even just a matter of believing in "a god," any "god" - but it also has to be a certain specific "God" and a whole slew of other characters, along with many rules, regulations, and rituals. Even the slightest slip-up could lead to an afterlife of pain and suffering, no less than what you presume would be in store for the atheists.

If we're talking about pain and suffering in this life, then that happens to everyone eventually. A key reason why a lot of people don't believe in God is because of so much needless suffering.

 

[shawn001]

Pure logic on RF has not led anywhere. It is what it is. What is weird are atheists who think I am trying to change them. They claim there is no free will. That all is determined already and that choices won't be made, i.e. choice is an illusion. That's delusional.

As for psychological suffering, isn't that worse? People may assume hell is torture by burning, but I think that's a Roman Catholic creation. One would heal from a scorpion sting even though it looks scary. I understand that hell could be one of woe of losing one's spiritually self and thus, their identity.

Maybe I don't understand, but I think what you mean is sex. Just using people for sex doesn't lead to happiness. It's selfishness that leads to regrets. I've experienced it myself.

The fact you have a quote from Elon Musk about colonizing other planets, which you don't even understand since you think the earth is only 6000 years old, hurts society.

Enjoy the illusion of Free Will you have now because there is no free will heaven.

 

[Father Heathen]

They think evolution disproves God, but it doesn't.

Of course it doesn't disprove God. It deals with biology, not theology. Oh, and as has been repeated a thousand times; the concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

It just shows evolution isn't really science.

It employs the scientific method, so it is quite scientific.

Christians come up with aliens don't exist and we find this is true.

Not sure what you mean exactly by "aliens" or what they even have to do with the subject, but take this into consideration: there are 100-200 billion galaxies, and ours alone (The Milky Way) has an estimated hundred thousand million stars. Mathematically, it would be rather absurd for life to have only developed upon a single planet orbiting one particular star (our Sun). That's not to suggest that we've ever been "visited" by extraterrestrials.

That beauty and complexity in our world provides evidence of God.

It could also be argued that chaos and inefficiency of the universe would suggest otherwise, not that I would use that argument.

This is totally bizarre. The youtube is for general audiences and you relate it to the porn that you watch.

You are the one obsessing over torture and punishment, discussing it with smug satisfaction.

 

[Kapalika]

The original post of this thread seems like a threat. Such thinking is easily used to justify torturing people until they convert, and Christianity has been using that tactic for thousands of years.

I feel like this is an attempt to intimidate others. I don't know why this kind of thing is allowed here.

 

[james bond]

No, its not an argument, its a straw man.

Actually there are several proofs that the bible god does not or cannot exist. Just that the faithful believer will not accept them and creates all sorts of apologetics to deny that they apply to their version of god.

Ha ha. I won't say who the straw man is.

>>Actually there are several proofs that the bible god does not or cannot exist. Just that the faithful believer will not accept them and creates all sorts of apologetics to deny that they apply to their version of god.<<

LMAO.

 

[james bond]

IOW: the atheists you describe want reasonable evidence and you respond by saying that your beliefs have no evidence.

If that's the case, then there's no problem: the rational thing to do is to not accept your claim.

Nyet. We're talking about proofs. Proofs are made in mathematics. Creation science offers the best explanation and evidence. Others offer the evidence.

>>If that's the case, then there's no problem: the rational thing to do is to not accept your claim.<<

This is your choice, but you have to accept the consequences.

 

[james bond]

Interesting.
Why do you prefer pain and suffering to God arranging the stars twice?

Anywhoos...
Step 1 would be to get atheists to believe in God, if God cares about that.
Step 2 would be to get atheists to worship him and see him as saviour.

Pain and suffering could be counterproductive in that sense. But hell, if you just want blind obedience, I guess it could work, in general terms. God could inflict pain on my kids, for example, and I'd go through the motions of worship. Yay, God!

You're putting words in my mouth.

I don't think it's about getting atheists to believe in God. Does God care about that? I doubt it because he destroyed all of humankind the last time. What I care about is I don't want the US to be a communist country. What I think God cares about is who follows Jesus.

>>Pain and suffering could be counterproductive in that sense. But hell, if you just want blind obedience, I guess it could work, in general terms. God could inflict pain on my kids, for example, and I'd go through the motions of worship. Yay, God!<<

I don't mean pain and suffering in this life, but the next.

 

[james bond]

Atheism is me saying I haven't seen any furniture. Theism is saying you have, or have faith there is furniture. A specific denomination is saying that there is furniture, it was bought at IKEA, there's a coffee stain on the table, and it doesn't like gay people.

I apologize to religious people for my over-generalisation, just trying to make my point clearly.

There is furniture and one just has to show evidence in one room. If there is no furniture, then you have to examine all the rooms to be sure there is none. Believers advantage.

 

[james bond]

"A faith based on miracles is not a mature faith"? But the Bible recounts the miracles of God and Jesus and uses that as "proof" of God. And, as pointed out here, God coming to Earth as Jesus Christ to die on the cross so that sinners could be "saved" (from what?) is viewed as the greatest miracle and also considered "proof" of God's existence.

It would seem to me that, in order for faith to be real and genuine, it would have to come purely from the heart. It would have to be internal and instinctive - something that would occur even if Jesus never came to Earth, even if there was no Bible, no Christianity, no religion whatsoever. People would just naturally arrive at it through their own thoughts and contemplation, not through any "teachings" or indoctrination. What kind of "faith" is it when it has to be taught by others?



One thing that came to mind was from an episode of Star Trek TOS, "Errand of Mercy." This is where Kirk and Spock end up on a planet (Organia) in a disputed zone between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. The inhabitants of the planet are deceptively primitive, but are actually extremely powerful. At the end, they prevent a war between the Federation and Klingon Empire by making every instrument of violence radiate a temperature of 350°, thus making them useless. They couldn't even do hand to hand combat, since that would have the same effect.

That's something that God could do, if He really wanted to "prove" His existence. It would have to be something that totally violates the laws of physics as we know it, and it would have to be something that occurs planet-wide, not something that would only be seen by a handful of people in a limited area. He could also announce His presence with a loud, reverberating voice which can be heard by everyone all over the planet (each in their own native language).



Well, if there is an afterlife, then that by itself would prove the existence of God.

But it's a kind of guessing game in this life. It's not even just a matter of believing in "a god," any "god" - but it also has to be a certain specific "God" and a whole slew of other characters, along with many rules, regulations, and rituals. Even the slightest slip-up could lead to an afterlife of pain and suffering, no less than what you presume would be in store for the atheists.

If we're talking about pain and suffering in this life, then that happens to everyone eventually. A key reason why a lot of people don't believe in God is because of so much needless suffering.

>>It would seem to me that, in order for faith to be real and genuine, it would have to come purely from the heart.<<

You got it!!!

>>It would have to be internal and instinctive - something that would occur even if Jesus never came to Earth, even if there was no Bible, no Christianity, no religion whatsoever. People would just naturally arrive at it through their own thoughts and contemplation, not through any "teachings" or indoctrination. What kind of "faith" is it when it has to be taught by others? <<

Sheesh. You didn't get it.

 

[james bond]

The fact you have a quote from Elon Musk about colonizing other planets, which you don't even understand since you think the earth is only 6000 years old, hurts society.

Enjoy the illusion of Free Will you have now because there is no free will heaven.

More bizarreness. I didn't mention Elon Musk at all in my post. I understand colonization very well and support the moon as a refueling station and colonizing space stations such as in Elysium.

The earth is 6000 years old and the truth does not hurt society. In fact, I think the creation scientists should radiocarbon date objects to show that the earth is indeed within their timeline. They do it for many things already.

>>Enjoy the illusion of Free Will you have now because there is no free will heaven<<

Ha ha. One of the most ridiculous beliefs of all. Atheists are wrong again.

 

[james bond]

Of course it doesn't disprove God. It deals with biology, not theology. Oh, and as has been repeated a thousand times; the concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.


It employs the scientific method, so it is quite scientific.



Not sure what you mean exactly by "aliens" or what they even have to do with the subject, but take this into consideration: there are 100-200 billion galaxies, and ours alone (The Milky Way) has an estimated hundred thousand million stars. Mathematically, it would be rather absurd for life to have only developed upon a single planet orbiting one particular star (our Sun). That's not to suggest that we've ever been "visited" by extraterrestrials.

It could also be argued that chaos and inefficiency of the universe would suggest otherwise, not that I would use that argument.


You are the one obsessing over torture and punishment, discussing it with smug satisfaction.

Quote mining.

Ha ha. Evolution does not apply the scientific method. The scientific method disproved some of Darwin's theories.

I guess you've never heard of fine tuning cosmology. The evidence favors it than aliens or life elsewhere.

>>It could also be argued that chaos and inefficiency of the universe would suggest otherwise, not that I would use that argument.<<

Huh?

>>You are the one obsessing over torture and punishment, discussing it with smug satisfaction.<<

I'm just giving "proof" for that which is unprovable in this life. When evidence doesn't work, then give pain and suffering.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is furniture and one just has to show evidence in one room. If there is no furniture, then you have to examine all the rooms to be sure there is none. Believers advantage.

Your logic equates to 'blind faith in anything is better than belief in nothing'

That's not what world history suggests to me. Quite the opposite.

 

[Father Heathen]

Quote mining.

Wait, what? I'm "quote mining"...myself?

Ha ha. Evolution does not apply the scientific method. The scientific method disproved some of Darwin's theories.

Darwin didn't get everything 100% correct, but Origin of Species was published in 1859. You really didn't think that the study of biology and genetics hadn't advanced in the last 158 years, did you?

I guess you've never heard of fine tuning cosmology. The evidence favors it than aliens or life elsewhere.

I've heard of it. It's pretty dumb. “Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’" -Douglas Adams

I'm just giving "proof" for that which is unprovable in this life. When evidence doesn't work, then give pain and suffering.

Which is dumb and nonsensical, unless god gets off on torture to soothe his wounded ego, but then what kind of garbage god would that be?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're putting words in my mouth.

Then I apologize. I didn't mean to misrepresent you.

I don't think it's about getting atheists to believe in God. Does God care about that? I doubt it because he destroyed all of humankind the last time. What I care about is I don't want the US to be a communist country. What I think God cares about is who follows Jesus.

I'm confused. If he cares who follows Jesus, doesn't it also mean he cares who believes in God?


>>Pain and suffering could be counterproductive in that sense. But hell, if you just want blind obedience, I guess it could work, in general terms. God could inflict pain on my kids, for example, and I'd go through the motions of worship. Yay, God!<<

I don't mean pain and suffering in this life, but the next.

I know. But if the threat/promise of pain in the next life wasn't meant to impact our actions on this, he'd have needed to keep hell secret. Otherwise, Pascal's Wager kicks in, shoddy logic as I think it is.