Atheist: Do you know that “converting” a Christian who has seen definitive proof of God is hopeless?

Question

Now I know that some will say, “it is impossible for there to be definitive *universal* proof of God”.

But, what if God were to definitively prove His existence to YOU personally, via Direct Revelation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Revelation

You would be forced to conclude that either:
1) You have gone insane and psychotic and are having visual and auditory hallucinations.
2) You submit to the truth that God DOES exist. However, you would have to swallow the fact that you would not and could not prove this to anybody else. Your testimony of this “proof” would be deemed hearsay or a delusion.

Furthermore, there is the Biblical concept that puts people in a Catch-22: Jesus said, “IF you would believe, THEN you would see.” While others would constantly say to you, “IF I would see, THEN I would believe – so prove it!”
...and because of this Catch-22, God does not “prove” Himself while non-believers are around.

-
Others might think you are insane and psychotic, but you cannot deny what you have seen and heard.
And NO amount of debate or reasoning or logic could ever persuade you otherwise.
Instead, you’d simply either “not worry about the debates” or “find the best flaws in the debates that you could in order to help others”

So atheists, many Christians are not taking your debates seriously, but instead just give poorly thought out answers, continue with misinformation, or just saying foolish things and shaking their heads. You end up calling them “brainwashed”, and they end up shaking the dust from their feet and give up on you.

But regardless, do you see how it is hopeless to “convert” a Christian who HAS encountered the Lord?
And do you see the conundrum they are in...and the Catch-22 you are in?

Answer 1

Who ever said that atheists had any goal of 'converting' anyone?

Secondly, I understand the premise that you must first believe in God in order to see 'proof' however this Catch-22 is such a self contradictory statement. Please read this question below that I have asked about that very statement:

*So the reason that I cannot believe in God is because I have not already blindly accepted Him as a fact?

I received the following answer to a question I asked about human reason as a basis for the beliefs of creationists:

The reason you cannot understand God's Creation is that you do not have His holy Spirit....when you receive His Spirit it will all make sense:

" For the natural man receives NOT the things of the Spirirt of God , for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned" - I Corin. 2:14

So if I am understanding this correctly, I have to blindly believe in God and search for proof to support that blind belief in order to discover said 'proof'?

Isn't that the same as seeing only what you want to see or hearing only what you want to hear?*

Here is a link to the question for more comments on the subject:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj9f6lY8PcL0hKXatZ.TXszty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070924081245AAvQGTg

Answer 2

first: You assume that those who are under the influence of delusions must be psychotic or insane. (This is also the linchpin of the Lord, liar, lunatic argument.) That is not the case. If you have a very strong experience and have been conditioned to believe that it means a certain thing, you will tend to believe it. Example: A child that is continually abused and told that they are stupid will believe it well into their later life, possibly forever. They are not stupid, nor are they insane. They have just incorrectly linked their experiences with a taught notion.

Second: There are many who follow the religion of their friends or families because they feel pressured to do so. They have had no profound experience "with God" and have deep questions that need answering.

So I think that it is worth keeping up the debate because they sure as heck are trying to convert us.

Answer 3

For a definitive answer = "Wait". The time will come when the "exam papers" are graded.

Each of us can never completely understand what other people have gone through and we cannot expect other people to fully understand what we have gone through. It's all about personal experiences and encounters.

If you have a relationship with God, thank and praise Him for it. If you don't, perhaps someday you will encounter Him. God has no "sales targets" for the number of believers and apparently He does not need to "advertise" Himself with "definite and concrete proofs". >> I am sure no one likes to visit a website that has pop-up ads and banners even if the ads are relevant, right?

"If anyone is thirsty, let him go and get his drink from the Lord."

Answer 4

Not an atheist, but if God did appear to me, I would conclude that I had a mental problem, was hallucinating, or dreaming.

That said, the Catch-22 idea you propose is the same kind of thing presented by various cults running around, in other words, believe in Heaven's Gate and you will see Heaven's Gate (sound familiar?).

Answer 5

If God wished to demonstrate his existence to me, he'd find me an easy customer. One good solid piece of evidence and I'm hooked, I assure you.

The hallucination aspect should be fairly easy to deal with: I've experienced chemically-induced hallucinations many times, and I know what they're about. I doubt he would find it heavier going than would any ordinary mortal to convince me of his existence.

The fact that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is no such entity won't influence my judgement unduly. Accepting fact on the basis of evidence is not a matter of being stubborn.

Will *you* appreciate that the little catch-22 story - of how he sadly can't prove it because there's something especially virtuous about accepting without evidence - is actually JUST the sort of cop-out humans would invent to explain away their imaginary friend's odd shyness. Bit convenient, what?

CD

Answer 6

Impossible n'est pas Francais.
It's always possible to convert somebody, regardless of any revelation. Even if God came down from heaven and talked to the person, did some impossible things, and left something behind so they they knew it couldn't possibly be a hallucination.. like an intricate trinket they never owned before.
It is still possible. You can convince the person that it was a hallucination, that they forgot they previously owned that trinket due to stress, and must accept the reality of the fact that there is no God by showing them the enormous lack of evidence. Derren Brown is a good example of how you can do things like that.

Answer 7

Hmm. You've got it all figured out. Us stupid Christians would live better lives if we just listened to more people like you. DUH!!!

1) if God is gonna prove His existance to anyone only He know how you are going to react even before He reveals anything. I know people who've actually HAD these experiences.

2) If it was meant to be shown and told to others for them to believe God paves the way. I've seen it happen.

3) Why would saints be cannonized by the churches if lots of people didn't believe them??

4) The devil's got a clever little veil over a lot of people in this world to have them get deluded by lots of things. It's up to your faith in God to see through it.

Answer 8

I have no wish whatsoever to convert a religionist. But I do like to question their authoritaaah.

You are maybe arguing from your own evangelical perspective which makes you think everyone wants to convert others.

As for sanity? What are your definitions of delusional?

http://www.definedelusions.net/properties.html


One thing is sure, you just wrote:

"NO amount of debate or reasoning or logic could ever persuade you otherwise."

I see. That's the difference between you and me. If someone told me (for instance) that a flu jab only works because of the study of the evolution of a virus, I would listen to the logic and reason and evidence behind such a claim. I WOULD also listen to claims that the flu jab is either proof of their Christian 'God' or the work of the 'devil' and that there is no evolution. I might not agree, but I will consider the evidence and make my decisions based upon that.

Yes, we have a different way of thinking. I am open to debate, reasoning and logic, even if it goes against my beliefs. You are not.

So yes, I see your catch 22, but not mine, because I don't wish to convert you.

Answer 9

Wouldn't that be un-converting since atheism is the neutral middle ground? Atheism as the word literally means is just being without theism.

I actually couldn't care less what you believe. I don't say that with a drop of animosity or anger. It simply doesn't matter to me what you believe as long as you don't try to convert me.

Actually if a infinitely intelligent and powerful being existed then wouldn't he know with absolute certainty what would convince me so #1 is a fallacy?

#2 is fine with me and in fact is fine with most atheists. It's what most atheists are saying. Only god could provide proof of god. Not you or any human from any religion on Earth. What do you think extreme claims require extreme evidence means?

In fact atheists are displaying more trust in god than christians. Atheists are the only people rejecting the claims by humans to know what god wants. They reject the numerous conflicting contradicting religions of the world. They're not rejecting god they're rejecting you.


Lastly I would ask one thing though. Do you follow the golden rule? If you do then when you attempt to convert people to christianity aren't you inviting others to "do unto you" and attempt to convert you?

Answer 10

there's a gaggle of logical fallacies contained in the 1st set of premises. at the start contained in the thought that our existence will matter on the existence of an undefined god (statements a million and a pair of). besides, whether you probably did have faith in a writer god, you would be forced to end that he existed earlier turning out to be us, subsequently discounting statements 3 and four. If it extremely is "the coolest judgment of a Christian", it is not very surprising i'm afraid. returned to the drafting board with you!