Where I lived in my 20’s, they always seemed to send very attractive young ladies knocking on the doors. Maybe a tactic?
Well known, used to be known as 'flirty fishing'. The C of E just don't have the congregational resources to keep up with the evangelicals on that one.
The best way is undoubtedly to tell them politely to go away. You could try a bit of cult deprogramming, but it takes ages and usually they call when the football is on.
Jameso -
If you are really interested in this stuff as you seem to be may I suggest reading a bit of Kant? Critique of pure reason. Its pretty tough going and indigestible ( so maybe summaries?) Some very interesting thoughts on morals and religion. I found it both fascinating and compelling
Don't know if the following story is true but I sincerely hope it is. An old work colleague of mine was looking after his neighbours house whilst they were away. Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on his doot and he politely told them he wasn't interested and asked them to leave. They took some persuading but he persisted.
He then proceeded to leg it through his house. Snatched up the keys to the neighbours hopped over the fence, let himself in through the back door and when the Witnesses knocked on the door he quickly pulled it open and yelled "I just bloody told you to leave me be" he said the look of befuddlement on their faces was priceless.
@funkmasterp - let’s hope so 🙂
@ gobuchul - it’s the only time it’s happened to me, maybe JW’s gone rogue?
Thanks TJ. I do have it here but also found it a bit hard going, taken it on bike tours twice and struggled with it but it is intriguing. It's referenced in Zen and the Art of ..,which I re-read recently, the A Priori sense of things Vs Hume's views, and I thought I should go back to it.
The stuff about religion and morals is good IIRC.
**** me some of you guys still wanging on about this.
You sound more fanatical than the people you're bitching about.
There's shit loads of stuff that I'm not in to but I don't think I'm better or try and attack folks because they think they have found an answer to lifes problems and try and share it.
As a previous poster said.
You're all into your standing up for other peoples wrights as long as they don't knock on your door.
As Zamo said just say no. ;0)
Stu who's a fanatic? It's just a conversation. Some find this stuff interesting, sone don't, all good.
may I suggest reading a bit of Kant?
While he does refute the traditional definitions of God (ontological, metaphysical and cosmological) he also argues that time and space are mere'intuition' and that ultimately the true form of things are unknowable to humans. Are you suggesting that its OK to use the bits of his philosophy that you agree with and disregard bits that don't fit your argument? [insert winking emoji here]
@Cougar, the chances of finding unicorns on some distant hitherto unexplored planet capable of supporting life is not nil, and according to the Bible, God is the creator of all the universe.
Not accusing you @jameso.
But there's some ****ed up how dare they stuff and amounts of effort to try and piss people off stuff posted.
There’s shit loads of stuff that I’m not in to but I don’t think I’m better or try and attack folks
And yet, here you are.
the chances of finding unicorns on some distant hitherto unexplored planet capable of supporting life is not nil
Correct. It's probably likely given Big Numbers, even.
and according to the Bible, God is the creator of all the universe.
According to Marvel Comics the creator of all the universe(s) is Stan Lee. What's your point here?
I find just saying "sorry, but I'm really not interested" does the trick.
If they get any more pushy then repeating the above phrase with emphasis on the 'really' has always ended matters.
I know why they push a lot of people's buttons - that smug self-assuredness grates - but it really isn't worth going down the rabbit hole with borderline nutters.
I'm an atheist but have a pretty much live and let live approach. It's a pity a lot of folk don't. However, I do find the very concept of religion absurd and somewhat comical. I see no difference between nerds who love LotR's, comic books etc and the religious. Othe than the latter having actual influence en masse on world events.
Where I do get a tad annoyed is when religion or religious beliefs begins to impact the lives of others. The role back of Roe Vs Wade in the US for example. Religion has been used as a cover by some for this. On a much less serious level I had to have a word with my kids teachers because they were teaching Christianity as fact to my then six year old child. This was at a non-religious school and the excuse was that it is part of the curriculum. It has no place in schools until children are older in my opinion and it should be taught as 'some people choose to believe X' they should also give equal time to all religions, not just the modern major ones. I also believe it should be a choice subject. It is taking valuable time away from maths, the sciences, languages and physical education. All vastly more important and useful in my opinion.
Interesting thread, as it's morphed from how to deal with cold callers to does God exist. I think the second part has been done to death on here before. Much like views on dogs, smoking bans, or Keir Starmer there are two entrenched opposing groups, neither of whom are going to change their minds as a result of anything written on here. It can still be entertaining to watch the handbag duels though!
Cheers Stu. Was wondering if I was sounding a bit ott.
I'm gonna go and do some reading.
I know why they push a lot of people’s buttons – that smug self-assuredness grates
Really ..... that annoys some people?
Obviously they feel self-assured otherwise they wouldn't seek to share their beliefs with others. Can you imagine the conversation if they didn't......"Good evening, have you ever wondered what message in the new testament is? I have and I can't completely decide but I am hoping to convince you that it might be that....blah, blah"
I can't imagine getting annoyed because some strangers have deeply held religious convictions which I don't share. What a strange thing to get irritated about!
So long as they keep it to themselves its no issue. Trying to convert people to their cult or use their religion to interfere in my secular life then its crossed a line that I will not accept.
JW is a dangerous cult responsible for people dying.
Jameso –
If you are really interested in this stuff as you seem to be may I suggest reading a bit of Kant? Critique of pure reason. Its pretty tough going and indigestible ( so maybe summaries?) Some very interesting thoughts on morals and religion. I found it both fascinating and compelling
Kant was arguing for or trying to understand Tao in his own independent way, but I doubt he had the ability to understand Tao in his environment (he might be able to achieve that but would be extremely tough on him if he truly wanted to understand Tao that way)
https://cah.ucf.edu/fpr/article/kants-thing-in-itself-or-the-tao-of-ko%CC%88nigsberg/
P/s: I don't know the author but my instant reaction is Kant or Western thinking is still struggling with Tao.
I answerwith a polite, "No thanks, but take care: they still eat missionaries raw on the other side of the road."
That usually does it.
so I bid you farewell
Tony Hancock style! I love it!
I can’t imagine getting annoyed because some strangers have deeply held religious convictions which I don’t share. What a strange thing to get irritated about!
It's not just religion - it can be anything. I imagine you'd get irritated in a conversation with Liz Truss, for example.
That woman could sound and project self-assuredness at anything - if it was in her interests to do so. I'd defy you not to be exasperated by her.
There's self-assuredness that makes itself evident quietly by talking with people who really know what they're on about - which is inspiring.
There's self-assuredness that either comes from bulletproof self-regard or a need to project it to others for reasons of ego - that's the irritating type and religious proselytising lends itself to it.
You may disagree. 😉
What’s your point here?
That pointing out that unicorns don't exist isn't as strong an argument for the non-existance of God that you think it is.
Also; bad religion, or badly written religious text or arguments about which God is the real one or indeed humans not obeying religious texts aren't good evidence that (a) God doesn't exist
We don't need any evidence that god does not exist. There is no evidence of the existence of any gods. Thus can safely conclude there are none
You may disagree. 😉
Well you seem so self-assured I'm not that I should 😉
You give the example the example of Liz Truss and defy me not to be exasperated by her, of course I am not exasperated by her - I couldn't give a monkeys what she believes, although I suspect her father does, poor geezer.
As far as I am concerned Liz Truss is wrong, obviously wrong imo, and her misplaced smugness doesn't come into it. She can be as smug as she wants for all I care, it won't irritate me. Why would it?
Edit: What might irritate me a tad though is someone trying to convince me of something which they haven't managed to totally convince themselves of. My attitude might be "are they taking the piss?"
I see no difference between nerds who love LotR’s, comic books etc and the religious.
Yep. Only last week the Riders of the Rohirrim dragged me out of bed to ask me if I'd heard the good news about Gandalf.
That pointing out that unicorns don’t exist isn’t as strong an argument for the non-existance of God that you think it is.
Who said unicorns don't exist? You've made that up, I have no way of knowing.
I'm with funkmasterp about religion being a choice and that school's shouldn't push one without presenting others equally and without bias.
I think it still has a place in learning as it explains how elements of the world around us acts as it does. Whether you like it or not, there are thousands of years of behavioural manipulation.
Ignorance of religions is as dangerous as the poor application of religion.
While he does refute the traditional definitions of God (ontological, metaphysical and cosmological) he also argues that time and space are mere’intuition’ and that ultimately the true form of things are unknowable to humans.
Science also accepts that we don't know everything (and probably never will) but does that lead to the conclusion that "it's God's work" and that this God has to be worshipped?
- I always say that a person's religious beliefs are a very personal matter and not something to be sold door to door like double glazing. Goodbye
Obviously they feel self-assured otherwise they wouldn’t seek to share their beliefs with others.
This is not necessarily because they are spontaneously self-assured about their beliefs, but because a integral part and expected practice of members is doorstep evangelism, and they receive organised training on how to conduct such conversations. I believe local societies of worshippers are (or were) expected to report on the number of hours members spent on this.
Yep. Only last week the Riders of the Rohirrim dragged me out of bed to ask me if I’d heard the good news about Gandalf.
Apparently Gondor was calling for aid. But you wouldn't answer.
Okay so it isn't necessarily 'spontaneous' this self-assuredness. I was commenting on the fact that they need need to feel self-assured if they are going share their beliefs with others, not how they became self-assured.
As someone has mentioned ^upthread, and i'm not sure whether it's been discussed much since so apologies if it has, it's useful to consider the role that evangelism plays in minority/cult religions.
The purpose, at a higher level, is not really to convert, in fact the expectation is rejection - being sent out into a cold and unreceptive world contrasts with the warm acceptance received when you return to the 'chosen' fold. The rejection is the point, and animosity makes the homecoming warmer.
The more hostile you are, the more you play your part in the game.
I'd love to see some figures on how many people become religious who's family weren't religious. Not swapping religions but going from atheist to theist. I'd then love to hear from some of them as to their rationale for doing so. I'd wager that most religious people are from a religious background.
It's non-zero. I know a few people who have found $religion in adulthood.
I would concur though that it's likely a relative minority. I said this a couple of pages back, successful religions have persistence baked-in, be that the carrot or the stick or both. The best way to perpetuate a faith isn't conversion, it's breeding.
I know of a family where the parents were atheists, the two daughters have become religious one very much so being a lay preacher and her religion ruling her life. this woman is also very smart with a first from Cambridge in hard science. Utterly weird. However she keeps it fairly private. She is one to offer "thoughts and prayers" when folk have troubles in their life but was sensitive and smart enough NOT to do that to me as she knew I would find it highly offensive
But yes - its mainly childhood indoctrination that leads folk to religion
There is no evidence of the existence of any gods. Thus can safely conclude there are none
I think that Stephen Hawking lost a bet about the discovery of black holes didn't he? Up until relatively recently while they accepted that in theory they exist, humans wouldn't be able to ever discover them. Just because we haven't found any evidence of (a) deity doesn't mean they don't exist. We still don't know what the larger proportion of the visible universe is even made of. Saying there isn't a god because we haven't discovered one is scientifically illiterate. The only conclusion is 'It seems unlikely' but that's as definitive as you can get.
but does that lead to the conclusion that “it’s God’s work” and that this God has to be worshipped?
Not to Kant's thinking no. It just says there are things we don't know, and that science (the 18thC version at least) can't explain. Plus also, the concepts of God and Religion are separate things. Religion is a man made construct, worship, morals etc all these things are all man-made. They don't have any bearing on whether Gods exist or not.
The scientific theory of god is a really bad theory though isn’t it?
I’d love to see some figures on how many people become religious who’s family weren’t religious. Not swapping religions but going from atheist to theist.
A lot of my Christian friends are people who found their faith either in late teens or adulthood (not necessarily early adulthood). With the adults it was often through their partner rather than someone knocking on their door. None of these people are people who I would call indoctrinated, easily led or with some other issues in their lives that drove them in that direction.
The scientific theory of god is a really bad theory though isn’t it?
You can only ever apply the same level of disbelief that you'd give any other untested proposition. Any further certainty is bogus.
Philosophical skeptics like Kant will argue against the existence, but even they will finally admit that you can't ever know for certain. The only things that are certain (according to them) are pure maths and formal logic. Everything else is ultimately unknowable: Are leaves green? As a collective; humans can agree that they are indeed green, but we can't ever know if that's actual reality, or a construct derived from the nature of being a human
leaves aren’t green , they reflect green light, or the wavelength of light that we agree to call “green” . We could call it “verbusten” or what ever, it would still be the same wavelength of light. The wavelength is not subjective it is measurable.
is the theory of god useful?
what predictions does it make? Are they testable? Or falsifiable? What experiments can be conducted?
what questions does it successfully answer?
is there a need for a theory of god?
where is the evidence that supports the theory of god?
So once again - if a god can exist without any evidence then so can unicorns, fairies and dragons.
Belief in something without evidence is faith. Its not logic or science.
The whole concept of God is based on faith. Its illogical and irrational
the concept of a god is not an untested proposition. Its been tested and found to be false.
