My wife has a masters in Theology. She was brought up in a staunchly Christian family until her mother died when my wife was 14. She was fostered by Quakers and is now an atheist like myself.
She's previously invited Jehovah's witnesses in for a chat. Strangely we don't get visits any more. I suspect we're on 'the list' ?
The whole concept of God is based on faith. Its illogical and irrational
So politely tell them that you are not interested. It is just as effective IME as being rude and so much more pleasant.
Plus it has the added bonus of not pushing up your blood pressure. It's a win for everyone.
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
Science needs positives not double negatives to draw conclusions. Your position is based on belief (ironically).
Actually its not. Its based on rationality and logic not faith. Faith is believing in something without evidence. What I am doing is stating I only believe something that there is evidence for. A completely opposite position
What Scotroutes said, no need to be rude whatever your opinions are.
If god exists (assuming the Jewish/Christian/Muslim one is the main dude), and he created the whole world, why was he only originally followed by a small part of the population in the Middle East? Seems unfair that other parts of the world missed out in the benefits of that religion.
How did Christianity spread to Africa, the Americas?
Black holes were predicted as a consequence of general relativity. They are a prediction of a scientific theory. Also gravitational waves. The fact that both have been verified is a vindication of Einstein and GR.
The GPS system would not work without GR (no Strava!).
the theory of god is the end of knowledge. With it we’re stuck with, hurricanes, yeah god did that, earthquakes, yeah god did that, cholera, yeah god did that.
If god exists.......
Sounds like you would benefit from a little chat with the Jehovah's Witnesses
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.
I'm not sure that's an equivalent arguement. Black holes were predicted as a logical extension of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and their existence has since been proven by observation. The reason Hawking conceded the bet was related to the nature of information that emits (or doesn't...) from black holes, not whether or not they could ever be detected.
There isn't a mathematical/astrophysical/etc. theory that predicts the existence of a deity.
They still haven't found a roofer that will complete Stonehenge.
I'll become a believer when that happens 😉
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.
So perfectly scientifically literate then. No scientific theory is ever one hundred percent but for convenience there are several theories which are treated as true or false. For example if really pushed I would say there is a chance of intelligent design being true but thats so small I would default to saying it is false.
This also only applies to a deism style god vs the interventionist god which most people loudly announcing that atheists cant be sure believe in.
What dissonance says - you cannot test every possible hypothesis either nor can you prove a negative
However in the absence of any evidence for a gods existence and the large amount of evidence against then its perfectly OK to say " no god exists" rather than " the odds of a god existing are so mathematically small that it approaches zero"
Do you believe in fairies, dragons and the flying spaghetti monster? same amount of credibility as a gods existance. Same amount of evidence,
Do you believe in fairies, dragons and the flying spaghetti monster? same amount of credibility as a gods existance. Same amount of evidence,
Do you really think you'll convert anyone with such a childish comparison? Incredibly rude.
Why is it rude? These things all have the same amount of evidence for them - zero. Thats a simple fact.
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.
They do need confidence, but it is the same kind of confidence that can be trained into any door to door salesman. And this is what they do, albeit over a longer period. I'm sure some salesmen truly believe that the product they are hawking is top-notch, but equally I'm sure that plenty suspect they are pushing junk.
Do you really think you’ll convert anyone with such a childish comparison? Incredibly rude.
I don't think TJ is trying to 'convert' anyone. I also don't see anything childish or rude in what he wrote. It's factually correct. Could you explain why you think it's rude?
On the face of it, it's straightforwardly true, I suppose it depends to what extent we should be sensitive to folk whose entire identity is wrapped up in whatever belief system we're currently dismissing.
And to what extent those beliefs have been historically allowed to impinge on the freedoms of the rest of us. Personally, I've not noticed followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster outlawing gay relationships, for example, or exerting undue control over female reproductive health. Which both seem somewhat 'rude' to me.
So, overall, I'm pretty sure that individual followers of various faiths still get a decent amount of deference and courtesy, even if their belief systems are, in many ways, a stain on history.
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
By that logic planets outside the solar system sprang into existence in 1988. I don't doubt your findings but your logic and reasoning is a bit poor
There is a huge difference between being decent to folk as individuals and respecting them and their faith because of what it means to them which I unfailingly do and criticizing the organisations and using logic to pick apart the fallacies they have in their creed
Its is a bit of a childish argument I made - because of its very simplicity. I could have made that argument when I was 12
Theists can also be very rude and not even realise it
I have been told I am a lessor being for not having faith
I have been told I can have no morals without faith
Its is a bit of a childish argument I made – because of its very simplicity. I could have made that argument when I was 12
But one that still holds up, whatever age you are. I agree with you TJ (I won't make a habit of it 😉 You can/should be polite and respectful of strongly held views you don't agree with, if they clearly mean a great deal to someone. Acknowledge the beliefs, but don't offer your opinions unless asked. But if you are asked what you think, you should be honest. Or if you are discussing them on a forum with a range of views. I can't imagine anyone would expect contributors to show deference to any particular belief system on STW? Discuss it? Defend it? Challenge it? Yes to all those. Show deference to it? Nope.
Theists can also be very rude and not even realise it
I have been told I am a lessor being for not having faith
I have been told I can have no morals without faith
What has their behaviour got to do with your behaviour?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Judge not lest ye be judged?
🙂
What has their behaviour got to do with your behaviour?
Unless you're some kind of automaton, the way you interact with another human irl is very much influenced by their behaviour towards you.
Its actually a fair point from Ernie - but I do not treat individuals badly or put them down. Indeed all thru my career because of my dislike of religion I made sure that I was more than fair - as before taking folk in my care to their place of worship in my own time, fighting for them to have futile treatment because their religion needed it etc etc
~Edit - when those two statements were made in the workplace by folk junior to me I just walked away silently. I could have created a huge fuss but I knew that tho those statements were highly offensive that offense was not meant. Both made by nuns whose life experience was very limited and who had been indoctrinated for decades
Unless you’re some kind of automaton
Or you make a point of going beyond knee jerk reactions and don't allow others to dictate your own behaviour.
By that logic planets outside the solar system sprang into existence in 1988.
Well before then by studying and understanding our own solar system there would be considerable evidence that similar systems would exist around other stars in our galaxy and by extension around stars in other galaxies.
Im guessing you are more of a new testament " turn the other cheek" sort of guy Ernie rather than and old testament " and eye for an eye"
🙂
I understand what you are saying Ernie and I agree with it in principle. I am just saying that in reality, it can be hard not to be influenced by someone else's behaviour towards you (positive or negative) in a ftf interaction. That's not to say I will respond in kind if they are rude or confrontational, but I am going to politely draw it to a swift conclusion rather than engaging in conversation which I might otherwise do if they were more reasonable.
On the other hand, if they are polite and engaging, I am far more likely to chat or discuss stuff, even if they hold views I disagree with. To be fair, most JWs fall into the latter category.
I know that one of your favourite sayings TJ is an eye for an eye makes us blind so I know that you understand my point.
Just because someone else behaves in a certain manner doesn't necessarily justify your behaviour.
On the issue of Jehovah's Witnesses maybe I have been extremely lucky but IME exchanges have always been extraordinarily polite and finalised without anyone getting upset about anything.
leaves aren’t green , they reflect green light, or the wavelength of light that we agree to call “green”.
Isn't it more that they absorb light which isn't 'green'? (Is that a different concept? I'm not sure.)
How did Christianity spread to Africa, the Americas?
Missionaries, and not always very nice ones.
By that logic planets outside the solar system sprang into existence in 1988.
We know that we orbit a star, along with other planets. We know there are billions upon billions of other stars in the sky. It would be beyond stupid to assume that we were the only solar system in the universe, even if the likelihood was vanishingly low there would still be shitloads because Big Numbers. Life on other planets is pretty much a certainty, but it will be a really long way away.
Just because we haven’t found any evidence of (a) deity doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Doesn't mean they do either. Grasp those straws, grasp them!
We still don’t know what the larger proportion of the visible universe is even made of.
Don't we?
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.
Saying there isn’t a god because we haven’t discovered one and have little reason to think there is beyond conjecture is a pretty sound scientific theory which, of course, would be revised in light of any new evidence. (Unlike any religion you care to think of.)
How are you getting on with my unicorns?
The point is that the wavelength of light isn’t subjective, just the description.
We still don’t know what the larger proportion of the visible universe is even made of.
Don’t we?
I'm guessing that refers to dark matter (although I might be wrong as that is of course not visible)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Saying there isn’t a god because we haven’t discovered one is scientifically illiterate.
No it isn't. Scientists spend their time looking for things that they suspect may exist.
Countdown....To Thread Close Down.
10, 9, 8..... Forum will self destruction in....
'Can we have a god thread?'
‘Can we have a god thread?’
There is nothing stopping you starting one. There have been a few before. I'd be surprised if anything new comes out of it or if any minds are changed one way or the other.
Ha, no was just a reference to the dog thread and those topics that always go sideways.
Was my first participation in a religion thread actually. 4/5, would do again (after a bit more reading)
No it isn’t. Scientists spend their time looking for things that they suspect may exist.
This is a fair point. People have searched using tools recognised as scientific for existence of many things from the important (Higgs boson) to the frivolous (Loch Ness Monster). If an almighty force actually existed, proving so with scientific certainty would be just about the most important find of all time. I mean, if you were a JW it would be a shit ton more persuasive in bringing the rest of us round to their way of thinking than knocking on doors on the off chance of being invited in for a cuppa. YOU might not need the scientific proof to believe, but if you were put on earth to convert others what better way to do it?
Weirdly, the world is not awash with scientific bodies carrying out research studies on the matter. I'm struggling to work out why........
It's akin to the flat earthers who, for some reason, don't take the simple step of travelling to the ice wall at the end of the map and bring back some photos. That would end the debate once and for all.
I never see these threads as one side trying to convert the other. They're normally quite interesting and a good old debate. This is the first one I've been in where it has taken a turn from religion itself to an Is there a higher power debate.
Sorry if this offends any of a religious persuasion but, it is patently obvious that all religions are man made. They borrow concepts from each other, have similar frameworks and bigger plotholes than Star Wars films. As for some sort of higher power/powerful being. That's a whole other kettle of fish in my opinion. Is it possible, well yeah, pretty much anything is. Is it probable, with what we currently know, I would have to say no. I'll revisit my opinion should any evidence come to light.
My opinion:
Religion was originally an attempt at explaining a complex world. As society became more complex some men realised it was a good way of gathering wealth and power and control over women and that is how its been used since. In much of europe most folk have seen through it and its very much a minority who believe tho its still used as a control method in some countries including the US
In much of europe most folk have seen through it and its very much a minority who believe
Atheists are not a majority in Europe.
