How the hell do you deal with Jehovah’s

Shirley, a polite “thank you for taking an interest in visiting me today, however I have no interest in JW so I bid you farewell” would suffice.

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?

We don’t need any evidence that god does not exist. There is no evidence of the existence of any gods.

Al Murray disagrees:

1. 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.

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.