You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
To return to the question, when I lived in Nottingham we got visited a lot - our neighbourhood must have been the training ground or something.
At the same time my mum was the Clerk of the Nottingham Society of Friends (Quakers). This info was enough to get us off the list, admittedly I forgot to tell them that mum didn't live there and we are agnostic.
I welcome ALL religions to have a chat with me. No problem whatsoever provided I am free and Not in the morning.
Just last week I had Harvest Church people knocked on my door to give me a booklet which I accepted, the person was friendly and I think I was the only person that answered the door that morning. The person was polite etc.
As far as I am concerned, there are good and bad apples in all areas of society regardless; and In religion, just as in the society, you get corruption of thoughts or teachings etc.
IMO, it is pointless trying to save humanity because the nature of things will deal with them accordingly. There is not a single religion that try to save the whole humanity because that is not how things work (as far as I know and if they really understand their own teachings). No one religion should force others to join or to convert because if they understand their own teachings they would know that it is a sin to force (all religions). However, as in any form of corruption, the people who perceive themselves as the "chosen" ones (notice the similarity with all political leaders past and present?) will see themselves as the rightful person to exercise "control" over others using whatever form there is. Religions to those who are corrupted are merely a vehicle to achieve their own aims. They have no clue of the real teachings.
If you ask me (my own views) what would I do with humanity? I would say let them burn. Burn! (my view is "inline" with more religious teaching on this matter - go check yourself) The logic is very simple, it is not their time to be saved yet. i.e. let the nature takes it course. Staying truthful to the right teaching will be enough for the individual self.
As for political thoughts, now that is a "god" walking. This comes to my mind "In the name of saving the environment etc let me dictate to you the way of your life. Thou shall Not smoke anyway near me coz you are forcing the smoke onto my lungs etc because I want to live forever. (they then set up rules to punish in the name of democracy)" Yeah right. LOL!
@Jameso, good points.
If you just ask them to remove your address from their list they won't call again. I've done that at all my previous addresses, they once turned up by mistake and when I said I'd already been asked to be taken off they couldn't apologise enough 🙂
I'm polite with Jehovah's but I have much less patience with doorstep cold callers!
I'm descendant of one JW parent and one staunch atheist parent with both sides equally as intolerant and tedious as the other (as symbolised here, predictably). It was exactly as much fun to grow up around as it sounds.
Charity tin rattlers, SKY sales people in shopping centres, Oxfam street muggers, cold-callers and religious door-steppers. They're all just doing their thing. It's not my thing. It takes no real manners at all to politely say "no thanks" and continue on with your day.
Some right fanciful bollocks spouted on here at times, goodness me.
My old neighbours when I lived in Melbourne got arrested for inviting them in and giving them tea and hash cookies.
I just close the door and say bye.
I’ve just remembered one encounter from when I was about 12 (ish).
They insisted I take some leaflets.
Me: “Er, thanks. Bye” and went to close the door.
JW: “Oi, we want a donation for the leaflets”
Me: “Oh sorry, have them back”
JW: “No, we want you to have them”
After going round this loop a few times I put the leaflets on the doorstep and slowly shut the door.
I don’t think either side had a clue what was going on!
It is often complicated by the fact that they have a low tolerance threshold towards people with different views to their own, and which they struggle to accept.
I put it down to the lack of a Christian upbringing.
Whenever I have met JW's, I find they have a really strange cold friendliness, it is very artificial but not necessarily acting for the benefit others but like they are trying to will themselves to be positive and cheerful, but there is no substance behind it.
At the risk of repeating myself, doubt does not require faith. The notion that I don’t have a unicorn infestation in my cellar is not dependent on a belief system.
And the crux of the concept of god is that we can't open the cellar door to prove it either way, it was canny marketing when it came up first.
To me some doubt in atheism is there because my uncertainty over what it actually is to reject belief in, so I have to accept a possibility. Personally I would need faith/confidence/trust to take a position of certainty on the rejection.
That's all said recognising how saying 'it can't be defined / is hard for me to define' makes the position weak and it isn't meant as a defence tactic - it really is IDK so despite inclination to not believe I can't quite agree that it can or can't be so. Close to 'weak atheism' I think rather than agnostic views. Which is why the JWs would get a thanks but you'd be wasting your time on me, having said that welcome for a cuppa and a chat if you like type of response. Perhaps that comes from thinking the more different to me someone is the more interesting a conversation might be, more than anything about religion itself. I'd prob bore them and they wouldn't come back : )
Firmly. Respectfully. Adding if they return that you will then report them for harassment which it will be.
To me some doubt in atheism is there because my uncertainty over what it actually is to reject belief in, so I have to accept a possibility.
Do you accept the possibility of my unicorns?
If you need to compile a list of things to not believe in before you can reject those beliefs, it's amazing you find time to do anything else.
It is often complicated by the fact that they have a low tolerance threshold towards people with different views to their own, and which they struggle to accept.
I put it down to the lack of a Christian upbringing.
If those two digs are aimed at me:
1) I went to church schools
2) I respect individuals of all sorts. I have no time for organised religion.
I have fought for religious folk to have futile treatment because thats what they wanted guided by their religion. I have taken religious folk to their place of worship in my own time because it was a comfort to them. Thats respect for individuals and their beliefs.
I have seen first hand the great harm organised religions do to people. I have seen first hand the despicable tactics and lies organised religion uses to try to impose their world view on the secular. Thats why I have no time at all for organised religion
As regards the JWs - they have crossed that line when they bother me in my own home. Its completely unacceptable and they were rude first by waking me up when I was sleeping for a night shift. "an eye for an eye" "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" " judge not lest ye be judged"
I'm being absurd of course, but it's with reason.
There is a line of thought amongst some people of faith which cannot accept unbelief, and it is both insidious and offensive. Kids of Catholic parents aren't atheists, they're Lapsed Catholics. "There are no atheists in foxholes." Bullshit.
There is an implication that faith is the default position and those who don't believe have stayed from the flock, lost their way. Again, this is a lie. No-one is born believing in a god or gods, it's given to them by their parents. Non-belief is the default state, belief is learned behaviour. I have no more rejected belief in god than I have rejected belief in the tooth fairy or my unicorns because there is nothing to reject. Arguing differently is just going "yes, but you still believe just a little bit, don't you?"
Trying to convince someone of faith they’re wrong or trying to ‘outsmart’ them is pointless and comes from ego – atheism takes a level of faith just like religious belief does. There is no evidence for or against any religion, it’s purely a matter of faith. We don’t fully understand the universe or our own brains.
This is patently incorrect. Whilst there is no objective evidence for the actual existence of an actual god (or gods), there is ample evidence to show what we are and why we're here, and to debunk the ridiculous creeds that are spouted out.
Atheism is quite simply saying that there is no evidence of any God's existence and that science has most of the evidence based answers we might require if we're prepared to engage
Do you accept the possibility of my unicorns?
If you need to compile a list of things to not believe in before you can reject those beliefs, it’s amazing you find time to do anything else.
oc you don't need to list those things, fantasy stuff, all one group. Is god in that group, yes for some.
The unicorns in your cellar? Open the door and we know they aren't there. A god, well not in your cellar but if it could be something that exists in a space we can't observe we can't know. So unicorns could exist in the space where god could exist and god may be a unicorn. Which is absurd oc. But it's not so absurd to accept there are places and spaces we can't observe that may have influence on us, areas of our own minds for example where psychedelics or meditation might unlock them. What unlocks a mind to the presence of god, could that even happen? idk.
My uncertainty as to what atheism actually rejects is from accepting my own lack of awareness or understanding here. 'I don't know' and 'I wonder?' suits me ok sometimes, I don't need to 'know'. Clearly there's greater likelihood a god doesn't exist as there's no positive proof but there can be things that might be attributed to it as possible evidence. Unlikely, but not a certainty. I'd concede that's a loose definition or vague and vagueness isn't a tactic here, just how it is.
Could you accept that someone can't say with certainty that something that isn't understood or clearly defined exists or not?
The unicorns in your cellar? Open the door and we know they aren’t there.
They're invisible, obviously.
I have no more rejected belief in god than I have rejected belief in the tooth fairy or my unicorns because there is nothing to reject. Arguing differently is just going “yes, but you still believe just a little bit, don’t you?”
Not from me anyway fwiw, I'm just drawn to convos where povs test my own ideas.
I can see how people feel joy at nature or life and feel thankful and that can become a thought of what to thank and a thought of god, which as you say is a learned concept. They may as well attribute it to unicorns. I might feel the same way with a thought of something higher but it's not thinking of God. Or whatever it's called, god, unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster, only society and history make one the more accepted expression of 'the thing' that some feel (the Tao seems closer to it, to me). I suppose it's getting into metaphysical thoughts about where our humanity comes from - and that's way out my intellectual depth - rather than pure logic that would say it's an open and shut case or very simply no evidence to submit.
@oldnick - I have never heard of JW asking for money.
I just take their leaflet, say thanks and shut the door. Put the leaflet in recycling.
Where I lived in my 20's, they always seemed to send very attractive young ladies knocking on the doors. Maybe a tactic?
There's a lot of ex-JW's who call it out as cult and how controlling it is.
@funkrodent I certainly wouldn't say it takes the same level of faith, but since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, perhaps it's not 100% for atheism so I see it as a position that takes some faith. But logically it's same for unicorns, granted and why it's about a concept and cause/effect more than the name.
there is ample evidence to show what we are and why we’re here, and to debunk the ridiculous creeds that are spouted out.
Certainly. I'm only saying there's a lot of difference between for ex the written words like the old testament taken literally, and the concept of 'god' as a way to talk about influence on aspects of human nature, spiritualism or thought.
...I'm off the bike by Drs orders and 5 weeks in, this is what I'm doing on a Saturday aft : )
…I’m off the bike by Drs orders and 5 weeks in, this is what I’m doing on a Saturday aft : )
You know the Vuelta's on?
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.
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.