Bible preaching people coming to your door?

[uncleglen]

9 am on a Saturday morning- that shows a distinct lack of respect.

When the 7th Adventists (Church of the Latter Day Saints- very smart looking Americans?) applied for planning permission to open a 'church' somewhere in Blackheath they had to sign an undertaking not to door knock in the area

[Jeremy]

It bothers me. It bothers me that they try to push their absurd opinions onto other people. It bothers me that they think I might be stupid enough to be convinced by their claptrap and non-existent reasoning. And it bothers me that even though they must know they are an unwelcome annoyance, they still continue to waste people's time.

I don't believe they have good intentions, if you do something for brownie points then it's ultimately self serving.

[Sue]

At least if they come to your door you can tell them you're not interested.

I was once on a 176 and there were two of them (if memory serves) preaching at us ON THE BUS!! VERY VERY LOUDLY!!

They started off at the bus stop at the Elephant, then they got on the BLOODY BUS!! A captive audience is really unfair.

My ex used to ask them in. On one occasion it was the ones who believe that come judgment day all the dead believers will be bodily brought back to life on earth, or something.

He asked them where all these people would stand, as there wouldn't physically be enough space.

They went away and never came back :))

[DaveR]

"As it happens, the CofE incumbent is allowed into your property if you are in his/her parish.

(I could be making that up, but I have a vague memory about it.)"

I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

[KidKruger]

I don't answer the door these days I'm sorry to say, I just ask through the door who it is and say 'No' if it's not what I want or I have no time.

[uncleglen]

Only 144,000 of the believers will be saved

[Sue]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Only 144,000 of the believers will be saved

xxxxxx

What are the criteria for choosing the 144,000, then?!

Belief is a very strange thing.

Why do (some) people believe something just because somebody else tells them it's true? I've never understood this about religion.

Personal experience of God (or whatever you wish to call it) - yes, I can understand that. Belief based on no personal experience whatsoever - WHY???

[uncleglen]

Don't know about the criteria- probably something ridiculous- I have had first hand experience of the 'cult' and the adherents are zealots and divide families

[WorkingMummy]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't believe they have good intentions, if you

> do something for brownie points then it's

> ultimately self serving.

What Jeremy said.

I find the whole, "We have the secret and you do not"/"We have GOD ALMIGHTY all worked out and you do not" thing conceited and arrogant and necessarily NOT well intentioned.

JW, born again, catholic mission, doesn't matter. Don't like it. Don't see the good intention in it.

[Sue]

The trouble is, they ALL seem to SINCERELY believe a) that they and only they are right and b) that anybody who does not share their beliefs will go to hell.

It is virtually impossible to argue with them, for example some Christians I have met, who are otherwise lovely people, believe that you will go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus - even if you are born and brought up in an environment where you have no opportunity to even hear of Jesus (hence the missionaries, I suppose).

Others just cannot apparently see even very basic contradictions in the way they live their lives, eg a Christian I met who had fought in WW2 but did not seem to understand that by so doing he had broken various commandments eg "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". Or whatever they are.

And when you ask why a supposedly all-loving, all-merciful God of the "God Is Love" variety should see fit to condemn large numbers of people including young babies to eternal hell because they don't happen to have had the opportunity to take Jesus into their lives, or however they term it, they can't give any kind of reasonable answer.

[WorkingMummy]

Richard Dwarkins has a good way of thinking about the absurd, irrational ideas which Sue describes, to which reply is impossible. He refers to units of cultural or religious ideas or beliefs as "memes" (as opposed to genes). In both "The Selfish Gene" and "The Good Delusion" he expounds the idea (which I don't think he originated) that, just as competition between genes for limited resources leads to natural selection in favour of genes better adapted for survival - leading to evolution of a species - so competition operates between different religious ideas for space within the human brain/collective consciousness/culture. His hypothesis is that a meme (for example, the "Jesus Christ died to save mankind from hell" meme) which contains, as a basic building block, the idea that rejection of the meme itself will result in some horrific consequence (eternal damnation in hell) has a very large advantage in this competition. It is therefore a meme which is very well adaptated to take hold and evolve into exactly the sort of brainless dogma which is immune to argument (thereby ensuring the meme's survival).

I find this idea helpful when (trying to be genuinely well intentioned) I am dealing with the religiously obsessed people I love. (Nod, smile, and try to change the subject.)

[Sue]

Unfortunately I think Richard Dawkins has some very flawed arguments in "The God Delusion".

I found the book extremely disappointing.

Though I suppose he has some fair points about "religion", which is probably what we are discussing here. It's just he confuses arguments about "religion" with arguments about the existence of God - totally different things.

But I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss it :)) In fact I'm sure it isn't :))

There is a thread somewhere else. Lounge? But never the twain will meet, because people arguing for and against the existence of God are in my experience arguing from (?wrong word?) different paradigms, so it's a totally pointless discussion ......

As you were ....

ETA: The meme idea is interesting, but just because something is evolutionarily advantageous doesn't necessarily make it untrue! So again I think his reasoning is flawed.

[Jeremy]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The meme idea is interesting, but just

> because something is evolutionarily advantageous

> doesn't necessarily make it untrue! So again I

> think his reasoning is flawed.

I don't think he used that argument to disprove anything, just to explain how religion became so embedded in our culture.

I actually think that logical flaws in his arguments are very rare. His points are often simplistic and obvious, but I don't think it takes particularly sophisticated thinking to argue against something that doesn't have a shred of evidence.

But yes, it is hard to argue against somebody who has an unflinching belief in something, just because someone told them it's true. It's almost certainly a waste of your time. Just shutting the door is probably more effective. Or, sadly, as KK says, just don't open it at all.

[Sue]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I actually think that logical flaws in his

> arguments are very rare. His points are often

> simplistic and obvious, but I don't think it takes

> particularly sophisticated thinking to argue

> against something that doesn't have a shred of

> evidence.

xxxxxxx

I don't have the book any more because I gave it to a charity shop, but there is no way he disproves the existence of God.

But hey, Descartes didn't succeed despite two good tries, so why should Richard Dawkins?

ETA: Oh, actually it's just occurred to me that Descartes was trying to prove that God exists. Long time since I studied philosophy :))

All I recall is the ontological argument, which others disproved :))

As you were .....

ETA: Sorry I seem to have succeeded in getting this lounged. Apologies.

[StraferJack]

"but there is no way he disproves the existence of God. "

but noone can ever disprove anything that doesn't exist, surely?

If I say that I believe in A Green One Eye Flea that watches over earth and has reserved a place in an afterlife Just For Me - nobody can disprove it. But one would hope lots of people might wish to dissuade me from believing such nonsense

Disproving the existence of God isn't the goal. Explaining the delusion is

[woodrot]

A decent measured cartesian approach should accomodate reasoning that cannot prove anything at all innit.

Still, I never buy anything at the door - God, poor quality supposed Cod from scruffy mackems with dirty fingernails or overpriced dishcloths from baseball cap wearing Downhamites.

[WorkingMummy]

Richard Dwarkins does not claim to disprove the existence of God. He argues that, on the evidence available, the existence of God is extremely unlikely.

[????]

You are getting all Karl Popper on our asses

[Alan Medic]

Does everyone know what a frog is? I guess mostly so. A Frenchman isn't it? No it isn't, but someone may have thought that's what I meant.

To discuss God, unlike a frog, is very difficult as you may all be using a three lettered word to describe your concept of what that means and therefore talk at cross purposes.

As for proving his existence? Well, chances are if he/she/it is there, it's not our brain which is going to recognise him/her/it.

If there were one (a God), what would you ask him/her/it if you were granted an interview? First thing that pops in to my my mind is,who is going to win the Grand National?

Lets face it. We don't deserve a God of any description......if there was one.

[WorkingMummy]

"We are not worthy" bullshit is the worst.

But as it happens, Alan, I agree. My children do not deserve a god of any description. I'm hoping to leave them a legacy of free thought and open hearts rather than the any kind of medieval/voodoo/fairies in the garden totalitarian clap-trap.

[WorkingMummy]

To clarify: I disagree with everything you say, other than the idea that god (a theistic one at least) is an idea which human beings, especially those made vulnerable by crippling poverty and lack of education, neither need nor deserve.

[Jeremy]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To discuss God, unlike a frog, is very difficult

> as you may all be using a three lettered word to

> describe your concept of what that means and

> therefore talk at cross purposes.

But this discussion is in the context of Christianity (or particular strands of it), where the concept of "God" is pretty well defined.

If you do choose to engage in conversation with these people who insist on disturbing you in your own home, it is not unreasonable to explain politely why you don't share their beliefs. Despite the fact that it will probably be like banging your head against a wall.

> As for proving his existence? Well, chances are if

> he/she/it is there, it's not our brain which is

> going to recognise him/her/it.

Those sorts of crypticisms are probably better continued in the "is there a god?" thread!

[Sue]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those sorts of crypticisms are probably better

> continued in the "is there a god?" thread!

xxxxxxx

Yeh I gave up on that thread quite early :))

Different paradigms. You can't use logical or scientific reasoning to prove or disprove something which is outwith a paradigm based around scientific method.

I'm not even sure the words "prove" and "disprove" make any sense in the context of God.

Sorry, I'm rusty on the terminology so that all probably sounds completely wrong, but I know what I mean :))

In any case, how are we defining "God"?

Religion, however, is something else completely.

And Bible preaching people coming to your door are something else again :))

[Jeremy]

I know exactly what you mean... but I don't really agree with it!

[Alan Medic]

WorkingMummy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To clarify: I disagree with everything you say,

> other than the idea that god (a theistic one at

> least) is an idea which human beings, especially

> those made vulnerable by crippling poverty and

> lack of education, neither need nor deserve.

So which bit do you disagree with?