I guess that always sounds very reasonable.
But to someone who has found their religion, and fully believes and lives it, and particularly a religion that place great value on being in that religion (and great punishment at some point if not) then this is not a persuasive argument. They are not persuaded because their intent is to help you, even to save you. As theirs is the only valid belief so there is no value in your belief, nothing for them to hear. But for them, theirs is of great value and benefit ⊠to you. So its only right, even necessary, that they try to convince you to adopt their religion. Hence the line âI wonât if you donâtâ might not work so well.
Right
Yyou canât alter the brainwashed religious bible thumpers
Looking at the old days when missionaries went out to the four corners of the earth and brought them civilisation as well as a religion. Many countries and people have developed and benefited from those missionaries. Itâs the main reason that religions, all religions, have spread throughout the world.
You might argue that we no longer live in an uncivilised world in the UK.
And from the comfort of your centrally heated house with food in the fridge, water on demand from the tap, and an expensive car on the drive you may feel that you no longer need to believe in something.
But perhaps the world is changing and itâs time to re-learn the lessons of those missionaries.
Interesting to note that people listen and believe everything they see or read in the news, but fail to believe the lessons of the past.
I reckon we need religion (any religion) more than ever these daysâŠ
OGF
I have no objection to anyone believing in what they want to believe in. what i do object to is having others try and inflict theirs onto me.What I belive in is within myself and no one else
When was the last time, anyone other than a Christian came knocking at your door to spread the message? ![]()
See, we have turned ourselves on ourselves ![]()
Foxy knows this ![]()
My family were very religious(not me) but never tried to force their ideology on others.Some sects have to do this itâs part of their creed.I always politely dis-agree with everything they say ![]()
I wonât even get to the point of disagreement, just donât engage them in conversation at all! A polite âno thank youâ door shut - end of! ![]()
I like to show off my knowledge of the Bible.It unsettles them ![]()
They are only people trying to recruit more members into their religion because itâs a dying cause, been taken over by science.
Now put on a white smock and a pair of nerdy glasses and everyone will believe you.
ButâŠIf your religion, or lack of it, is strong enough, you should have no problems embracing them and discussing where they are going wrong.
I suspect itâs just a time issue and canât be arsed with most people.
Iâm really not sure thatâs the case anymore Foxy!
The subject of Religion is incredibly nuanced as we all know. Iâm quite happy to discuss it under certain circumstances as I am right now. However I resent having people knocking on my front door to engage me in conversation, theological or otherwise!
Iâm no stranger to The Anglican Church, it was quite an important part of my upbringing. In fact just a few years ago I was the health and safety officer for the parish through a local church.
A sobering thought! ![]()
![]()
So letâs ignore the notion that scientists wear smocks. Perhaps you meant lab coats?
Instead we might consider the notion that science and scientists are wrong. In what way? When? By whom?
And, please remember the whole ethos of scientific hypothesis & theory is to put it out to be challenged and shown to be wrong in some way so that it can be refined and improved.
Crashed, Banged and Walloped.
The Upside of Channel 4. Professional Investigative Journalism.
In a Nutshell. Virtually overnight.
âA Thousand Yearsâ of Crass Male Supremacy. Bottomed Out.
âFirst Femaleâ Archbishop Elected.
Knock Knock.
When it Needs to be Done. It Can be Done.
Amazing - history being made right there. Didnât expect to see it in my lifetime. ![]()
I didnât say they were wrong, just that people are more inclined to believe them.
I should hope so. You know, fact based, peer group validated, robustly tested. The opposite statement of âa small number are dis-inclined to accept a very few specific aspects of science but happily go along with everything else without questionâ then makes you realise that this small number are idiots.
Facts facts facts, always being re-evaluated when new data becomes available, FGS.
Yes that is exactly how science works. Thanks for explaining.
