As you might imagine, I don't believe that it causes people to act in a positive manner.
But if I grant that it does (maybe there is a situation I'm not familiar with) I still have a problem with someone doing something for a bad reason. For instance, I'm sure there are atheists out there who proclaim atheism because they had some tragedy occur and got mad at god. This is a bad reason to be an atheist, and I would almost prefer that they were still believers.
So if a person does charitable work because they think they will be rewarded in the afterlife, I'm glad they are doing something, and will go so far as to call it a positive effect of their belief, but I would prefer they did it for reasons I didn't perceive as nonsense, if only because there would be a firmer basis for their actions.
So what I'm reading here is that you would agree that if it had a positive affect, you would not complain about it -- although you would prefer that positive affect to have happened without the catalyst of religion.
Sure, that's fine -- but at least you're admitting that if it has a positive affect you don't have a problem with it.
Oh I get it, because some people have used religion in that way -- all religion is evil and a plague. Got it.
I'm glad we understand each other.
While we're at it we should get rid of science as well -- because religion certainly didn't lead to the invention of those bombs, or those planes, or any of the other things that religion used.
Your logic is flawed. You assume all these wars in which technology has been used would have occurred without religion. You also seem to be forgetting that before airplanes and bombs humans did an amazingly good job of killing each other in mass (usually over one religious cause or another). I'm not so naive to think no war would not happen without religion. But I'm not that far away from that belief as you might think reasonable.
Wars are fought over religion, or dogmatic religious views. At the very least religion is used as mechanism to keep the public cowed when something like genocide is occurring right under one's nose. World War 2 is no exception. Without religion could the holocaust have occurred? It's an interesting question (and not one I'm qualified to answer).
Regardless, asking to remove science as a response to my comments is a weak argument. Science doesn't inherently condemn people to death or torture. Science doesn't require people to believe the infeasible or behave in an impossible manner.
But most importantly, the reason why we can't and won't abandon science is that it is the best weapon against deity based wish thinking, also known as organized religion.
Right, so why didn't you say it that way? What's wrong with looking forward to it?
Because it goes against nature. The natural instinct for survival. I don't want to die. I don't want the world to end. In 5 billion years (approx) our sun will devour us and go super nova. I'd hope we were not on earth when that happens.
To WANT to die here, to want the end of the world to come because a man-made deity told some guy in a desert thousands of years ago that you will transcend to paradise... I'm sorry, it's so complete ridiculous.
Religious view is so illogical and non-intuitive that its hard for me to comprehend how everyone hasn't figured out its an elaborate ruse. The crux of the problem for me is that once you admit you are susceptible to religious dogma, you must, in the face of being a hypocrite, admit every possible belief structure revolving around circular logic is a possible truth.
By believing you open interpretation of the universe to infinite unrestrained variables that are neither provable, or disprovable. Which is the essence of a weak theory.
Accepting death so trivially is to me the same as turning off your mind. Why bother thinking, when it's all been worked out already. Why improve quality off life? Better of dead right?
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I am not quite 100% atheist and cannot be as I am a Gnostic Christian but we generally agree on morals whereas I tend to fing those of the Abrahamic cults to not have good morals at all.
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.
I'll say this. I'll get flamed for it. and I don't care.
NOT ALL Atheists argue atheism as being amazingly awesome and totally true with all others being total idiots and condescending........
but there are some (several but I haven't had enough of the debates to say majority or minority) are on an ego trip that think that just because they don't believe in god it qualifies them as some sort of super genius that has to impose and impress others with their falsely inflated intellect.
In a way its even worse than those that try to impose their religion on others because it usually means they genuinly care about the person. In the cases I'm describing, its just sheer over-compensation for something lacking in their own life that they get from trying to knock others down when they can't do it in another actually measurable sense.
Again this isn't all atheists. But most atheists don't go around trying to convert theists. Arguing about it in a debate forum is absolutely fine but going around making fun of anyone with a kind of faith is an ego trip.
Im an atheist. I don't try to convert people. Atheists who try to convert the faithful are just as annoying as the faithful who try to convert Atheists.
Don't tell other people what to think.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write for Channel Fireball now! Read my CFB articles here. Read my Dies to Removal articles here. Read the definitive Red Deck Wins Primer here.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
I don't even think most of the "atheists who try to convert theists" are actually trying to (de)convert them. But at some point people's beliefs come out and they get questioned. More often it seems like a theist (specifically a Christian, specifically an American Protestant) gets all uptight and complains about atheists trying to convert them, because he or she came out with some Bible-based idea (homosexuality is a sin, say) and got challenged on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I'll say this. I'll get flamed for it. and I don't care.
NOT ALL Atheists argue atheism as being amazingly awesome and totally true with all others being total idiots and condescending........
but there are some (several but I haven't had enough of the debates to say majority or minority) are on an ego trip that think that just because they don't believe in god it qualifies them as some sort of super genius that has to impose and impress others with their falsely inflated intellect.
In a way its even worse than those that try to impose their religion on others because it usually means they genuinly care about the person. In the cases I'm describing, its just sheer over-compensation for something lacking in their own life that they get from trying to knock others down when they can't do it in another actually measurable sense.
Again this isn't all atheists. But most atheists don't go around trying to convert theists. Arguing about it in a debate forum is absolutely fine but going around making fun of anyone with a kind of faith is an ego trip.
Atheists having an ego trip should not bother you but instead challenge you if you know and believe your theology.
Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21
If theists follow God’s advice, they should be trying to convert and if atheists have a social conscience they too will try to convert the theists.
Imagine a world where no one corrected others.
We would still be in the caves.
Theists feel the sting more because their beliefs are based on faith and the supernatural and un-provable. Theists are an easier target than the atheists who work with facts and not fiction, fantasy and miracles.
Theists should not mind this abuse as they are supposed to want to promote dialog on religion and God yet are too thin skinned to do a good job of it. That is why, of late, church hierarchies have been trying and failing to have their apologists do a better job.
Im an atheist. I don't try to convert people. Atheists who try to convert the faithful are just as annoying as the faithful who try to convert Atheists.
Don't tell other people what to think.
Certainly atheists try to convert theists.
At least the one's with a social conscience.
Post 182 gives some of the reasons.
Why do atheists bother trying to "convert" theists?
Just a short story before I answer the question:
I've been an atheist since I was 14 years old (now 26, going on 27). I was raised in a reformed Jewish household, my parents enrolled me at the local synagogue for services and sunday school, and I had my Bar Mitzvah at 13 to "seal the deal" as my rabbi would tell all his students. Truthfully I've never had an interest in religion or learning about my ancestry. I was always more interested in the things kids were supposed to be involved in such as playing video games, watching saturday morning cartoons, eating junk food, hanging out with friends, etc. Whenever I had to go to sunday school I'd be bored to tears and never really got involved in the discussions. All I kept thinking about was when I could get back to playing Pokemon on my GameBoy Color and which episodes of Samurai Pizza Cats I was missing out on. Religion never captured my interest despite the sales pitches by my cousins, who are orthodox Jews, and my mother, who was born Jewish.
After my Bar Mitzvah I tried the whole orthodox routine of praying multiple times throughout the day, wearing the yamaca, and observing Shabbat on Friday night till Saturday night. I did this for a whole 3 months and realized that it wasn't meant for me. Not only was I uninterested in the teachings and too lazy to keep up with the prayer routine, but I just didn't feel like being religious. You ever try to force yourself to do something to appease others and you wind up being unhappy? Well it was like that plus tenfold for me. I didn't like the idea of being religious. I didn't like the idea of believing in an omnipotent being that can't be seen or heard or smelled or tasted or proven. I didn't like having to talk to religious people who constantly quote sections of the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc to make their arguments valid when it came to real world issues. It just seemed so fake to me and it still does. Life became a lot simpler to me with the absence of religion, not having to worry about proving myself to an imaginary entity or working towards a life after life. I never knew about the term "atheism" until college, but when I learned about it I decided that I was an atheist.
Back in my college days I attended from 2003-2007 and during this time the Internet forum sensation was rising. People were starting to blog, chronicle, post, discuss, chat, and even preach everything on the Internet. I would browse some of my regular forums and read people's stories about how they were frustrated with other religious people believing in what they believed in. I remember in particular one person who I used to be friends with would prank call a Christian hotline and ask questions such as "why do you believe in God?" or make a statment like "God is a lie and you should feel bad for believing in lies." Despite my firm stance as an atheist, I would not go to any extremes to persecute people for their beliefs. When I asked my friend (at the time) why he would do that he told me "They are blind sheep being led to a blind church. The blind leading the blind all out of fear and tradition. It makes no sense! There is no evidence proving God and those who say 'but there's no evidence disproving him either' are living in a shell and don't want to admit it." I still never understood what motivated him to go out of his way to try to "convert" theists into atheists but he must have had other motives. I disliked what he did with his pranks, using his personal agendas against theists and trying to press his beliefs on him -- the same goes for vice versa. After a while I fell out of touch with him and life went on...
So to get back to the original question: "Why do atheists bother trying to "convert" theists?" In my example it seemed like he wanted to convert them because he wanted them to believe in what he believed in. Maybe his conviction was so strong that he felt the need to spread the word of atheism. But isn't that the same way with theists too? Don't we see people getting up on soap boxes everywhere trying to spread the good word of ABC or XYZ? I mean we can go back and forth saying "Well why do As bother trying to convert Bs?" or vice versa, but I think the fundamental reason behind conversion is to change someone's beliefs towards what you believe in -- more specifically not what you believe is truthful but what you believe is right. Being truthful is a validation of fact, but being right mixes in your morals, ethics, and beliefs. I believe people, regardless of background, would convert others simply out of thinking what is right to them and not necessarily truthful.
Would I make an effort to convert others from their beliefs to what I believe in? No. I simply tell people what I do and don't believe in and they can agree or disagree with me. That's all I'll ever do.
We've seen what religion does (dark ages), and that set our advancement back at least 1,000 years.
I see this argument a lot and while there is a great deal of truth to it most seem to forget that what brought Europe out of the dark ages was the knowledge found in another religious society, see the Muslim and Jewish worlds during the Crusades. From those societies they brought back a great deal of literature, medical information, scientific information etc etc all of which helped bring Europe out of the dark ages.
My point here isn't to defend what the church did in the Dark Ages simply to point out that faith and science are very capable of coexistance in a harmonious fashion. While there are plenty of zealots on both sides who would rather fight and bicker about it, there are plenty on both sides who are willing to either agree to disagree or even share views and expand their ideals in ways that help advance both individuals. This idea of absolutes between science and faith is really outdated.
My point here isn't to defend what the church did in the Dark Ages simply to point out that faith and science are very capable of coexistance in a harmonious fashion.
Only with a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Faith is by it's very nature antithetical to a scientific approach to reality, since faith is believing in the absence of evidence and in opposition to evidence to the contrary, and science requires evidence that can and often does cause ideas to be thrown out.
I see this argument a lot and while there is a great deal of truth to it most seem to forget that what brought Europe out of the dark ages was the knowledge found in another religious society, see the Muslim and Jewish worlds during the Crusades. From those societies they brought back a great deal of literature, medical information, scientific information etc etc all of which helped bring Europe out of the dark ages
The problem with the dark ages was the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, something that understandably set everything back. But it wasn't religion itself that did this.
There is an assumption of linear technological or societal development that simply doesn't exist. There were many important advancements made during the middle ages and society adjusted to the absence of the Roman Empire. And, as you said, it is a very Euro-centric way of looking at the world - the rest of the world went on and made their own developments. To assume we'd be 1,000 years ahead technology-wise (and what does that even mean?) is silly. People simply didn't understand the value of technological progress, or didn't care (when everyone is starving or dying of disease, a fancy new way of doing whatever isn't high on anyone's priority list) and society wasn't organized enough for that progress to happen at a fast rate until later.
Atheists having an ego trip should not bother you but instead challenge you if you know and believe your theology.
Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21
If theists follow God’s advice, they should be trying to convert and if atheists have a social conscience they too will try to convert the theists.
Imagine a world where no one corrected others.
We would still be in the caves.
Theists feel the sting more because their beliefs are based on faith and the supernatural and un-provable. Theists are an easier target than the atheists who work with facts and not fiction, fantasy and miracles.
Theists should not mind this abuse as they are supposed to want to promote dialog on religion and God yet are too thin skinned to do a good job of it. That is why, of late, church hierarchies have been trying and failing to have their apologists do a better job.
That is why religion is dying.
Regards
DL
Where i christian your post might have some relevance to me. However I am not .......so...........?
Challenging religion and doing what I described are two different things.
Im an athiest and believe that getting rid of all religion will help the world achieve peace. There is no other way about it. But then on the other hand over-population is a major problem in the world and i guess wars are good for something... keeping down the population, sad but true
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: pft, i love to see my cards depreciate in value once they rotate :S
Mordern: Melira, UR Storm, RDW, Infect, W life/control, UW Tron
Legacy: RDW, Pox
Vintage: Dark Depths, R Grey Orge
I find it interesting how and why people adopt their various religious beliefs. When I ask them about things they believe and they start to think, they often realize how detrimental that is to their archaic belief system and they quickly become defensive at me for challenging their beliefs. Pretending that I am attempting to convert them is a common defense mechanism used to help them cling to beliefs that they know make no sense.
Im an athiest and believe that getting rid of all religion will help the world achieve peace. There is no other way about it. But then on the other hand over-population is a major problem in the world and i guess wars are good for something... keeping down the population, sad but true
I find it interesting how and why people adopt their various religious beliefs. When I ask them about things they believe and they start to think, they often realize how detrimental that is to their archaic belief system and they quickly become defensive at me for challenging their beliefs. Pretending that I am attempting to convert them is a common defense mechanism used to help them cling to beliefs that they know make no sense.
Yes. Strange that a religion and it's sheep, who claim their cult has all the answers, refuse to answer any questions.
Hello, just stopping in to say I was not raised on religion but still ended up Christian today. Also, being on mission trips you can see people never subjected to religion become believers.
A question of my own, why convert us at all..?
If you think Im wrong, let me be wrong.
Yes, "we" try to "convert " you. But thats because I believe Im gaining you a friend and everlasting life/peace. What would disproving God gain me?
Hello, just stopping in to say I was not raised on religion but still ended up Christian today. Also, being on mission trips you can see people never subjected to religion become believers.
A question of my own, why convert us at all..?
If you think Im wrong, let me be wrong.
Yes, "we" try to "convert " you. But thats because I believe Im gaining you a friend and everlasting life/peace. What would disproving God gain me?
Honest, curious questions.
One less person who votes based off of scripture?
Do you really think that a religious society has no impact on the way non-religious people have to live?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That's the remarkable thing about life. It's never so bad that it can't get worse
Calvin and Hobbes Cube Tutor
However, to the older atheist debaters out there (if there are any), and to lesser extent, the younger atheists, what's the point of debating these issues? Theists aren't going to see the truth if you go around
Let me just begin by saying that I am of no religious faith. With this being said I am not defending religion but I see loss of credibility and lack of rational presentation here. First off why do you use the term "truth"? Why do you refer to atheism to be the "truth"? Just as you believe your lack of faith is true, your neighbor may believe his religion to be true. Ignorantly saying that "they won't see the truth" establishes a premise on which you claim that atheism IS true and that religion has been 100% scientifically disproven (which isn't the case).
I'm willing to bet, if every single kid in the world was raised in a separate, educated society until they were 18, and then introduced to religion, they'd toss it out the door like Santa Claus. I guess there's a flaw to that plan, since they might have a lot of religious influence around them (they might live in a religious community or home, or go to a religious school, have religious friends, etc.).
Again you lose credibility by claiming that if we were all educated well and introduced to religion, we'd reject it. Actually, as a philosophy major, I'd disagree. I believe some would obviously reject it and others would accept it. However those would always be based on personal decisions and circumstances in life. Neither God or lack thereof can be proven or disproven entirely. Until that day it isn't out of the question to be a person of faith. Even then it may be irrational but not impossible.
Again I am not a man of faith yet It is ignorance that breeds among BOTH atheists and their religious counterparts that is an abomination. This is why the world has problems, because SOME religious people want to be zealots and some atheists believe that they are the "wisest of all the land" and it is their sacred duty (like those of religion as well) to convert people from the "evils" of having a choice to choose how they live their lives.
Do you really think that a religious society has no impact on the way non-religious people have to live?
Ahh, ok. Have not heard the voting approach before.
However, all people vote based off themselves anyway. That's no different then someone voting away guns because they had a friend get shot 10 years ago. Personally, I've never voted then quoted which verse led me to do so. I vote based on what I think is right and my personal morals. (The only big bother I could see out of this one is gay marriage, which I've seen non-believers not support)
Now, for the second question, no need to be condescending with the whole "Do you really think" thing.
Everyone effects how everybody lives if you allow it. Non religious people have had major impacts on how religious people live. (Homeless guy reading bible passing Chic-Fil-A attacked by gay rioters) Religious people have had major impacts on non-religious people. Billy Joe has screwed up Jack's life and so forth. (Also, if we are discussing Religion itself, I didn't come in here talking about that. I was talking about theists and atheists. I have a personal relationship with God, not a set of rules or political group.)
Religion is a personal matter anyway. People should have the right to believe in anything they want. It's when things become organized that you get cults like Westboro. My 2 cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. Good Decks Play With Good Cards
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
Indoctrination (brainwashing) is a big part of the problem obviously. I personally think it's highly unethical to take children to churches where scripture is taught as fact but I digress.
Debating specific religions is very different from debating the existence of God. Whether one is ultimately successful or not in convincing believers, the average atheist can easily crush in a debate on the legitimacy of the garbage found in religious texts. Humans under the guise of divine influence put all kinds of BS into religious texts but it doesn't automatically destroy a case for the existence of God. From a perennialism perspective, the existence of God becomes a more legitimate argument that will be harder to win.
It can still be a worthy exercise with the right open-minded individual. There was a rather skilled and interesting debater of the Catholic persuasion on these boards years ago that could hold his own. Don't recall his screename or if he still lurks around.
I might add that Pascal's Wager is a bit hard to argue with even though the whole thing sounds ludicrous to an atheist.
Hello, just stopping in to say I was not raised on religion but still ended up Christian today. Also, being on mission trips you can see people never subjected to religion become believers.
A question of my own, why convert us at all..?
If you think Im wrong, let me be wrong.
Yes, "we" try to "convert " you. But thats because I believe Im gaining you a friend and everlasting life/peace. What would disproving God gain me?
Honest, curious questions.
Three main reasons. Self defence and a social conscience for tw and a question; do you want to live a lie and if you know someone who is doing so, is it not your duty to correct him?
I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5
He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavians and later through Constantine.
So what I'm reading here is that you would agree that if it had a positive affect, you would not complain about it -- although you would prefer that positive affect to have happened without the catalyst of religion.
Sure, that's fine -- but at least you're admitting that if it has a positive affect you don't have a problem with it.
I'm glad we understand each other.
Your logic is flawed. You assume all these wars in which technology has been used would have occurred without religion. You also seem to be forgetting that before airplanes and bombs humans did an amazingly good job of killing each other in mass (usually over one religious cause or another). I'm not so naive to think no war would not happen without religion. But I'm not that far away from that belief as you might think reasonable.
Wars are fought over religion, or dogmatic religious views. At the very least religion is used as mechanism to keep the public cowed when something like genocide is occurring right under one's nose. World War 2 is no exception. Without religion could the holocaust have occurred? It's an interesting question (and not one I'm qualified to answer).
Regardless, asking to remove science as a response to my comments is a weak argument. Science doesn't inherently condemn people to death or torture. Science doesn't require people to believe the infeasible or behave in an impossible manner.
But most importantly, the reason why we can't and won't abandon science is that it is the best weapon against deity based wish thinking, also known as organized religion.
Because it goes against nature. The natural instinct for survival. I don't want to die. I don't want the world to end. In 5 billion years (approx) our sun will devour us and go super nova. I'd hope we were not on earth when that happens.
To WANT to die here, to want the end of the world to come because a man-made deity told some guy in a desert thousands of years ago that you will transcend to paradise... I'm sorry, it's so complete ridiculous.
Religious view is so illogical and non-intuitive that its hard for me to comprehend how everyone hasn't figured out its an elaborate ruse. The crux of the problem for me is that once you admit you are susceptible to religious dogma, you must, in the face of being a hypocrite, admit every possible belief structure revolving around circular logic is a possible truth.
By believing you open interpretation of the universe to infinite unrestrained variables that are neither provable, or disprovable. Which is the essence of a weak theory.
Accepting death so trivially is to me the same as turning off your mind. Why bother thinking, when it's all been worked out already. Why improve quality off life? Better of dead right?
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related
Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM
Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.
Regards
DL
NOT ALL Atheists argue atheism as being amazingly awesome and totally true with all others being total idiots and condescending........
but there are some (several but I haven't had enough of the debates to say majority or minority) are on an ego trip that think that just because they don't believe in god it qualifies them as some sort of super genius that has to impose and impress others with their falsely inflated intellect.
In a way its even worse than those that try to impose their religion on others because it usually means they genuinly care about the person. In the cases I'm describing, its just sheer over-compensation for something lacking in their own life that they get from trying to knock others down when they can't do it in another actually measurable sense.
Again this isn't all atheists. But most atheists don't go around trying to convert theists. Arguing about it in a debate forum is absolutely fine but going around making fun of anyone with a kind of faith is an ego trip.
Don't tell other people what to think.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Atheists having an ego trip should not bother you but instead challenge you if you know and believe your theology.
Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21
If theists follow God’s advice, they should be trying to convert and if atheists have a social conscience they too will try to convert the theists.
Imagine a world where no one corrected others.
We would still be in the caves.
Theists feel the sting more because their beliefs are based on faith and the supernatural and un-provable. Theists are an easier target than the atheists who work with facts and not fiction, fantasy and miracles.
Theists should not mind this abuse as they are supposed to want to promote dialog on religion and God yet are too thin skinned to do a good job of it. That is why, of late, church hierarchies have been trying and failing to have their apologists do a better job.
That is why religion is dying.
Regards
DL
Certainly atheists try to convert theists.
At least the one's with a social conscience.
Post 182 gives some of the reasons.
Regards
DL
Just a short story before I answer the question:
I've been an atheist since I was 14 years old (now 26, going on 27). I was raised in a reformed Jewish household, my parents enrolled me at the local synagogue for services and sunday school, and I had my Bar Mitzvah at 13 to "seal the deal" as my rabbi would tell all his students. Truthfully I've never had an interest in religion or learning about my ancestry. I was always more interested in the things kids were supposed to be involved in such as playing video games, watching saturday morning cartoons, eating junk food, hanging out with friends, etc. Whenever I had to go to sunday school I'd be bored to tears and never really got involved in the discussions. All I kept thinking about was when I could get back to playing Pokemon on my GameBoy Color and which episodes of Samurai Pizza Cats I was missing out on. Religion never captured my interest despite the sales pitches by my cousins, who are orthodox Jews, and my mother, who was born Jewish.
After my Bar Mitzvah I tried the whole orthodox routine of praying multiple times throughout the day, wearing the yamaca, and observing Shabbat on Friday night till Saturday night. I did this for a whole 3 months and realized that it wasn't meant for me. Not only was I uninterested in the teachings and too lazy to keep up with the prayer routine, but I just didn't feel like being religious. You ever try to force yourself to do something to appease others and you wind up being unhappy? Well it was like that plus tenfold for me. I didn't like the idea of being religious. I didn't like the idea of believing in an omnipotent being that can't be seen or heard or smelled or tasted or proven. I didn't like having to talk to religious people who constantly quote sections of the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc to make their arguments valid when it came to real world issues. It just seemed so fake to me and it still does. Life became a lot simpler to me with the absence of religion, not having to worry about proving myself to an imaginary entity or working towards a life after life. I never knew about the term "atheism" until college, but when I learned about it I decided that I was an atheist.
Back in my college days I attended from 2003-2007 and during this time the Internet forum sensation was rising. People were starting to blog, chronicle, post, discuss, chat, and even preach everything on the Internet. I would browse some of my regular forums and read people's stories about how they were frustrated with other religious people believing in what they believed in. I remember in particular one person who I used to be friends with would prank call a Christian hotline and ask questions such as "why do you believe in God?" or make a statment like "God is a lie and you should feel bad for believing in lies." Despite my firm stance as an atheist, I would not go to any extremes to persecute people for their beliefs. When I asked my friend (at the time) why he would do that he told me "They are blind sheep being led to a blind church. The blind leading the blind all out of fear and tradition. It makes no sense! There is no evidence proving God and those who say 'but there's no evidence disproving him either' are living in a shell and don't want to admit it." I still never understood what motivated him to go out of his way to try to "convert" theists into atheists but he must have had other motives. I disliked what he did with his pranks, using his personal agendas against theists and trying to press his beliefs on him -- the same goes for vice versa. After a while I fell out of touch with him and life went on...
So to get back to the original question: "Why do atheists bother trying to "convert" theists?" In my example it seemed like he wanted to convert them because he wanted them to believe in what he believed in. Maybe his conviction was so strong that he felt the need to spread the word of atheism. But isn't that the same way with theists too? Don't we see people getting up on soap boxes everywhere trying to spread the good word of ABC or XYZ? I mean we can go back and forth saying "Well why do As bother trying to convert Bs?" or vice versa, but I think the fundamental reason behind conversion is to change someone's beliefs towards what you believe in -- more specifically not what you believe is truthful but what you believe is right. Being truthful is a validation of fact, but being right mixes in your morals, ethics, and beliefs. I believe people, regardless of background, would convert others simply out of thinking what is right to them and not necessarily truthful.
Would I make an effort to convert others from their beliefs to what I believe in? No. I simply tell people what I do and don't believe in and they can agree or disagree with me. That's all I'll ever do.
Just my two cents.
I see this argument a lot and while there is a great deal of truth to it most seem to forget that what brought Europe out of the dark ages was the knowledge found in another religious society, see the Muslim and Jewish worlds during the Crusades. From those societies they brought back a great deal of literature, medical information, scientific information etc etc all of which helped bring Europe out of the dark ages.
My point here isn't to defend what the church did in the Dark Ages simply to point out that faith and science are very capable of coexistance in a harmonious fashion. While there are plenty of zealots on both sides who would rather fight and bicker about it, there are plenty on both sides who are willing to either agree to disagree or even share views and expand their ideals in ways that help advance both individuals. This idea of absolutes between science and faith is really outdated.
The problem with the dark ages was the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, something that understandably set everything back. But it wasn't religion itself that did this.
There is an assumption of linear technological or societal development that simply doesn't exist. There were many important advancements made during the middle ages and society adjusted to the absence of the Roman Empire. And, as you said, it is a very Euro-centric way of looking at the world - the rest of the world went on and made their own developments. To assume we'd be 1,000 years ahead technology-wise (and what does that even mean?) is silly. People simply didn't understand the value of technological progress, or didn't care (when everyone is starving or dying of disease, a fancy new way of doing whatever isn't high on anyone's priority list) and society wasn't organized enough for that progress to happen at a fast rate until later.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Where i christian your post might have some relevance to me. However I am not .......so...........?
Challenging religion and doing what I described are two different things.
Regards
DL
Mordern: Melira, UR Storm, RDW, Infect, W life/control, UW Tron
Legacy: RDW, Pox
Vintage: Dark Depths, R Grey Orge
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Keep up. You are a bit behind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ezVk1ahRF78
Regards
DL
Yes. Strange that a religion and it's sheep, who claim their cult has all the answers, refuse to answer any questions.
Regards
DL
A question of my own, why convert us at all..?
If you think Im wrong, let me be wrong.
Yes, "we" try to "convert " you. But thats because I believe Im gaining you a friend and everlasting life/peace. What would disproving God gain me?
Honest, curious questions.
One less person who votes based off of scripture?
Do you really think that a religious society has no impact on the way non-religious people have to live?
Calvin and Hobbes
Cube Tutor
Let me just begin by saying that I am of no religious faith. With this being said I am not defending religion but I see loss of credibility and lack of rational presentation here. First off why do you use the term "truth"? Why do you refer to atheism to be the "truth"? Just as you believe your lack of faith is true, your neighbor may believe his religion to be true. Ignorantly saying that "they won't see the truth" establishes a premise on which you claim that atheism IS true and that religion has been 100% scientifically disproven (which isn't the case).
Again you lose credibility by claiming that if we were all educated well and introduced to religion, we'd reject it. Actually, as a philosophy major, I'd disagree. I believe some would obviously reject it and others would accept it. However those would always be based on personal decisions and circumstances in life. Neither God or lack thereof can be proven or disproven entirely. Until that day it isn't out of the question to be a person of faith. Even then it may be irrational but not impossible.
Again I am not a man of faith yet It is ignorance that breeds among BOTH atheists and their religious counterparts that is an abomination. This is why the world has problems, because SOME religious people want to be zealots and some atheists believe that they are the "wisest of all the land" and it is their sacred duty (like those of religion as well) to convert people from the "evils" of having a choice to choose how they live their lives.
EDH:
GRWMayael, the AnimaWRG
GUBDamia, Sage of StoneBUG
"A man is defined by his sacrifices rather than his gifts"
Ahh, ok. Have not heard the voting approach before.
However, all people vote based off themselves anyway. That's no different then someone voting away guns because they had a friend get shot 10 years ago. Personally, I've never voted then quoted which verse led me to do so. I vote based on what I think is right and my personal morals. (The only big bother I could see out of this one is gay marriage, which I've seen non-believers not support)
Now, for the second question, no need to be condescending with the whole "Do you really think" thing.
Everyone effects how everybody lives if you allow it. Non religious people have had major impacts on how religious people live. (Homeless guy reading bible passing Chic-Fil-A attacked by gay rioters) Religious people have had major impacts on non-religious people. Billy Joe has screwed up Jack's life and so forth. (Also, if we are discussing Religion itself, I didn't come in here talking about that. I was talking about theists and atheists. I have a personal relationship with God, not a set of rules or political group.)
2. Good Decks Have Good Plans
3. Good Decks Have Good Mana Bases
4. Good Decks Respect Their Opponents
5. Good Decks Have 75 Cards
6. Sometimes Even Good Decks Are Bad Choices
7. Sometimes Your 'Good Deck' Isn't
~Metamorph
Debating specific religions is very different from debating the existence of God. Whether one is ultimately successful or not in convincing believers, the average atheist can easily crush in a debate on the legitimacy of the garbage found in religious texts. Humans under the guise of divine influence put all kinds of BS into religious texts but it doesn't automatically destroy a case for the existence of God. From a perennialism perspective, the existence of God becomes a more legitimate argument that will be harder to win.
It can still be a worthy exercise with the right open-minded individual. There was a rather skilled and interesting debater of the Catholic persuasion on these boards years ago that could hold his own. Don't recall his screename or if he still lurks around.
I might add that Pascal's Wager is a bit hard to argue with even though the whole thing sounds ludicrous to an atheist.
Three main reasons. Self defence and a social conscience for tw and a question; do you want to live a lie and if you know someone who is doing so, is it not your duty to correct him?
I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrMtRm3b8MU&feature=autoplay&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1wIEGnPWo
I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/
He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavians and later through Constantine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4
Regards
DL