Conversion to atheism

Is it worth the effort to try and ‘convert’ theists to atheism? Here are some other, related questions. How important is it for one to know the truth?
Some theists derive emotional strength and support from their religion. Is it right to try and ‘convert’ these people?
And finally, what do you believe to be the benefits of being an atheist?(My use of quote marks in the above sentences indicate, because I do not wish to imply that atheism is a religion.)This message has been edited by Zawinul, 12-29-2004 14:53 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

as a former militant athiest, no. it's not worth it.

quote:

---

Is it worth the effort to try and ‘convert’ theists to atheism?

---

I don't think its worth it, because Atheism offers no positive message (to a theist).The 4 questions: (Who am I? Why am I here? Where did I come from? and Where am I going?) are answered at least in part by people who believe in an afterlife. Atheism answers those questions with little hope: (You are nobody. You are only here as a random universal hiccup. You came from a protozoa. Your going to fertilize something when you die.)Now, theists (and atheists for that matter) should, at some point, question why they believe what they do. This is the stage where you would present your argument for there being no god/afterlife.

quote:

---

How important is it for one to know the truth?

---

For me, it is what drives me to research topics of spiritual/scientific nature. I simply want to know what is true and I enjoy digging into things to attempt to find out.

quote:

---

And finally, what do you believe to be the benefits of being an atheist?

---

A looser sense of morality. Although I qualify that as a liability, some would say its a benefit.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

As an atheist, I do not believe it is important to convert theists to my position. Indeed I loathe all attempts at conversion by anyone.While it is important for people to know the truth, spiritual truths and moral truths are definitely diverse and perhaps that is the only truth we need to know. People find purpose and spirituality in the same way they find everything else, individually.I think the most important task is for people to be able to live and communicate their personal beliefs as freely as possible, without crossing the boundary of trying to impose or actively convert others.A great example is a spiritual "fleamarket" they set up in a large square a few blocks from my house. There is every color of the spectrum as far as religion is concerned, including non-religion (secular humanism). No one is advancing at you with pamphlets saying how wrong you are. They have their tables and you sample from them at your leisure.When joined in debate on a subject then such underlying issues may come up and then it is fair game and a part of this may be trying to advance one's outlook. That is different than prosyletizing (secular or otherwise).I do not find many benefits of being an atheist. It is sort of neutral. Indeed I would admit some drawbacks in the form of not having some emotional supports that theists would have. I do believe there are benefits in being a theist or atheist outside of orgnaized religions. Organized theism makes one prey to a lot of users.It is rather intellectual honesty which I believe has benefits, and has led me to atheism... not the other way around. Part of my being intellectually honest is an admission that I do not have all the answers and future evidence may shift me into theism of some kind, even if I doubt such evidence will ever come. Another part is admitting that other people's spiritual (theistic) beliefs may be valid as they have different experiences than I do.Sharing info in a state of honesty is what is important. Converting others to one's current position is not of overriding importance.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Did you really mean "afterlife", as opposed to an "external objective purpose"? Theism certainly provides a context for the latter, but does not necessarily mean the former.Personally, I do not understand why those four questions are better answered by theism, especially if there is an afterlife. This life and what you mean in it seem more concretely answered in atheism. Don't speak for me... You are somebody (the only one who will be you). You are the result of a fascinating process which took place in a pretty amazing and diverse universe. When you die your body will remain as part of that interesting universe and may indeed fertilize more life.Unless you want me to speak for you... You are nobody but a cog in God's machine. You came from dirt and from dirt you will return. While you are given free will, it is only to choose to obey to being a cog. If you like your role and obey, when you die you get permanently placed in the machine. If you disobey, when you die you will be punished eternally. You know one would think that is true. But I have found as much prudishness and moralizing within atheism as I have from any theist. Its like many atheists feel like they have to prove that they can be "good" by sticking to theistically derived rules, which make little sense within atheism.I think whether a looser morality is a liability or a benefit is relative. My guess is you would find some of the greater moral strictures of Islam or Judaism to be needless and a liability. This is of course what others could feel about specific Xian moral restraints.It was only a small number of years ago that the Xian morality against miscegenation was removed from law and began to be removed from religious sentiment. Do you feel this loosening of morals was detrimental?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Unless you want me to speak for you... You are nobody but a cog in God's machine. You came from dirt and from dirt you will return. While you are given free will, it is only to choose to obey to being a cog. If you like your role and obey, when you die you get permanently placed in the machine. If you disobey, when you die you will be punished eternally.

---

My view is that we are apart of a struggle of the ages between good and evil. Lucifer fell and took 1/3 of the angels with him. He caused man to fall in Eden. God's design for us was that we are meant to have free will. He didn't want robots, or he would have made them. Even angels have free will. I believe we are in a spiritual struggle and the badguys goal is to decieve us until we finally croak, that way, we share in the fate that was designed for him.Brief, but that's my general opinion of why we are here.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

I'm not going to debate your position on this (at least not here). The point I was trying to make was in a sense, reinforced by what you just said.I was saying you should not try and speak for what an atheist says about life. You ought to be listening instead. It came off as bizarre and the opposite of what i believe as an atheist.When I "spoke for you", I was intending it to not be what you believe. It was to generate an understanding that it is silly for me to say what your answer to questions about life are, just as it is silly for you to try the same.It is disengenuous.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It would be, except I was answering the original poster's question from a theists perspective, which is what he asked for.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

??? It appears the OP was asking about an atheist's perspective on trying to change people into being atheists, not a theist's stereotype of what an atheist must think.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Tal - the problem for me, is that you seemed to boast of killing in another thread, or atleast it seemed that way. (If you didn't intend that - forgive me).. But Holmes, the atheist - mentioned that Christ was for peace, and IMHO - offered the morally correct position.I really mean no offense, but I think each man and woman has the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, I know that unbelievers have morals, and I can figure out that many people here have morals, and are atheist.

Where the hell were you when we were discussing the Euthephro's dilemma?This message has been edited by Lam, 12-31-2004 14:06 AM

Probably on the toilet, or refuting Shraff.

I don't think it is important or desirable to try to "convert" any believers.I do think that it is very important to fight the kind of non-thinking, evidenceless acceptance of anything that is all that supports some kinds of religious beliefs. This, in my opinion, has to leak over into other kinds of thinking and decision making that is dangerous.We have many large, complex, long-term decisions to make in our democracies. If this is the nature of the decision making process that is used then there are great dangers involved.Given that someone converts to a better way of using logic and evidence there may be an affect on someone's religious beliefs. That is a direct consequence of those who say that you have to believe in a 6,000 year old earth etc or you can't believe in God etc. If that causes a "conversion" well, that is the fault of the dogmatic fools putting forward such stupid theological ideas.

Yes kinda. But indirectly. (I think this works in both directions by the way).If you can set an example that a theist would want to follow, then you might get a conversion.