Why are religious people try converting us

[desertguy]

I suspect some of these evangelizers, a very small segment mind you, but a vocal one of Christianity, have a bit of the herd mentality, and feel threatened when someone disagrees with them, as it undermines their deeply held convictions and worldview (no small thing). I don't think it's necessarally related to the depth of one's faith either, as I know some very devout Christians who are not like this at all, but I think it more relates more to someone with this type of personality trait. Plenty of atheists are like this as well, and annoying, too. As an atheist myself, I think some some of Jesus's philosophies are very good ones to live by, too bad so many Christians tend to overlook them, especially the "judge not" one. But I also think critical thinking and questioning are healthy too, for anyone. I don't advertise the fact I'm an atheist, but if the topic comes up, I'm truthful about it, but I never try to "convert" anyone to my way of thinking, I respect other's beliefs that are different than mine and usually get the same respect afforded to me in return.

[taiko]

I suspect some of these evangelizers, a very small segment mind you, but a vocal one of Christianity, have a bit of the herd mentality, and feel threatened when someone disagrees with them, as it undermines their deeply held convictions and worldview (no small thing). I don't think it's necessarally related to the depth of one's faith either, as I know some very devout Christians who are not like this at all, but I think it more relates more to someone with this type of personality trait. Plenty of atheists are like this as well, and annoying, too. As an atheist myself, I think some some of Jesus's philosophies are very good ones to live by, too bad so many Christians tend to overlook them, especially the "judge not" one. But I also think critical thinking and questioning are healthy too, for anyone. I don't advertise the fact I'm an atheist, but if the topic comes up, I'm truthful about it, but I never try to "convert" anyone to my way of thinking, I respect other's beliefs that are different than mine and usually get the same respect afforded to me in return.

Well there are two seperate functions going on. The evangelising message, which in forums such as this one or any other debate is quickly overtaken by the apologist defending the faith.

[Moose]

Well there are two seperate functions going on. The evangelising message, which in forums such as this one or any other debate is quickly overtaken by the apologist defending the faith.

This wouldn't happen if BOTH sides respected each other's opinions and not call the other, "wrong"...

[disgracian]

I wonder when are you going to start showing other people respect, Moose? This is pretty rich from the guy who attacks and shames teenage rape victims.

 

Cheers,

D.

[HokeyReligions]

I believe the trend to "convert" is a memetic instinct to all humans.

If you are not familiar with memetics, it's a metophorical description of cultures and how they evolve and propagate.

At a certain point in human history, we put genetics on the back burner and decided that our cultural ideas were a more important expression of who we are as individuals and societies. It is our cultures, religions, etc that we concern ourselves with. It's the cultures and ideals of others that are blasphemous and evil to us.

This is evident in so many aspects of our ideals and especially religions.

Christians could care less if someone is actually a good person, only that they accept Jesus as their lord. Likewise, you could be the most moral person as far as Christian dogma is concerned and still be concidered an "other" if you don't accept Christ.

In groups and out groups is how sociologist would call it. You are part of the tribe or you are not.

I will not exlude Atheists from this trend at all. I myself attempt to "convert" at every opportunity. I see nothing wrong with this, as I also believe I am enlightening people. "Convert" away people. It keeps the dialog going!

As a side note, I take exception to the idea that a lack of belief is actually a belief. This is a rediculous statement. Off is not a channel on your TV. I lack a belief in a god. I believe in evolution.

 

Atheisism is not a lack of belief. It is itself a belief system. Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

[DutchGuy]

Atheisism is not a lack of belief. It is itself a belief system. Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

 

Atheism is lacking belief.

Agnosticism is lacking belief without excluding the possibility that believers are right.

 

Calling Atheism a belief is like calling not-collecting-poststamps a hobby.

[Trialbyfire]

Like any other living entity, organized religion needs to propogate, in order to ensure continuity of the species.

 

If there are no new convertees, sooner or later, the existing believers will die out and the organized religion will cease to exist.

[Trialbyfire]

To add to the species continuity theory, I see the Earth as one big stagnant pond.

 

Organized religion would be the amoeba and people, the parameciums. Slowly but surely, the amoeba would attempt to eat every paramecium it could possibly consume/convert.

 

If you think about amoeba and how they propogate, they split, which is like religious sub-factions/denominations, splitting off.

[disgracian]

Atheisism is not a lack of belief. It is itself a belief system. Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

Atheism is a lack of belief. A belief system is not a good way of describing something that only defines one thing that a person doesn't believe. Not believing in alchemy or astrology is not a belief system. It is literally the absence of one.

 

Agnosticism is more of an intellectual position than a "somewhere in between the extremes" which most people seem to think. Agnosticism posits that the debate over the existence of god is futile because such a thing is unknowable. It does not prohibit either belief or disbelief though. Somebody could be quite zealous in their faith but still concede that their beliefs are unknowable in an empirical sense, and thus be agnostic.

 

That's at least my understanding of it. YMMV.

 

Cheers,

D.

[HokeyReligions]

Atheism is lacking belief.

Agnosticism is lacking belief without excluding the possibility that believers are right.

 

Calling Atheism a belief is like calling not-collecting-poststamps a hobby.

 

 

Ask a true atheist if they believe there is no God and what will their answer be?

 

Ask an Agnostic if they believe there is no God what will their answer be?

 

There are a lot of people who call themselves Atheists who really are not. They are agnostics. Just as there are many Christians who call themseves such and they are not for the same reason.

 

Agnostics and many people who believe in God can be swayed into a new belief. A true atheist cannot be swayed from their belief, neither can a true christian (or Jew, or Muslim, etc.)

[disgracian]

Ask a true atheist if they believe there is no God and what will their answer be?

A true atheist? It seems like you are superimposing dogmatic theistic notions onto something that has no room or need for them.

There are a lot of people who call themselves Atheists who really are not.

If they do not believe in gods, then they are atheists. It's really very simple.

Agnostics and many people who believe in God can be swayed into a new belief.

This is not necessarily so. Agnostics, as I have mentioned, contend that the existence of gods is unknowable. As such they can be just as stubborn as anybody else.

A true atheist cannot be swayed from their belief, neither can a true christian (or Jew, or Muslim, etc.)

There you go, using this "true" business again. Are you saying that one's brain must become completely ossified in order to attain "true" status? Even the most zealous of adherents to anything can and do (de)convert. It's as much an emotional investment as it is anything else, and on that level it can be affected and even demolished.

 

Unless "trueness" can only be determined in retrospect as anybody who did not (ostensibly) waver from their beliefs. If so then the definition is rather vacuous and useless to the discussion.

 

Cheers,

D.

[quankanne]

I vote we use the word "staunch" when reflecting someone's firm support of an idea :bunny:

[Moose]

I wonder when are you going to start showing other people respect, Moose? This is pretty rich from the guy who attacks and shames teenage rape victims.

 

Cheers,

D.

This is THE only thing I have a problem with ALL atheists...

 

OUT OF CONTEXT

 

OUT OF CONTEXT

 

OUT OF CONTEXT

 

There is only one member on this forum capable of staying in context with issues such as this.

 

I can't wait to meet him....

[knaveman]

When is everyone going to realize that a persons belief is just that: a personal belief? I have no problem telling anyone what I believe, but I will never think that someone is wrong for what they believe. I wish all faiths taught that.

[disgracian]

This is THE only thing I have a problem with ALL atheists...

Why do you keep calling me an atheist? Is it the first conclusion you leap to just because I dismiss your god?

 

Cheers,

D.

[Phateless]

My problem with faith is that I want people to think for themselves instead of using pre-approved answers.

[underpants]

I will never think that someone is wrong for what they believe. I wish all faiths taught that.

 

If all faiths and non faiths could come to that conclusion, goal and morph with repect ...and yielding....the world would be a such a better place.

[Saxis]

Like any other living entity, organized religion needs to propogate, in order to ensure continuity of the species.

 

If there are no new convertees, sooner or later, the existing believers will die out and the organized religion will cease to exist.

 

True, but I also agree with this...

 

The likelyhood of converting anyone is very slim.

 

This is why I believe religion extensively promotes marriage. The chances of conversion are so low that many religions rely on the practice being handed down through generations of offspring. Marriages are most likely to produce offspring. I don't think I need to explain how that works to their advantage...

 

Some exceptions were in times of war, when an entire "race" or group of people would be converted out of force. Another reason I despise organized religion altogether...

[Phateless]

More crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of God than any other cause.

[DutchGuy]

Ask a true atheist if they believe there is no God and what will their answer be?

 

Ask an Agnostic if they believe there is no God what will their answer be?

 

There are a lot of people who call themselves Atheists who really are not. They are agnostics. Just as there are many Christians who call themseves such and they are not for the same reason.

 

Agnostics and many people who believe in God can be swayed into a new belief. A true atheist cannot be swayed from their belief, neither can a true christian (or Jew, or Muslim, etc.)

 

Well, everybody is agnostic then, right?

Because nobody can say for 100% that there is a god or that there isn't.

On a concept so vague as a god, I doubt if somebody ever will know for sure. Even if you spend eternity in heaven in His company, it could still be an illusion. As for being Atheist, there is no way you could ever know if something doesn't exist.

 

Being an Atheist isn't about rejecting the idea of god as it is simply not believing it yourself. It's not anti, it's neutral/blank.

All people are born atheists, simply because they can't comprehend the concept of a god, to them, their parents are 'god'.

 

Then later on you are introduced to religion and the concept of a god or gods and you will either believe it or not believe it.

Or believe it at first and stop believing it later on.

[quankanne]

My problem with faith is that I want people to think for themselves instead of using pre-approved answers.

 

"Pre-approved answers"??? Is that how non-believers see faith? I've always felt those tenets of faith that have been handed down through the ages were more about being guidelines you accept (or reject) in living your life personally. And believe me, a staunch believer does has moments of doubt about the vehicle of religion he uses on his faith journey – he questions because he's evolving, and that's not such a bad thing if it helps him realize his potential. So, equating faith with being a non-thinker is a bunch of bunk.

 

of course, I *could* flip that around and say because you are a non-believer, atheist, agnostic, doubting kind of fellow, YOU refuse to think outside the little bitty box you've provided for yourself, but that'd be equally bunk. Or would it?

[Moose]

Why do you keep calling me an atheist? Is it the first conclusion you leap to just because I dismiss your god?

 

Cheers,

D.

My apologies.

 

Should I have said, "Non-Christian"?

 

And it's not so much that you, "dismiss" my God, it's just that you don't even know Him, yet your claims and accusations are such that you proclaim His non-existance as fact.

 

It's very offensive to the believer, especially when one tries to have a civil discussion about other beliefs.

[taiko]

If all faiths and non faiths could come to that conclusion, goal and morph with repect ...and yielding....the world would be a such a better place.

If the all assimilate into sameness then the specific faiths would no longer exist.

 

Look at the Republican campaign right now. Gov. Mitt Romney wants to claim "man of faith" status. But the political class doesn't want his faith, his theology tested. When he says Mormons, the Church of Jesus Christ latter day Saints are Christians then Christian apologist, especially those running counter Morman ministries have to take a stand or sit back as their faith is absorbed by an aggressive Mormon church.

 

So will the political class runs away from the issue of defending the faith because their issue is defeating Sen. Clinton. Meanwhile the Christian's mission in defending the faith is to get Gov. Romney to say that when he was 30 years old in March of 1978 he believes God wanted dark skinned people to be subserviant to white people. Or if he doesn't believe that then he doesn't actually believe that the Mormon President is an actual Prophet from God, thus cutting the Mormons off at their very existance.

 

Even if the Christian right is unable to do this in the heat of a primary fight should Gov. Romney win the nomination there are those still willing to push the issue, to strip away that small percentage of African American votes that Republicans get. And to countinue the crusade against Mormanism.

 

It wasn't a representative of the Christian right who first hit the news with this arguement. It was the REVEREND Al Sharpton. While most politicians can be controled on the message they argue for party sake I don't think he can be. Remember this opportuunity will never come around again. Even if a Mormon is a national leader in the future he would have been a child or not even born when he was a member of an officially racist church.

[quankanne]

All people are born atheists, simply because they can't comprehend the concept of a god

 

it's true that we must cultivate our awareness of God and faith and morals, but it's also true of everything else a baby must learn to get by in the world. However, faith is something innate – it's a gift that allows us to respond when he calls us. All have the potential to tap into that faith in God, but not all choose to open their hearts or minds to his call. Which makes faith a true gift.

[Phateless]

My problem with faith is that I want people to think for themselves instead of using pre-approved answers.

 

"Pre-approved answers"??? Is that how non-believers see faith? I've always felt those tenets of faith that have been handed down through the ages were more about being guidelines you accept (or reject) in living your life personally. And believe me, a staunch believer does has moments of doubt about the vehicle of religion he uses on his faith journey – he questions because he's evolving, and that's not such a bad thing if it helps him realize his potential. So, equating faith with being a non-thinker is a bunch of bunk.

 

of course, I *could* flip that around and say because you are a non-believer, atheist, agnostic, doubting kind of fellow, YOU refuse to think outside the little bitty box you've provided for yourself, but that'd be equally bunk. Or would it?

 

I don't see how the comparison even works when flipped. A lot of the atheists I know started out as religious, and then questioned their beliefs. Questioning is exactly what I'm talking about. To me, questioning is inevitable if you are a critical thinker, and a lot of people refuse to question if it threatens their beliefs. Read through this thread. You'll see things such as "because god made it that way and humans are incapable of understanding."