Why bother trying to remove peoples' religious beliefs?

deleriumtremens

I'm just wondering, what motivates atheists to change other peoples' beliefs? Why not just leave "each to their own"!?
As an atheist myself, it dosent really bother me if others believe in rubbish; even if they tryed to press their beliefs onto me I still dont think it would provoke me to try and change their worldview, at least not vehemently!

So, why try to change another persons beliefs?

seanybiker

Im an atheist meself and I wouldnt dream of changing peoples beliefs. Us poor atheists get more of a grueling on here than any of them holy joes.
I respect peoples beliefs, that does me. If they wanna talk about jesus I just leave it alone. Whats the point me talking about it. Each to their own and all that.
I cant see many people changing their beliefs from reading a forum, ya never know though, stranger things have happened.

eoin5

Of course you can believe whatever you want, its what you do with those beliefs that really matters.

I say that some mainstream religious activities such as child indoctrination are forms of abuse and should be stopped.

Rev Hellfire

Few if any atheists here seem inclined to convert the masses.
The motivation seems to be more to reduce the influence of religion in the decision making process for the state and its agencies.

Its a fools errand, but there's no harm trying I guess.

I haven't seen any atheists attempting to convert the religious; usually, it's the other way around.

Atheists only (in general) press their views if religion becomes a factor affecting their lives.

FruitLover

deleriumtremens wrote: »

I'm just wondering, what motivates atheists to change other peoples' beliefs? Why not just leave "each to their own"!?

Eh... you may as well ask what motivates some religious people to change other people's beliefs. Ever met a Jehovah's Witness?

deleriumtremens

FruitLover wrote: »

Eh... you may as well ask what motivates some religious people to change other people's beliefs. Ever met a Jehovah's Witness?

Ha, never met one of them no! Would be an interesting experience I'd say!! One of my (atheist) friends had an encounter with one and he let them have it!....(the truth that is!)

eoin5

FruitLover wrote: »

Eh... you may as well ask what motivates some religious people to change other people's beliefs. Ever met a Jehovah's Witness?

I dont think most atheists believe that they must convert believers to save them from a fiery pit of demons :eek:

DinoBot

deleriumtremens wrote: »

I'm just wondering, what motivates atheists to change other peoples' beliefs? Why not just leave "each to their own"!?
As an atheist myself, it dosent really bother me if others believe in rubbish; even if they tryed to press their beliefs onto me I still dont think it would provoke me to try and change their worldview, at least not vehemently!

So, why try to change another persons beliefs?

I think people can believe what they want, the problem comes in when laws are passed or prohibited based on faith.

One example would be on gay marriage.
Why don't we have it in this country ?
Whats the secular reason for not allowing it ?

There would be no problem if people could leave each to their own, but life is rarely that simple

Its not about trying to change their beliefs but more about showing that their belief is not the only or "absolute right" way. They can continue to believe as they want.

Joe1919

DinoBot wrote: »

I think people can believe what they want, the problem comes in when laws are passed or prohibited based on faith.

One example would be on gay marriage.
Why don't we have it in this country ?
Whats the secular reason for not allowing it ?

There would be no problem if people could leave each to their own, but life is rarely that simple

Its not about trying to change their beliefs but more about showing that their belief is not the only or "absolute right" way. They can continue to believe as they want.

I'm not sure that marriage makes a good comparison here.
Marriage is treated as a special case when it comes to contract law and this seems to be justified on the basis of a 'faith in the family' or that the typical family is the unit of society.

What Im saying here is that an atheist would really have to question the whole concept of marriage in the first place before he imposes all the baggage that goes with marriage onto same sex couples.

Perhaps I'm as much of a sceptic about marriage as I am about religion but I do think same sex couples are lucky in ways by being spared the legal complications of marriage or possible co-habituation rights , because if same sexed couples are entitled to marriage, they are entitled to divorce and maintenance and all that stuff.

Fanny Cradock

seanybiker wrote: »

Us poor atheists get more of a grueling on here than any of them holy joes.

Rubbish!

deleriumtremens

I have to say though, it does bother me when things like stem cell research dont go ahead due to "ethical" reasons. Same goes for when jehovah's witnesses (?) wont let their child have a blood transfusion. I say believe what you like, but if it comes in the way of scientific progress or endangers a persons life, then I would be inclined to tell the person to cop themselves on.

ntlbell

Personally I've never had an atheist person try to "convert" me but I have had many Christians trying to get me to see the light.

AtomicHorror

deleriumtremens wrote: »

I'm just wondering, what motivates atheists to change other peoples' beliefs? Why not just leave "each to their own"!?
As an atheist myself, it dosent really bother me if others believe in rubbish; even if they tryed to press their beliefs onto me I still dont think it would provoke me to try and change their worldview, at least not vehemently!

So, why try to change another persons beliefs?

Because when it is acceptable to believe in things without evidence, you open the door for a world in which all opinions, however spurious, are equally valid. Each to their own is not really practical when superstitions begin to influence government policies and state education, when crystal healing is given the same credence by some as chemotherapy.

Joe1919

AtomicHorror wrote: »

when crystal healing is given the same credence by some as chemotherapy.

Hmmmm.... Not a good example. Crystal healing may act as a placebo and there is evidence that placebo's work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

seanybiker

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Rubbish!

No its not. There is a thread been started all the time asking us what we think about not going to heaven and whats the point of life without belief. Leave us alone lol

Dades

seanybiker wrote: »

Leave us alone lol

Naah, don't.

eoin5

Joe1919 wrote: »

Hmmmm.... Not a good example. Crystal healing may act as a placebo and there is evidence that placebo's work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Placebos can be anything. Chemotherapy kills cells. :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Naah, don't.

I'm sorry Dades but I've been insulted for the last time here.

*Slams Door*

Sorry sean but you don't make a convincing argument. While I freely admit that there are many holy Joe's who give as good as they get (and then some), the notion that Atheists on this forum are in some manner an oppressed majority (?) is utter tosh. As by way of example, I direct you to the very first sticky in this forum.

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Few if any atheists here seem inclined to convert the masses.

I certainly know of one Atheist that stated (via PM) it was his aim.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I certainly know of one Atheist that stated (via PM) it was his aim.

Ahh the Bush technique:

I have secrets informations that prove you wrong, only you can't see it cos that would be unethical/against the rules/a danger to the state/secret!, but trust me I have it, I win anyways LOL.

Not very convincing. Pathetic in fact.

kiffer

pH wrote: »

Ahh the Bush technique:

I have secrets informations that prove you wrong, only you can't see it cos that would be unethical/against the rules/a danger to the state/secret!, but trust me I have it, I win anyways LOL.

Not very convincing. Pathetic in fact.

While I agree that FC's post was a bit weak. "I know one atheist that whats to convert people" does not mean that atheists in general are bothered to do so.
I would not expect fanny to say who actually said it but in all probablity someone did.

I wouldn't claim that the statement was untruthful...
all it shows is that one atheist feels this way but I think thats hardly the norm.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I certainly know of one Atheist that stated (via PM) it was his aim.

So that would be one of the "few if any" that Rev Hellfire mentioned then?

Hivemind187

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sorry Dades but I've been insulted for the last time here.

*Slams Door*

Sorry sean but you don't make a convincing argument. While I freely admit that there are many holy Joe's who give as good as they get (and then some), the notion that Atheists on this forum are in some manner an oppressed majority (?) is utter tosh. As by way of example, I direct you to the very first sticky in this forum.

LMAO

"I'm taking my god and I'm going home!" :P

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

Ahh the Bush technique:

I have secrets informations that prove you wrong, only you can't see it cos that would be unethical/against the rules/a danger to the state/secret!, but trust me I have it, I win anyways LOL.

Not very convincing. Pathetic in fact.

'Pathetic' - oh, please! Spare me having to suffer through your hyperbolic dramatics. I'm hardly going to divulge PMs on this forum to attempt to convince you of the possibility that one poster I know wanted to de-convert people. If you think this aim so unlikely that I have had to peddle a lie then so be it.

kiffer wrote: »

So that would be one of the "few if any" that Rev Hellfire mentioned then?

No, you can knock off the 'if any' part.

Bougeoir

I think trying to press any belief on somebody in a forceful sort of way like scare tactics is wrong whether it be Christian, atheist or any other sort of belief like myself who has Wicca beliefs but I'd never dare enforce my beliefs on others because because finding what is true to somebody is a personal journey.

Although if certain beliefs cause harm on somebody or something then I think they should be challenged such as the way some children are indoctrinated from birth. Like I know somebody and they were brought up in some odd Christian sect (can't remember the name though of it) but they were told if they did something bad, were faithful enough, etc. then they'd be sent to hell when they die for eternity and burn there and all these scare tactics. Luckily they did escape from the cult in their later years but these psychological scars have still remained with them well into their adulthood. Their family also disowned them.

kiffer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, you can knock off the 'if any' part.

Fanny... are you a little slow today?
I was quoting Rev Hellfire's post which you quoted... the hint was that I'd put it in quotation marks...
Do some (any) atheists want to "free people from the shackles of Religion", Yes some do... Is this some the few or many?
You have a PM from one atheist...

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Few if any atheists here seem inclined to convert the masses.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I certainly know of one Atheist that stated (via PM) it was his aim.

kiffer wrote:

So that would be one of the "few if any" that Rev Hellfire mentioned then?

You've received a PM from one atheist... One is what we call a small number.
Presumably there are more... even lots of them... but as long as they are in the tiny minority we can call them few.

Also... I was defending your honesty in my post... pH had perhaps suggested that you had not received such a PM... I think it's clear that I did not doubt that you received the PM only that one is a small number of people and hardly invalidates Rev Hellfires post that few if any atheists feel this way.

Fanny Cradock

Yes, very good Kiffer. But first, look at the Good Rev's post and try to see how I read it.

Few, if any, atheists here seem inclined to convert the masses.

I've added commas to better illustrate my understanding.

As I know of one Atheist who has professed to the desire to de-convert the religious then I feel 'if any' does not apply. I've not remarked about the overall numbers of Atheists who seek to de-convert people. However, if you must know my position - and I think that this is something that has to be explained so as to hopefully avoid any further conniptions - I think that most Atheists go about their life without feeling the call to evangelise. So, yes, 'few atheists here seem inclined to convert the masses.'

Now possibly I'm completely wrong in my understanding of the Rev's words, but I don't see the why you felt the need to post your condescending little rant.

Fighting Irish

i have no problems with anyone believing in anything aslong as your religious believes dont affect me and dont expect any respect from me once i find out u believe in fairies

Dades

Oh be nice, people.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

dont expect any respect from me once i find out u believe in fairies

And don't expect any back talking like that.

Schuhart

I think this kind of issue was rather well covered by Scofflaw in a post a while back when he said in the course of a thread on what constitutes a 'good life'

I am, unsurprisingly, working from the premise that there is no such thing as an objectively 'good' life. The theist cannot therefore be described as "wasting" their life, as long as they judge themselves to be leading a good life (in which they are supported by other theists) - indeed, the only person who can really describe a theist as wasting their life is another theist.

So, absolutely, there can be no real motivation for an atheist to bother convincing someone to turn away from a faith. The only issue is being able to commit to common rules of behaviour where people with different beliefs interact.

Although, I can equally recall Zillah having a reasonable motivation for encouraging apostasy.

fitz0

I don't try (or suceed) at changing anyones beliefs but I refuse to shy away from any sort of religious conversation anymore. I don't respect religious beliefs, I might respect the person but if I find their beliefs laughable Ill not respect them. But its still no excuse to be rude so I refrain from openly stating the fact that their beliefs are entirely made up and just plain silly.

Húrin

fitz0 wrote: »

But its still no excuse to be rude so I refrain from openly stating the fact that their beliefs are entirely made up and just plain silly.

I think that you should not shy away from saying that. If and only if, you realise the gravity of the claim you are making. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary backing, evidence and support.

dalkener

Had a recent experience in america.
was over visiting my soon to be sister in law with my fiancee. Her brother was also over and one night around the dinner table started telling everyone how he was going back to church and how important it is to go to church.
I promised my wife to be I wouldn't cause any commotion on the trip but couldn't bite my tongue any longer when he started saying that the church has brought Ireland to where it is today and if people didn't go back to church the country was heading for bad times........the gasket blew at this stage and I started questioning everything he was going on about and that not everybody in Ireland thought like that...all the time getting kicked in the shin under the table!! Was worth it though to wipe that that smug all knowing smile off his face.......

hmmmmm ranting a bit now.....

c-note

E C Titchmarsh in a book Mathematics for the General Reader

"It can be of no practical use to know that is irrational, but if we can know, it would surely be intolerable not to know"

although this quote is about the merits of investigating seemingly trivial aspets of mathematics it is the sentiment which i feel is applicable to any situation where the truth is sought.

if you like, consider the following with the word intolerable meaning exactly as it does above:

if there exists no measurable evidence, and if it contracdicts what is known to be true, then surely it would be intolerable to have it procalimed as true.

this is roughly where i stand on religion, and while i respect (nay, welcome) anyones right to believe what they choose, i often find what they choose, to be intolerable.

But i would not attempt to convince them otherwise, i've had
a few priests and nuns and lay people try to "show me the way"
and have found it rather insulting. I dont feel the need to spread.
if something is true its true, all of infinity believing otherwise cannot change that.

Fighting Irish

Dades wrote: »

Oh be nice, people.

And don't expect any back talking like that.

That's how i feel though

lostexpectation

why don't you stop beating your wife deleriumtremens

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

why don't you stop beating your wife deleriumtremens

What the hell?

fitz0

Húrin wrote: »

I think that you should not shy away from saying that. If and only if, you realise the gravity of the claim you are making. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary backing, evidence and support.

So very true. Pity such backing, evidence and support is never forthcoming from the religious side.

I surely do realise the gravity of the claim I make, wouldn't make it otherwise.

Húrin

c-note wrote: »

if you like, consider the following with the word intolerable meaning exactly as it does above:

if there exists no measurable evidence, and if it contracdicts what is known to be true, then surely it would be intolerable to have it procalimed as true.

this is roughly where i stand on religion, and while i respect (nay, welcome) anyones right to believe what they choose, i often find what they choose, to be intolerable.

Some religious teachings may contradict what is known to be true. Most do not. If only because memetic selection, if it exists, would eliminate them. The foundational belief in God does not contradict what is known to be true.

fitz0 wrote: »

So very true. Pity such backing, evidence and support is never forthcoming from the religious side.

Never forthcoming? I'm well aware that Jesus made extraordinary claims. The vast library of apologetic works of religion, stretching back hundreds of years counts for support. Oh wait, you haven't actually bothered to look, have you?

c-note

Húrin wrote: »

Some religious teachings may contradict what is known to be true. Most do not. If only because memetic selection, if it exists, would eliminate them. The foundational belief in God does not contradict what is known to be true.

hello húrin,
i'm afraid i had to look-up memetic selection, all i found was reams on Richard Dawkins, which i have not the patience to read!
i'm guessing the first sentence roughly translates as: contradictory elements of a religious belief system are dropped when new discoveries forbid them, (roman catholic church vs. earth not being flat etc)?

i agree with your second sentance that the sum of all human knowledge dosnt forbid or undermine the existance of a god, or the belief in one.

i dont have any problem with anyone believing in a "god" or a "higher power".

what i find intolerable is the detail that is added,
someone may say that i believe in a god, and that god is distributed evenly throughout the universe, or that "god" has control over every aspect of our lives, or that god is blue in color and has 6 arms, or that god sent his only son to save us, etc etc
i find such beliefs intolerable. there is nothing to refute them, but equally nothing to support them.
if someone choose to believe such things, i respect that, but it really grinds my gears to hear it!

Húrin

c-note wrote: »

hello húrin,
i'm afraid i had to look-up memetic selection, all i found was reams on Richard Dawkins, which i have not the patience to read!
i'm guessing the first sentence roughly translates as: contradictory elements of a religious belief system are dropped when new discoveries forbid them, (roman catholic church vs. earth not being flat etc)?

The Roman Catholic Church never taught that the earth was flat. That hypothesis has been disproven for over 2,000 years by Greek and Indian geographers.

Memetic selection is as far as I know, the idea that ideas in society can become dominant, mutate, and die out just as genes can in biological evolution. It seems to explain some instances like what I was just talking about, but I am suspicious of the widespread tendency to universalise the process of evolution to explain everything.

c-note wrote: »

i dont have any problem with anyone believing in a "god" or a "higher power".

what i find intolerable is the detail that is added,
someone may say that i believe in a god, and that god is distributed evenly throughout the universe, or that "god" has control over every aspect of our lives, or that god is blue in color and has 6 arms, or that god sent his only son to save us, etc etc
i find such beliefs intolerable. there is nothing to refute them, but equally nothing to support them.
if someone choose to believe such things, i respect that, but it really grinds my gears to hear it!

I don't know why you find them intolerable. I find the surrender to ignorance that demands the discussion stop at the mere belief in God to be intolerable, when we are capable of much more.

It is not true to say that these other claims have nothing to support them.

fitz0

Húrin wrote: »

S
Never forthcoming? I'm well aware that Jesus made extraordinary claims. The vast library of apologetic works of religion, stretching back hundreds of years counts for support. Oh wait, you haven't actually bothered to look, have you?

Perhaps never was the wrong word... or the right one, if by backing, evidence and support I meant real, tangible evidence and not theological wrangling about how "God did it" because a clear explanation was unavailable at the time, or anecdotal tales from a book about a prophet of dubious credibility.

On the other hand I am very underinformed on such works, perhaps you could give me a title or two to look up.

c-note

Húrin wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church never taught that the earth was flat. That hypothesis has been disproven for over 2,000 years by Greek and Indian geographers.

:eek:my mistake, i had some notion of a dispute with Galileo Galilei, but it seems i have my wires crossed!

Húrin wrote: »

I don't know why you find them intolerable. I find the surrender to ignorance that demands the discussion stop at the mere belief in God to be intolerable, when we are capable of much more.

It is not true to say that these other claims have nothing to support them.

i'll try to explain why i find them so hard to accept:
i suppose it comes down to what qualifies at the truth.
you can say "i believe in god" but you cannot say "the truth is, there is a god" without upsetting me!

i suppose one way i could discribe it is with other kinds of theories,
physicists are on the lookout for a fundamental unifying theory, there are a few candidate theories, one of which MAY be the theory they are after, different people follow or "believe" in different theories, but none is foolish enough to declare that the thory they believe is the one true theory.

as far as "stopping at the belief in god" being intolerabel as we are "capable of much more"....
you are right, any humam brain is capable of believing in absolutely anything.


as far as religious claims having something to support them:
i'm also sure that on some level one could present supporting arguements to suggest that god exists, that god is a man/woman/neither, that jesus was the son of god, etc etc etc.
BUT remember there is evidence to suggest that i am a pig, i have two eyes, two ears, four limbs, pink skin, a nose with two nostrils at the front of my face, i get sunburned in strong sun, i have a heart, a liver, i eat turnips (i could go on.) but the truth is that i am not a pig.

also, i have not surrendered to ignorance. i have simply exercised my own grey matter.