Is It Immoral to Try to Convert an Atheist?

[McBell]

Is It Immoral to Try to Convert an Atheist?

IMHO
No more immoral and no less immoral than it is to convert anyone else.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I once knew a guy who thought it was cool to skin cats. Alive.

I had no problem trying to dominate him, to convert him over to the way I thought things should be. I still have a hard time feeling ashamed of myself for imposing my will on him and converting him to my view that cat-skinning should only be done to dead cats.

And pray tell what does criminal activity have to do with converting a person with one religious belief over to another as if they are sinful or criminal?

Criminals are dominated as a necessity to protect innocents from being harmed, there is no necessity where there is no harm done.

As Crowley said, one can enlighten others when it is deemed an absolute necessary whereas they have proven themselves to be a harm to others and themselves but in doing so one should do so carefully.

4. Seek, if you so will, to enlighten another when need arises.

This may be done, always with the strict respect for the attitude of the good sportsman, when he is in distress through failure to understand himself clearly, especially when he specifically demands help; for his darkness may hinder one's perception of his perfection. (Yet also his darkness may serve as a warning, or excite one's interest.) It is also lawful when his ignorance has lead him to interfere with one's will. All interference is in any case dangerous, and demands the exercise of extreme skill and good judgement, fortified by experience. To influence another is to leave one's citadel unguarded; and the attempt commonly ends in losing one's own self-supremacy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Aleister Crowley who I respect

Uh? Really?

I must say, I did not expect such a revelation. Now I find your beliefs weird.

 

[Quintessence]

I generally agree with the conclusions you come to, though not the premises you followed to get there. I consider pluralism to be a virtue. Therefore, attempting to convert anyone away from their way of life is generally undesirable. Concessions often need to be made in the name of other virtues, but for the most part, I agree with obeying the Prime Directive of non-interference.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And pray tell what does criminal activity have to do with converting a person with one religious belief over to another as if they are sinful or criminal?

Think about Mother Teresa. Her (religious) belief in ensoulment caused massive pain and suffering, in my view. So I would happily try to unconvince her of that religious belief. I'd want her to toss her religious belief aside and adopt my religious belief that no such thing as a soul exists or that it doesn't enter our bodies until the last trimester.

All our beliefs have real-world consequences. President Bush had a religious belief similar to Mother Teresa's, so he outlawed stem cell research.

It's important to fight over belief, if we care anything about the world.

May the best arguments win.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's quite possible we have a moral duty to try to convert people from harmful beliefs to less harmful beliefs.

 

[McBell]

I think it's quite possible we have a moral duty to try to convert people from harmful beliefs to less harmful beliefs.

Who gets to decide which beliefs are the more harmful?

 

[Sunstone]

Who gets to decide which beliefs are the more harmful?

Certainly, there are grey areas, but in many cases, that's not a difficult choice at all for a reasonable person.

 

[crossfire]

Who gets to decide which beliefs are the more harmful?

My suggestion would be beliefs that propagate greed, hatred, or delusion are harmful in the long term, imo.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

My suggestion would be beliefs that propagate greed, hatred, or delusion are harmful in the long term, imo.

So we should convert the followers of Ayn Rand?

 

[work in progress]

So we should convert the followers of Ayn Rand?

YES! By all means necessary.

 

[crossfire]

So we should convert the followers of Ayn Rand?

[satire] Do I detect a bit of hatred there? :run: [/satire]

 

[crossfire]

YES! By all means necessary.

Except if it propagates greed, hatred, or delusion, of course.

My suggestion would be beliefs that propagate greed, hatred, or delusion are harmful in the long term, imo.

That's one problem with conversion attempts--people will often (unconsciously) try to tap into these emotions in order to energize their conversion attempts--which of course propagates these emotions, which leads to long term harm. It takes a bit of discernment to tease this out.

 

[LuisDantas]

Think about Mother Teresa. Her (religious) belief in ensoulment caused massive pain and suffering, in my view. So I would happily try to unconvince her of that religious belief. I'd want her to toss her religious belief aside and adopt my religious belief that no such thing as a soul exists or that it doesn't enter our bodies until the last trimester.

All our beliefs have real-world consequences. President Bush had a religious belief similar to Mother Teresa's, so he outlawed stem cell research.

It's important to fight over belief, if we care anything about the world.

May the best arguments win.

Quoted for truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Who gets to decide which beliefs are the more harmful?

We all must strive to develop that skill and to put it to the proof against objective facts. Ultimately it is a leap of faith, but it does not have to be hubris-loaded blind faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

So we should convert the followers of Ayn Rand?

We should certainly attempt to, as long as we have sincere reason to believe they are misguided.

That, of course, should not be done in a predatory way.

 

[crossfire]

Think about Mother Teresa. Her (religious) belief in ensoulment caused massive pain and suffering, in my view. So I would happily try to unconvince her of that religious belief. I'd want her to toss her religious belief aside and adopt my religious belief that no such thing as a soul exists or that it doesn't enter our bodies until the last trimester.

All our beliefs have real-world consequences. President Bush had a religious belief similar to Mother Teresa's, so he outlawed stem cell research.

It's important to fight over belief, if we care anything about the world.

May the best arguments win.

I came to the adult stem cell vs embryonic stem cell argument by examining the scientific data and contemplating the ramifications of both, and came to the conclusion that embryonic stem cell research leads down a very rocky trail that is much more harmful than adult stem cell research. (We can have that argument on another thread, if you wish.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I came to the adult stem cell vs embryonic stem cell argument by examining the scientific data and contemplating the ramifications of both, and came to the conclusion that embryonic stem cell research leads down a very rocky trail that is much more harmful than adult stem cell research. (We can have that argument on another thread, if you wish.)

I'd be curious if you want to give me a snapshot of the rocky road.

 

[idav]

Who gets to decide which beliefs are the more harmful?

Thing is we need a team of people willing to risk injury and death so that we can get the data needed to determine worst course of action.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not all harm translates directly or clearly into physical or even demonstrable psychological injury, though.

At the end of the day we must develop and trust our own discernment. Or surrender to someone else's, perhaps.