Is It Immoral to Try to Convert an Atheist?

[CynthiaCypher]

No insult intended.

But honestly when you say you didn't intend to convince anyone with the op, I find that hard to believe.

Even with this post you are trying to convince. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I am not anyone's personal Jesus. I state ideas and nothing more. I am not trying to convince or convict anyone.

Whether a person understands or accepts my ideas is not up to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you understand by convincing exactly? It is not always big enough of a deal to even wonder if it should be avoided.

There are threads around these forums about culinary recipes, about animes worth watching. Surely it is not a big deal that people are attempting to convince others to try things they find worthwhile?

 

[Sha'irullah]

It is immoral to convert anyone. Inflicting the ideas of one mind upon another in an often deceitful and forceful way is an invasion upon another mind's autonomy and a violation of a person's own autonomy is always immoral

 

[monti]

Frankly trying to guess what is "God's will" often leads to some very warped thinking. Say what you think is true. Do what you think is right.

A1 post.

 

[monti]

I just see no reason to ask people who have committed no sin to repent of their sin.

Didn't Jesus insist on John baptising him when John was calling people to repent?

 

[ametist]

I understand your point. But I see it not under morality but more a necessity which cant be broken anyway like a physical law. There are philosophical theist,along with them certain number of people in a point of time that are never gonna have experience of theism or reality that we know would dissolve.so even if you try you cant convert everyone to the experience theism.

 

[dust1n]

For all that we know for certain, maybe God wants us to disbelieve and protect his believers from their own excesses.

How can anyone tell?

I can tell because my nature can be accounted for by other manners. As far as the nature of everything is concerned, that might be a different story. I think it's Eris.

 

[LuisDantas]

That does not seem to answer my question, but if you say so.

 

[dust1n]

That does not seem to answer my question, but if you say so.

The question is how I can be sure that my nature was not created by God. Well, in order for my nature to have been created by God, he would have created the nature of everything exactly as intended throughout all of existence. In which case, we are admitting that I am exactly everything but my own will. Thus being an determined being and one inculpable for any behavior, I would cease to exist as a subject, and thus, would have no human nature to speak of.

So if God is responsible for my nature, than it is not my nature at all, all nature of is of him or it or what have you. If God doesn't exist, my nature is accounted for, whether free will exists or not.

 

[steeltoes]

I see no fault in a person being a theist and neither do I see no fault in a person being an atheist.

God exists or it doesn't, so one or the other is wrong. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just is.

 

[LuisDantas]

God exists or it doesn't, so one or the other is wrong. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just is.

Is that quite right? There is no obvious reason why God's existence can't be somewhat relative, as is sometimes suggested.

 

[steeltoes]

Is that quite right? There is no obvious reason why God's existence can't be somewhat relative, as is sometimes suggested.

Relative?

 

[Parsimony]

It's basically a matter of attempting to change someone's mind on a subject. There's nothing wrong with that so long as deception, insults, coercion, etc. are not used in the process.

 

[LuisDantas]

Relative?

In various different conceivable ways, in fact. The most obvious being that people don't always agree on what qualifies to be named as a God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's certainly not immoral to try to convert an atheist, but, in the case of intelligent, informed rationalists who are atheists, it is a misguided and wasteful effort. It's like trying to convince somebody that you have an invisible purple dragon perched on your shoulder. Anyone with working eyes and/or common sense won't be convinced by your pronouncement, no matter how much you've convinced yourself that the dragon is real.

 

[ChristineES]

It's certainly not immoral to try to convert an atheist, but, in the case of intelligent, informed rationalists who are atheists, it is a misguided and wasteful effort. It's like trying to convince somebody that you have an invisible purple dragon perched on your shoulder. Anyone with working eyes and/or common sense won't be convinced by your pronouncement, no matter how much you've convinced yourself that the dragon is real.

Convincing someone of anything that they just don't believe in might just be a wasted effort.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I find it more immoral to mentally convert atheists to theism by such silly theories of being vessels of a god's will.

 

[idav]

It is immoral to convert people into believing lies and falsities so I do avoid trying to convert people into believing any particular god, cause with all the possibilities it is likely a false god. Anyway it seems like I mostly agree with atheists except for the semantics issue of God in general. Like why even have the word God, the word atheist would be just as useless, so I get caught up in those semantics sometimes. I go by, if it walks like a duck....well then.....probably is.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Ok, I think I should clarify myself.

I believe that to interfere with the will of another is contrary to the Law of Love. It is a form of domination to want to change the will of another over to they way you happen to think things should be. Love does not dominate, neither does it try to exert undue influence over others.

The great Aleister Crowley who I respect has one of the greatest teachers ever and whom I taken this idea from had this to say about it:

2. “As brothers fight ye!” AL III:59

“If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.” AL II:59
To bring out saliently the differences between two points-of-view is useful to both in measuring the position of each in the whole. Combat stimulates the virile or creative energy; and, like love, of which it is one form, excites the mind to an orgasm which enables it to transcend its rational dullness.

When I put forth an idea here, I am not trying to convince anyone of it's truth for me. I debate because it does me good and because I think it is fun.

3. Abstain from all interferences with other wills.

“Beware lest any force another, King against King!” AL II:24
The love and war in the previous injunctions are of the nature of sport, where one respects, and learns from the opponent, but never interferes with him, outside the actual game. To seek to dominate or influence another is to seek to deform or destroy him; and he is a necessary part of one's own Universe, that is, of one's self.

I have no desire to impose my views upon anyone, the only thing I like doing is to occasionally poke an atheist with a stick to see how they will react. I have no desire to see atheism disappear or "save" atheist, because as Crowley said, I view atheism and atheist to be a necessary part of my universe.

So if you wish to learn more about what Crowley is addressing here and what some of you are objecting too, please follow the link below:

Duty by Aleister Crowley

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ok, I think I should clarify myself.

I believe that to interfere with the will of another is contrary to the Law of Love. It is a form of domination to want to change the will of another over to they way you happen to think things should be. Love does not dominate, neither does it try to exert undue influence over others.

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.