[dem503]

Whether it is moral or not depends on who is answering. There is no answer- only opinion.

If the religion they are practising is damaging (physically or emotionally) to themselves or others then yes, 'converting' (or as I like to think of it; returning to factory settings) is the way to go.

Some people have raised the point that religious people are part of a community that they will lose if they don't believe the religion anymore. That's rubbish for two reasons:

1) If you enjoy going to religious services and seeing people there, there is nothing to stop you going, whatever your beliefs.

2) Being part of a community is by no means unique to religion, they can get another one

[AaronM1D1]

One may have a healthy debate, as I too enjoy discussing these deep, philosophical topics. But to go as far as trying to 'convert' someone is downright disrespectful.

[Pastaferian]

(Original post by M'Ling)
I was just wondering what fellow doubters of religion think about this. I have Christian friends, and when I show them the flaws of their religion, and show them some literature on why I don't consider myself a believer, you can see them start to doubt their beliefs.

Now, obviously the truth is the most important thing but, for some people, their religion gives them a sense of community (and lots of friends), a reason to live, and a sense of importance in the world. For these reasons, I sometimes feel guilty when showing my Christian friends things which may damage these securities.

So should we just leave normal laymen religious people alone, or should they be treated with the same hostility as the extremist believers who are causing much of the world's current strife?

Although I'm an atheist, I don't advocate spending effort on converting individual believers who have firm convictions. It's not immoral to do so, but considerations like friendship are more important.

However, believers with firm convictions are a small minority in the UK. There are a much larger group of people who might self-identify as Christian if asked, but who don't pray or go to church, who reject aspects of Christianity like son-of-god and the resurrection (which are rather important to the narrative), and who seek moral guidance primarily from non-religious sources. These people don't need converting or to have their beliefs challenged - they just need it pointing out that they are not in fact Christians and should stop self-identifying as such. Self-identified Christians have fallen from 71% in 2001 to 54% in 2011, and my prediction is that this will continue to fall to around 10%.

[sophia_]

It's only natural to preach what you believe if you are inclined to preaching, whatever the belief is.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Cephalus)
So am I. It's like people believe religious people try and convert others to try and annoy them.

I know what you mean

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Laurenx123x)
So are you saying that those who don't believe there is a God are unintelligent? I happen to be a very offended Atheist right now...

No, not at all.
I was offended by the phrase "stooping to their level", I mean this is a classic atheist strawman whereby the implication is quite often - but not always - that Christians are deluded or what not (and that the atheist's opinion makes them intellectually superior to the theist).
Quite often atheists will attack my belief and assume that I am dumb or oblivious to their theories (i.e. evolution, oscillating universes, string theory etc...) and will worm their way out of a conversation with me when I introduce concepts such as causality to the discussion (even Dawkins doesn't like cosmology)...
It wasn't that long ago when I was an agnostic and for me it made more sense for there to be a God rather than no God (that is a discussion for another thread though!!)
Anyway I can't generalise and neither can the poster who said "stooping to their level."

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by thetom)
Not the level of any religious people, rather people who convert. See my previous post. And this is not specific to Christianity, I am saying stoop to the level of trying to convert other people, which is basically saying "You are wrong! You must believe what I believe!".

Ah, I see what you mean now!

[AaronM1D1]

I'd love to see Dawkins and Benedict XVI out feeding the ducks, hand-in-hand.

[desdemonata]

I respect theists' beliefs and let them live their lives and believe what they want to, I only expect for them to extend the same courtesy. I don't particularly feel the need to discuss religion. In any case I only have a problem with it when it starts to negatively impact on others, in itself I think faith is a beautiful thing to have.

[05EWalker]

(Original post by M'Ling)
I'd just like to take this discussion further, though, and throw in a quote from the Bible which demands evangelism:

Matthew 28:19-20 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

This was found from a quick Google search, and there were many others telling the followers of Jesus to go out and make people believers. It is, to Christians, a very moral thing to evangelise, but for Atheists to 'evangelise' is often seen as perhaps more offensive.

I can see where your comming from, however, the belief of science is the belief in the search for the truth. If you believe that science is therefore the truth is it not just as moral to try and help others find that truth. Just because an atheist doesnt have a "sacred text" telling them to convert people to their belief system doesnt mean its not moral or less moral than converting an atheist to religion. However, I am not saying that it is moral for either group to convert the other after all in the Human Rights Act that was signed by the government, it says that we have freedom of thought, consciousness and religion. If either party is to try and convert the other is that not trying to infringe on this right.

However, my original point was that as it is seen more moral for religious people to try and convert athiests, athiests trying to convert religious people should be considered at the same moral level as each party has their own set of beliefs which each have their merits.

[chrisjar]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Most Christians are intelligent people who realise that there must be a God because they know that random events do not occur.

Please elaborate with evidence for your assertion.

[Pastaferian]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Most Christians are intelligent people who realise that there must be a God because they know that random events do not occur.

I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent Christians, not least those in this forum, but many studies have shown that religiosity correlates with low intelligence and poor education.

[callum9999]

(Original post by thetom)
Not to stoop to their level.

"Stoop to their level"??? Religious people who try and convert you are generally trying to save your soul. Irritating, but with the best intentions.

While I'm sure some atheists try and "convert" people just to try and hurt them, I'd personally see it as trying to stop them from wasting their life (while they may feel they will live, in some form, for eternity - I don't and would rather see them live their short life as well as possible). Which again, I'm sure is annoying for them, but done with good intentions.

I'm basically just saying I don't think either side "stoops" to any level.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by chrisjar)
Please elaborate with evidence for your assertion.

I was referring to the law of causality whereby every cause must have an effect ad infinitum until you reach an ultimate first cause of everything...
(a separate and dedicated thread is where this belongs, but I'll answer your question to the best extent possible anyway - I hope that I'm not digressing too much!!!)

>you know that you had a great, great, great, great gran for you are here today but empirical evidence says that you had no great, great, great, great gran for you can have no sensory perception of her as you are here today, it is an argument from necessity. It is exactly the same issue with proving the existence of God.
>the problem with infinite causality can be demonstrated like so:
say I can only greet you if I ask the person behind me for permission. Presuppose that person behind me had to ask the person behind them ad infitum. In short, would I ever get to greet you? No, as I only could after an infinite number of people have given me permission to do so and infinite is impossible to obtain (10,000 doesn't bring me any closer than 3 did!!)...
>the problem with infinite time is that the universe would remain in a stagnant state as all processes are finite and will eventually come to an ultimate state of a lifeless equilibrium (I believe Prof Cox speculates about that one!!)...
>the abundance of hydrogen is testament to the universe existing for finite time
>if there were potential prior to the big bang then there wouldn't have been a nothing ergo there must have been time ergo the universe must have been and must have not been at the same time, contradictory isn't it?
>evolutionists cannot account for the nature of a thought as chemicals react, they do not reason!! Chemicals do not speculate based on whether or not an outcome will be good for bad and if Darwin is right then free will is an illusion.
>as God is immaterial, spaceless, timeless etc... God must then be non-contingent which means that the law of cause and effect doesn't apply to God anyway!! Creation, by definition, is a miracle for it transcends the laws of physics but what is the alternative? String theory?
>God must have a reason for creating a cause within an empty void that gave rise to causality - finding that one out is the job role of a theologian!
>evil must exist in order for us to develop the virtues required to want to pray to a deity of any kind!!!

[Sheep]

I have thought about this myself and it is brought up in the film 'the four horsemen' which is pretty much 4 atheist guys sitting around debating, when it is brought up, it is quickly dismissed with disapproval

sure, people would feel better about thinking they are going to happy land after they die, where all their family is , the best place on earth, full of joy and happiness - just so long as they do good deeds in their life

it's easy to see why this whole thing was invented lol

but, you could say the same about any fantasy-land imaginative story that could be dreamt up

it doesn't make it the truth, and the truth is what matters, whether it is good or bad

and the truth is, we don't actually know why we're alive or what happens to us after we die etc, pretending that we do know is just delaying the search for actual truth tbh

it is harmful to pretend that some bronze age book was created by the son of god , because it interferes with progress (ie acceptance of evolution), society (ie gay rights) and all sorts

[chrisjar]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
I was referring to the law of causality whereby every cause must have an effect ad infinitum until you reach an ultimate first cause of everything...
(a separate and dedicated thread is where this belongs, but I'll answer your question to the best extent possible anyway - I hope that I'm not digressing too much!!!)

You're right that this isn't the place to bring this up, so I won't make a detailed reply. But let me just say that your apparent belief in the non-occurrance of random events, whilst unfounded, is not the same as a belief in an infinite cycle of cause and effect.

I'm not going to answer every one of these...arguments. But I'll try a few.

>you know that you had a great, great, great, great gran for you are here today but empirical evidence says that you had no great, great, great, great gran for you can have no sensory perception of her as you are here today, it is an argument from necessity. It is exactly the same issue with proving the existence of God.
>the problem with infinite causality can be demonstrated like so:

You say there is no empirical evidence that I had a great great great gran because I have no sensory perception of her. This is a logical fallacy. Determining that as I am alive I must have a great grandmother is not the same as stating that as I am alive I must have been created by God/God exists to have created me. There is a lot of evidence to show that you need a great great grandmother to exist. You cannot claim that evidence for a god(s).

>evolutionists cannot account for the nature of a thought as chemicals react, they do not reason!! Chemicals do not speculate based on whether or not an outcome will be good for bad and if Darwin is right then free will is an illusion.

You are right, free will is a rather elaborate illusion. It is the nature of our existence. But extrapolating that as chemicals cannot reason, that we cannot, is rather infantile. Consider this: as computers become ever more advanced, and ever more able to learn and react to their environment, it seems to an uneducated person that they could be said to have some semblance of intelligence. Siri appears intelligent enough to work out what you are saying and respond in a reasoned way. But it is not intelligent, it is a program utilising algorithms and databases. Our brains are organic computers, with neural networks, performing tasks and using data. There is no dualism of mind acting here. We are just a collection of chemicals.

[Nacho King]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
We should leave them alone until their beliefs lead to actions that cause harm, either to an individual, group, or public policy.

Can you explain your current annoyance about Mohammed and sand to me?

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by Nacho King)
Can you explain your current annoyance about Mohammed and sand to me?

Haha, I'm not annoyed by Mohammed and sand. I'm irritated by the man in the meme, Hamza Tzortzis, and his claims that the Qur'an contains things that Mohammed couldn't possibly have known. There's a whole page of them on quickmeme, although the site appears to be down at the moment.

[Nacho King]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
Haha, I'm not annoyed by Mohammed and sand. I'm irritated by the man in the meme, Hamza Tzortzis, and his claims that the Qur'an contains things that Mohammed couldn't possibly have known. There's a whole page of them on quickmeme, although the site appears to be down at the moment.

What does he claim mohammed couldn't have known?

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by Nacho King)
What does he claim mohammed couldn't have known?

All the usual garbage about the embryology, mountains etc.

http://www.quickmeme.com/How-Could-M...nown/?upcoming