Is it selfish to convert others?

[scorpia]

Continued from here

Question is as the title says; Just how is those who think someone should be converted or whatever is selfish?

Well no, I don't believe accusing someone of self-righteousness is self-rightous in the same sense,

Why not? Self-righteousness is self-righteousness.

but if it was, then ALL accusations, debates, opinions etc are self-righteous, hence YOU are too for debating me and this whole forum is filled with self-righteous people! Hence, why debate at all? Let's all become inert and humble. Excuse the sarcasm.

And that it is. And that I am. I accept that. I am not going to worry about how I look, whether self-righteous or otherwise, in order to get a point across that I feel needs telling.

And going back some time to the conversion of the natives (be they American or Australian) most of these missionaries did it for THEMSELVES, so put their own souls in good light and to gain favour with God etc.

Maybe, but why does it matter why they do it, so long as it gets done? What's more important; whether the doctor saved someone's life for his own gratification or not, or the fact that he saved a life and got the job done?

So he does it to make God happy? So what? It is either that, or decide not to do it in order to make other people happy. Either way what the person does would be so that he may gratified by others.

Sure some would have done it as a self-less act, but does not make it any more right. Who are they to dictate what's right and wrong? The natives had their own religion, so by trying to convert was a sign of disrespect and self-rightousness. Why should Christianity be the prevailing religion?

I am sure all of these other religions are very interesting. But what's more important, keeping a variety of cultures, or having people safe?

Let everyone go to hell? Some people don't BELIEVE in hell and are happy with their own god. Some people don't believe in a deity full stop. Why should someone impose their beliefs on someone in order to save them from something that is NOT in their beliefs in the first place

I can see how those others should be respected, for their loyalty at least, but try to keep in mind that the converter is trying to save souls., which can be more important than anything else. And it is a hard thing to do to respect another's person's beliefs when it is fact in the converter's eyes that hell exists and they have to save them?

They are simply doing what they feel is right. How can anyone be angry at a person for simply doing that? Would you rather people just ignore what they know is right or wrong and just do nothing, when something may very well be needed to be done, just so that they don't appear selfish or self-righteous?

[scorpia]

So an athiest is doing something different when trying to convert others to athiesm?

From what I gather however, most atheists try not to, and try to show that they respect other people's views, and debate mostly in order to learn, not to convert.

I wouldn't hold my breath if you expect people to magically stop expressing their views. You want to stop the spread of falsities? Do it the old fashioned way- prove them wrong.

According to some...... They have already proven them wrong. Those who still disagree are simply ignorant.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

From what I gather however, most atheists try not to, and try to show that they respect other people's views, and debate mostly in order to learn, not to convert.

Everyone debates to convert. Learning is merely a welcome side effect.


And frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way.

[palmera]

Everyone debates to convert. Learning is merely a welcome side effect.

I disagree. The purpose of debate is not to convert, or to encourage uniformity of views, beliefs; rather, it is to arrive at a truth or reality beyond the scope of either initial claim. The essence of debate is learning, not conversion. It is a dialectical process. But, perhaps there's more to it- to figure that out, we must... debate.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The purpose of debate is not to convert, or to encourage uniformity of views, beliefs; rather, it is to arrive at a truth or reality beyond the scope of either initial claim.

Everyone says something like that. I have yet to believe any of them. You can't possibly convince me that you would be upset if you managed to align everyone with your way of thinking.

We all have our own personal perspective of morality. We all desire the world to conform to these ethics, believing them to be in humanity's best interest.

By debating to win, you attempt to spread your perspective, and possibly tilt society toward your idealisms.

It works as a magnificent learning tool because it forces a sort of "natural selection" upon ideas. Those defending ideas that cannot be sufficiently argued will lose out, allowing good ideas to permeate. It is also useful because in the process of defending your opinon, you are forced to consider it from different perspectives that you would not have normally examined, refining your own views into something genuinely viable.

Essentially, the proper end result of debate is as you said (the achievement of a greater truth). However, this effect can only come about via the root nature of all debate; indoctrination.

[scorpia]

You can't possibly convince me that you would be upset if you managed to align everyone with your way of thinking.

It is my belief that I would.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that everyone in a sense is trying to convert everyone else. At least into some ideas/ concepts enough for them to feel understood. Then again, if I converted someone into my line of thinking so much though, it might be a bad thing. It's like "You go overseas to win but one convert, and he turns out to be twice the hell cat you are." I cannot so much as claim to be a true Christian, let alone one of those one who would sucessfully escape hell. If I were to convert someone, it may doom them similairly. If anything, I would prefer a better Christian to convert them, then teach me a thing or two. maybe a lot of people really are truly out to convert, though they won't think that of themselves. then again, there would bepeople out there wanting to be converted instead.

[Goat]

The purpose of debate is not to convert, or to encourage uniformity of views, beliefs; rather, it is to arrive at a truth or reality beyond the scope of either initial claim.

Everyone says something like that. I have yet to believe any of them. You can't possibly convince me that you would be upset if you managed to align everyone with your way of thinking.

We all have our own personal perspective of morality. We all desire the world to conform to these ethics, believing them to be in humanity's best interest.

By debating to win, you attempt to spread your perspective, and possibly tilt society toward your idealisms.

It works as a magnificent learning tool because it forces a sort of "natural selection" upon ideas. Those defending ideas that cannot be sufficiently argued will lose out, allowing good ideas to permeate. It is also useful because in the process of defending your opinon, you are forced to consider it from different perspectives that you would not have normally examined, refining your own views into something genuinely viable.

Essentially, the proper end result of debate is as you said (the achievement of a greater truth). However, this effect can only come about via the root nature of all debate; indoctrination.

Such high ideals about debate.

I just like to argue. (Oh, this is abuse.. Aguement is down the hall).

[Marishiten]

I am sure all of these other religions are very interesting. But what's more important, keeping a variety of cultures, or having people safe?

They are simply doing what they feel is right. How can anyone be angry at a person for simply doing that? Would you rather people just ignore what they know is right or wrong and just do nothing, when something may very well be needed to be done, just so that they don't appear selfish or self-righteous?

I don't think we're ever going to find middle ground here.

1. SAFE FROM WHAT?? The notion of hell? There is NO hell. When we die, that's it, nothing, bad person or good person. Some people, like I, believe that - and therefore what makes it any less plausible than what YOU believe in? They're both BELIEFS (although one's grounded on fantasy and one isn't)

2. These people will never KNOW what is right and wrong. I didn't start this as a debate about self-righteousness, but rather about the immorality and stupidity of conversion. The notion that it's right to convert because it needs to be done to keep people safe is just THE most ridiculous thing I've heard on here. What evidence on EARTH says that Christianity is the one true religion? Please 'enlighten' me.

[scorpia]

I don't think we're ever going to find middle ground here.

Funny, I had been trying.

1. SAFE FROM WHAT?? The notion of hell? There is NO hell. When we die, that's it, nothing, bad person or good person. Some people, like I, believe that - and therefore what makes it any less plausible than what YOU believe in? They're both BELIEFS (although one's grounded on fantasy and one isn't)

Of course, no-one goes to hell. Yet.

But putting that aside, so what? They believe in hell, and for them it isn't fantasy, the lack of it is. Telling them that there is no hell is EXACTLY the same as a Christian saying there is no hell, to you they are just repeating "the same nonsense", think of how they see someone just saying "hey there's no hell" how is that different?

2. These people will never KNOW what is right and wrong.

They make very nice attempts to learn it though, enough to earn my respect.

I didn't start this as a debate about self-righteousness, but rather about the immorality and stupidity of conversion. The notion that it's right to convert because it needs to be done to keep people safe is just THE most ridiculous thing I've heard on here.

And why is that? Why is it ridiculous? It's better than going around burning unbelievers on a stake. It's friendly, flattering even. And it shows that they care about other people's well being. Besides it's the thought that counts. I once saw on someone's sig "I destroy my enemies by making them my friends", and in a way, conversion is what peace is all about. It works there, it helps to make people get along, so why is it so bad?

And what would you recommend otherwise? Go around telling people that convert not to do so? That is in it's own way converting. Just why is that right? Just why is converting wrong?

What evidence on EARTH says that Christianity is the one true religion? Please 'enlighten' me.

Well there are several topics in other forums debating this if you care to browse.........

[Marishiten]

But putting that aside, so what? They believe in hell, and for them it isn't fantasy, the lack of it is. Telling them that there is no hell is EXACTLY the same as a Christian saying there is no hell, to you they are just repeating "the same nonsense", think of how they see someone just saying "hey there's no hell" how is that different?

....eh?

And why is that? Why is it ridiculous? It's better than going around burning unbelievers on a stake....And what would you recommend otherwise? Go around telling people that convert not to do so? That is in it's own way converting. Just why is that right? Just why is converting wrong?

It's ridiculous because it's a naive belief that everyone should follow a certain religion because of the delusion that it is the only one that is correct. It's also a poor argumentative point.

What would I recommend? Leaving them be. It is wrong because it's disrespectful and intolerant. Isn't one of the Christian qualities not to judge and respect?

I've never converted anyone into Atheism. I'm not trying to convert you. I have no qualms about you personally believing in God. But I COULD have come on here ranting "You are deluded! You MUST learn about this almost-proof that there is no God *hands out booklets on Evulution* Please - it will save your sanity! You will no longer be bigoted or deluded!"

Now, why would this be any more wrong, then, according to you? To me, it's just as wrong. It doesn't show I care. It shows I'm self-righteous and disrespecftul to you because it shows I obviously think your religion is bullsh*t. Same goes for the Christian converters.

[scorpia]

....eh?

Never mind you pretty much say the same thing anyway;

I've never converted anyone into Atheism. I'm not trying to convert you. I have no qualms about you personally believing in God. But I COULD have come on here ranting "You are deluded! You MUST learn about this almost-proof that there is no God *hands out booklets on Evulution* Please - it will save your sanity! You will no longer be bigoted or deluded!"

It's ridiculous because it's a naive belief that everyone should follow a certain religion because of the delusion that it is the only one that is correct. It's also a poor argumentative point.

Well they have been led to believe that it is the correct one rather than others so much what do you expect?

What would I recommend? Leaving them be. It is wrong because it's disrespectful and intolerant. Isn't one of the Christian qualities not to judge and respect?

Yes. Or so it should be.

Now, why would this be any more wrong, then, according to you? To me, it's just as wrong. It doesn't show I care.

Maybe. But then again, I don't see why it would technically be uncaring. Misguided, maybe. But uncaring? Selfish? Why would anyone, atheist or Christian or otherwise do it in the first place if that is what it's all about? Just think, why do they do it? They'd have their reasons.

And I'd just like to know why anyone would get so highly disturbed about it. It may be annoying to some, but it's not the worst sort of person you can run into.

It shows I'm self-righteous and disrespecftul to you because it shows I obviously think your religion is bullsh*t. Same goes for the Christian converters.

I have high doubts about how that is put. In their mind, they are just trying to get people to know God's love, and spread the word, yes?