The problem is, as one of my commenters pointed out, in the absence of God (or the eternal being of your choice) how do you decide what is good and bad? This isn’t a rhetorical question — I’m always asking atheists how they arrived at their basis for morality. None of them has been able to answer me, or else the reasoning goes in circles or has been horribly convoluted (cf. Objectivism). This is because, with man as the measure of all things, morality is completely subjective.

People often assume that religionists are religious for reasons of superstition or because of a need for domination. For some, unfortunately, this is true. But for many, it is not. Faith usually involves personal feelings that can’t necessarily be explained rationally, and I’m no exception to this, but there IS a rational basis for religion. The Judeo-Christian faith, for instance, has been remarkably good at codifying rules for behavior that are beneficial to mankind. You can see evidence all around you and throughout history for what happens when a culture has no basis in faith. While you can have individuals who are moral and atheistic, there have been no moral atheistic societies — instead you get the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the Soviets, the Chinese commies, Castro, and the French. You get the modern-day European culture, which is simultaneously sinking into a Orwellian bureaucratic abyss and dying a slow, horrible death because it is unable to sustain its own population. Of course it is possible to get perversions of faith, such as with Islam, but there are many more and worse examples of historical atrocities with atheistic societies — they are the only societies that have engaged in wholesale slaughter of millions of their own. So, religionists look at these atheistic societies, which are ultimately homicidal/suicidal, and reason that faith is necessary for the survival of humankind. It’s a completely rational point of view. Most critics of religion miss this, because admittedly there is a huge emotional component to faith. But that’s the way humans internalize things.

As far as “converting” goes, I have a family of four, and we each have our own religous beliefs. I will not share my beliefs except with those genuinely curious, and then, it is strictly to inform. Personally, I don’t care what anyone else believes. Make up your own damn mind. If someone is a good person, I’d love to be around them. If not, I don’t care what they believe in, they can screw off.

Let’s just say I needed proof that God is there. I don’t know about all the stories, allegories, parables, etc. but I did get that proof. He is there. I don’t make a point of telling people about it and I’m not going to here. Let’s just say there was no bigger doubter, no more skeptical rational human being than I. Faith is believing in something you can’t prove. I didn’t have it.

Since I was given absolute proof of God’s (whatever name) existence, I suppose I cannot be considered one of the faithful because I was not able to believe sans evidence. Ergo, I don’t know my final disposition, but God is there.

I doubt any will be swayed by what I have said, but it was incumbent upon me to say it.

And no, I don’t belong to a church, nor do I evangelize.

I stopped associating with atheist groups years ago because the vast majority were liberal. I also stopped trying to convert people years ago because:
1) It’s a waste of time, and
2) There’s a danger that a newly converted atheist will become a liberal.

Nevertheless, In my experience, here are some reasons for trying to convert:
1) Purely academic one-up-manship, i.e. ‘My reasoning is correct’. Your’s is not. Here’s why.’
2) Some atheists fear that theists are going to create a theocracy, and want to prevent it. Sure, this is on par with those who ’see’ black helicopters, but it does motivate some atheists.
3) Some don’t want others to waste their time and money on what is (probably) a silly superstition. After all, many televangelists have bilked credulous people.
4) People generally want others to believe as they do, regardless of the belief. One could
legitimately ask why conservatives and libertarians try to convert others to the free market, pro-gun views, or any other secular subject.
5) Some atheists do seem to see it as some sort of ‘holy mission’. I have seen some who appeared angry that they were ‘duped’ into religion. Some people also get enamored of their new found ideas and want to share them.
6) Of course, some people are naturally smart@$$es and like to make fun of any belief that seems absurd.

Anyway, I like your blog. Good to see a TN blogger.

Oh, and to atheists everywhere: What’s the deal with the atheists who try to convert?

Suppose somebody you otherwise liked and cared about was wasting a lot of time, money, and resources on something that you strongly believe is total bullshit. Wouldn’t you give any effort at all to convincing them to stop?

Of course, I need to be careful with that, lest people who like and care about me try to convince me to stop blogging…

The only time I ever discuss what I feel are good arguments in favor of atheism is when I’m pressed to explain or defend my non-belief by people of faith. I don’t mind doing so, but it’s not an activity that I relish or seek out.

Because like I said, it’s a waste of time.

We occupy this tiny, fragile little corner of the universe. Every day here is a gift. If you think it’s sad that you’re here for a while and then you’re not….remember that every atom in your body was at one point forged in a star in some far flung part of the galaxy. The universe is really just a collection of atomic material flying around. Consciousness is an illusion.

Or something equally deep and philosophical. Time for bong hits.

Second, in answer to your question about evangelizing anti-theists, it’s because they’re convinced that the religious are irrational, and they want everyone to be rational. (I don’t know why. Perhaps so they can negotiate with the violent?) This, of course, ignores the fact that people can be just as irrational without a belief in a diety.

As for conversion, I find most religion to be mostly silly and sometimes dangerous. Your book of fairy tales vs. some other guy’s book of fairy tales. Your imaginary friend can beat up some other guy’s imaginary friend. I don’t try to convert, and I’m polite enough not to get all offensive with religionists, but if somebody’s going to start spouting nonsense about Jesus popping out of a cave and seeing his shadow, there are times when I’m going to note my disbelief at such fantasies.

As for why religionists convert, it’s my theory that it’s a defensive act. Fervent religionists display behavior that would get them mocked or locked up if they didn’t call it religion and get other people to believe along with them.

In my mind, that’s the difference between good Christians and bad Christians…. who’s doing what they do because they know it’s good, and who’s doing what they do because they’ll get punished if they don’t?