• Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    My experience as an atheist has been me holding a shield with them having a sword. I don’t really have any interest in talking about God with anyone.

    • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      My experience has been the exact opposite!

      I suspect it’s a cultural thing, though. I’m British, but I know America has a very aggressive evangelical base. There are mega-churches and politicians and sports people are always talking about God and Jesus and we just don’t have that over here.

      On the other hand, a few atheists I know have tried to “convert” me before.

      I’m guessing it’s a certainty thing. From what I’ve seen of the American churches, some of them are absolutely borderline cults. So of course the folk are certain that they’re right.

      And there’s certainly enough ammunition in religion as a whole for anyone who hates religion to think that they’re right.

      • Someone brought up religion, or god. Is it the athiests?

        I will absolutely push back if something brings up religion.

        It would be silly if a Christian tried to convert you, an already converted Christian. Maybe there’s some confirmation bias at work?

        • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          It always starts from the assumption that I’m an atheist too. They’re all friends, by the way, so don’t picture some kind of weird high-pressure pitches on the street.

          Also I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to conflate being atheist and being anti-religious - my friend in this story however is in the “religion is ultimately the cause of every war in history” camp.

          Anyway, very basically, I’d done something nice. Another work friend was talking about it, and my anti-religion friend responded with “see, he’s an objectively nice person, no religion needed or anything”. And it was at this point I revealed my secret identity, and the discussion began.

          Just for balance, over my 44 years, I’ve also had a Scientology pitch, a Jehovah’s Witnesses pitch (old-school knocking on the door style), and an uncomfortably high-pressure pitch from what I’m sure was one of those churches set up to scam immigrants.

          But outside of those, the main people who have tried to change me have been friends with strong anti-religious views.

          • Higgs boson@dubvee.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            I live in the US and in real life Ive had far more atheists be assholes about religion. That said, Christians are in power, so they likely dont feel the need to be so loud.

        • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Hmm. I’m going to go ahead and assume this is a bad-faith comment. Despite that, I’ll try to help.

          I’m guessing from the phrasing that you’re not aware, but if you’re trying to change someone’s belief system, it’s called conversion.

          I appreciate that you were probably trying to do the “atheism isn’t a belief, it’s a lack of a belief” thing, but unfortunately that’s how the language works in this case.

          • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Nope. They’re right. Conversation has a destination. Pointing out the flaws in YOUR beliefs isn’t telling you where to end up, only where to leave from.

            That’s just deprogramming.

          • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            Nice deflection, bro. But my point was exactly that. You cannot “convert” someone to atheism. That would imply atheism is a belief, rather than the lack thereof. So my question stands.

            • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Sorry, but it’s true. I’m afraid you’re going to have to take it up with a higher authority than me (i.e. the dictionary people) if you want to change how the word is used.

              It’s the word for changing someone’s belief system not, as you seem to think, giving someone a new belief system.

              Sorry, but I’m correct here.

              Also, here’s additional lesson for you - you started your reply admitting that the question was asked in bad faith, that I did spot what you were talking about, and that you do know that I’m talking about atheism. Then you finish with “so my question stands”.

              No it doesn’t. You understood fully what I was talking about in both the post you replied to and my response. So it doesn’t stand - you already knew the answer.

              Look, I don’t mind you having a crack at being Mr I’m-Very-Clever-Catch-You-Out-On-Word-Meanings, but at least do it well.

              • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                According to the first page of my search the Cambridge, Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, Collins dictionaries all imply conversion needs also adopting a new belief/opinion/religion.

                I feel it’s a commonly propagated lie within certain religions that atheism is a belief, which of course it’s not (it’s the lack of belief, like most people have about fairies, flat Earth or the Mayan end of the world). I don’t know if your mention of this statement is that you agree or not, but if you do - how do you arrive at the position that questioning is being the same as (lexical) conversion?

                I get that a large part of Abrahamitic religions in particular is to obey and not question, as well as theism being necessary to be accepted in the religion (and not a heretic); is it that the questioning positions you outside of the religion and thus deconverts? Is that how you arrive at the “change”?

                I apologise for the clumsy phrasing, but if we’re reading the same text and coming to different conclusions, I must assume we’re using words differently and would need to backtrack to find our last point of common understanding.

                • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  No, it’s fine.

                  I’ve grabbed your Collins as an example - I promise it’s not been cherry-picked, it was the first I clicked on!

                  “If someone converts you, they persuade you to change your religious or political beliefs. You can also say that someone converts to a different religion.”

                  Would it qualify as changing my religious beliefs? I think so. It’s you that’s inferring that it needs to be to another religion.

                  Ok, second part.

                  “I get that a large part of Abrahamic religions in particular is to obey and not question, as well as theism being necessary to be adopted into the religion”

                  No you don’t, because you’re wrong. I don’t mean that in a harsh way - it’s easy to look at listen to all of the hard-line religious folk and think that’s the norm. The truth is that they’re weirdos.

                  A big part of most Abrahamic religions is questioning the dogma, theology, even the scripture. It’s been this way forever too.

                  And yes historically, bad people have used religions (and still do) as a pretext for horrific atrocities, but unfortunately that’s a problem with any organisation that places too much power on an unhinged leader.

                  Look, an example might help. A little while back, the Church of England put out a statement about how they didn’t intend to change their stance on not allowing gay marriage in churches. It was, to my eyes, an utterly unnecessary statement to make, and moreover, completely at odds with the “unconditional love” message.

                  I asked my vicar if we could talk about it and explained that I don’t feel comfortable being associated with a religion that publicly makes statements like that.

                  I found out that she herself has performed several same-sex marriages, just not in a church. As have many of the other vicars around here. Some haven’t. Her mentor in the church is transexual, not secret - she’s written a book about it.

                  The truth is that the upper ranks of the Anglican church are trying to prevent a schism with the more hard-line Anglican churches in Africa. The statement was just one of many that have been put out, it’s just that this one got attention from the press.

                  The rank-and-file vicars don’t even share exactly the same theology as each other. Like I said, many officiate same-sex marriages, some will not. Some believe that when people die, their souls go straight to heaven or watch over us, some do not (why wouldn’t they? Well, it isn’t actually in the Bible).

                  There’s a wide, wide range of interpretations and you are encouraged to keep asking questions.

                  Like I said, it’s easy to look at the loud people and think they’re the norm - but it’s not the case. They’re the very, very vocal minority.

                  Yikes I’ve written way more than intended. I hope that helps!

                  • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Thank you for your generous answer.

                    Your perspective on what your religion views as up for question is very interesting, although it gives rise to many follow up questions (how does proclamation work when obviously contradicted by lower clergy? Who gets to question which parts of the dogma? If everything is up for question, what is the commonality of the religion?) I’m afraid we’ll have to leave for another time if we’re to get anywhere on the primary topic.

                    You cite Collins:

                    “If someone converts you, they persuade you to change your religious or political beliefs. You can also say that someone converts to a different religion.”

                    I’ll give you that it’s the weakest of the lot, but I read “converts to a different religion” as having you leave the first to then adhere to another.

                    As we previously established atheism isn’t a religion I find it hard to see that you could have been converted.

                    If we look at the usage for beliefs, Collins isn’t very clear if the definition includes “into another belief”, luckily the other three are and include the new belief in their descriptions.

                    So, I seem to find that the lexical definition for conversion does indeed include another positive end belief, in contrast to what you claimed the dictionary people were about. I was curious if there were subtle differences in world view behind this, but currently I understand this more as a difference in how we understand definitions rather than how we view questioning.