Words are used to symbolize concepts. I ask you to not get hung up on the word and rather focus on the concept. If you prefer not to use the word conversion when speaking about the attempt to actively change the belief of another person then please focus on the concept and not the symbol.
I assure you, it is to the concept that I'm speaking, not the word. Atheists aren't out to change another's beliefs; they are out to show the irrelevancy of belief as a whole. Maybe another analogy? Oncologists aren't out to change your lung cancer into prostate cancer; they're out to eliminate the cancer as a whole. Or, on a more positive note, nutritionists aren't out to replace your Lay's habit with a Pringles habit; rather, to show you that life is just as good (or better) without junk food having any relevancy to it.
I would consider a Skeptic to be preforming this action when trying to convince a believer in Sasquatch to not believe in Sasquatch. Pointing out the flaws in cryptozoology would work to reduce the evidence the believer has for Sasquatch. Since Sasquatch has the same evidence-existance pattern as most scientific hypotheses, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Thus the Skeptic is also satisfying the burden of proof for hir assertion that there exist reasons the believer should not believe in Sasquatch. (Same applies for arguments against flat world or Newtonian physics)
As would I. But, the point I'm trying to make is that convincing someone of the non-existence of Sasquatch is futile - it says nothing about Chupacabra, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, or what have you. Where atheism is gaining hold in the popular conscience, it is doing so not by attacking specific religions, but rather by promoting reason, skepticism, evidence-based science, etc. Whatever term we use in place of 'conversion,' it's still a comparison of apples to walruses. Changing religions is like changing hats; the head underneath doesn't need to do much changing in itself, beyond getting used to a slightly different style. Leaving religion altogether requires a much more fundamental change in one's entire outlook on the nature of faith, belief, and reason. This is my argument against conversion (or whatever term we choose to use). It's the difference between converting states from gas to liquid, and converting types from hydrogen to helium. Is that more clear, at all? (Once again, barely slept these past few days - zzzz! XD)
With the exception that most of the "militant" atheists use the tactic of trying to change theists to atheists without overcoming the burden of proof required for their assertion that there is a reason not to be theist. (Aka using the invisible pink unicorn argument as the sole argument) If the gay rights analogy were accurate then these atheists would be more focused on convincing theists to be religiously tolerant (including allowing atheists hold state public office).
Thanks for the discussion so far. Hope you sleep well.
Well, let's look at it from the point of view of a Richard Dawkins. Imagine having spent your entire working life, as a biologist, showing any and all interested parties
exactly how natural processes can explain all of the wonders of life. Now, imagine that there is a very vocal, very rabid group of people, with more political clout than you (as an effect of sheer volume? That's my best-fit hypothesis), who are actively attacking you and your colleagues, both directly and indirectly (directly,
ad hominem, indirectly by denying the validity of your profession as a whole), on a constant basis.
Okay, so no big deal, right? They're just idiots; let them believe what they will.
But, now, let's take it to the sphere of politics. These same (not even) critics are now pushing their agenda, which reeks of sheer ignorance (to your [R. Dawkins'] nose), through public institutions. An attack has been made, and the aggressors have set the tone of the attack. Rational discussion was tried for many, many years (see also: Stephen J. Gould, Carl Sagan); it did little to stem the tide of anti-scientific, anti-
knowledge, faith-based belief being pushed through public institutions, despite an official separation of Church and State. (From Scopes on, extremists have not hesitated to try to use the courts and Congress to push their agenda)
So, yeah, maybe a little bit of aggression comes through. But what other option is there? A great number of people (ranges vary, but hover around 16% of the US populace) identify as Atheist; counting the Agnostics, the undecided, and those for whom religion just isn't important, there's a vast swath of the population whose children are now forced to read ID creationist texts alongside Darwin, as though both hold equal factual value. Would you be angry? I know I would; atheists are only human, after all.
So, if your opponent refuses to listen to reason, and is unyielding in hir fundamentalism, what choice do you have? You can't change the unshakably certain with skepticism and doubt; doubt is the road to hell, in many a fundamentalist's eyes. You can't reason with the arationial - so what do you do?
Maybe
this?
But if we, as a society, re-asserted a strong separation of Church and State, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't see atheists trying to change anybody - they have better things to do, like revolutionizing science, medicine, engineering, maths, etc, etc.
To sum up: rationality has been tried; fundamentalists, by nature, are not interested in reason. Scientific knowledge has been tried; fundamentalists aren't interested in the way that science is based on doubt. Just living a better life has been tried (ignore the bully); fundamentalists aren't interested in any lifestyle that can present any alternative to their own. And religious (or areligious) tolerance is most certainly not in any fundamentalist's playbook.
So, yeah, there's some aggression. But, the rules of this war on science were set by the aggressors - the same religions that supposedly bring a message of peace. All that any atheist can do is take up the gauntlet that has been thrown down, win the war by whatever means necessary, and move on with life. I'm pretty sure that if we took out the politics, most (non-jerk) atheists would be quite happy to just skip to the end, and move on with life.
Thank you, as well - this has been one heck of a discussion!
