NationStates Jolt Archive

In almost every religious/antireligious thread ever to grace the wasteland that is NS Gen, someone, near the point when the thread falls into pointless bickering, posts some version of the following: "You people should stop arguing, you're never actually going to convince anyone"

This statement seems logical, until you realize that people convert between religions all the time, albeit not usually in forum-based circumstances. If there is one common thread in such conversions, it might serve to aid debaters on the Gen in their eternal battle to make people actually listen to them. Thus, this thread's question is:

Have you ever converted? What were the logical/psychological/practical factors that led to your conversion? It doesn't even have to be a religious conversion, converting from communist to capitalist would do nicely. Help the General community in their ongoing quest!

I used to think that dilation and extraction procedures were unnecessary. And then Bottle educated me on what exactly they entail and why they can be necessary in certain cases.

I used to think that dilation and extraction procedures were unnecessary. And then Bottle educated me on what exactly they entail and why they can be necessary in certain cases.

Okay, it's a start.

Was Bottle's information via forum all it took to convince you? Would you have listened to someone you respected less if they made similar points?

Okay, it's a start.

Was Bottle's information via forum all it took to convince you? Would you have listened to someone you respected less if they made similar points?
Well, my problem beforehand was that I thought it was elective (I wasn't terribly informed on the subject) and she just pointed me to some information and I read up and found out that there are medical reasons for it.

Well, my problem beforehand was that I thought it was elective (I wasn't terribly informed on the subject) and she just pointed me to some information and I read up and found out that there are medical reasons for it.

As a bump I will attempt to draw a general principle from this example: often people hold opinions simply because they are misinformed. Tell them something they don't know and they might convert.

I, too, blindly believed everything I was taught in Religion class at school when I was younger. However, then I realized what horrible things were happening on Earth with wars and hunger and overall suffering. Then I realized that God does not exist, or else he would stop all this suffering from happening, and if he does, what's the point in acknowledging his existence and praying to him if he won't do anything like stop suffering of innocent children and babies.

That's pretty much it.

I, too, blindly believed everything I was taught in Religion class at school when I was younger. However, then I realized what horrible things were happening on Earth with wars and hunger and overall suffering. Then I realized that God does not exist, or else he would stop all this suffering from happening, and if he does, what's the point in acknowledging his existence and praying to him if he won't do anything like stop suffering of innocent children and babies.

That's pretty much it.

So it was basically just the suffering stuff? Because there are quite a few answers to that as an argument, some of which would probably have been made to you.

At what age did you finally convert? Was it just the general buildup of images of suffering that drove you to it, or was there a specific trigger event?

I converted from Coke to Pepsi. :)

I converted from Coke to Pepsi. :)

Hey, that counts, especially given the vigor of each side's advertising campaigns.

I used to think that abortions should be illegal unless the mother was going to die if she carried the baby. I have since changed my view to, that while I believe that abortion is murder of a child I don't think that it should be illegal, well, at least not unless I can scientifically prove that it is a child.

Demipublicents, helped me understand that while I believe that it's a child I don't really have any actual proof and that by trying to make abortion illegal based on what I believe, it is infringing on others rights. I am still free to believe what I want, but until I can prove it, it is just a belief, and making a law based on a belief like that is just as bad as trying to legislate religion. ;)

I'm thinking of converting from Protestantism to Catholicism.

I used to think that abortions should be illegal unless the mother was going to die if she carried the baby. I have since changed my view to, that while I believe that abortion is murder of a child I don't think that it should be illegal, well, at least not unless I can scientifically prove that it is a child.

Demipublicents, helped me understand that while I believe that it's a child I don't really have any actual proof and that by trying to make abortion illegal based on what I believe, it is infringing on others rights. I am still free to believe what I want, but until I can prove it, it is just a belief, and making a law based on a belief like that is just as bad as trying to legislate religion. ;)

And you hadn't made the connection before between illegalising abortion based on it being a child and imposing your beliefs? Did you feel beforehand that it was more a matter of fact than belief, or did you simply never connect the two? Were you already against imposing your own beliefs?

I'm thinking of converting from Protestantism to Catholicism.

What are your reasons?

I'm thinking of converting from Protestantism to Catholicism.

You know you've always wanted a Pope. Go ahead.:)

As for me, I've been semi-converted. I used to be both anti-abortion and anti-gun. I'm now pro-abortion and pro-reasonable-people-owning-reasonable-weapons. The abortion one was half personal descision and half bowing before logical argument, whereas the gun one was mostly statistics and the like I learned here.

You know you've always wanted a Pope. Go ahead.:)

As for me, I've been semi-converted. I used to be both anti-abortion and anti-gun. I'm now pro-abortion and pro-reasonable-people-owning-reasonable-weapons. The abortion one was half personal descision and half bowing before logical argument, whereas the gun one was mostly statistics and the like I learned here.

And statistics were enough? Did you try to repudiate said statistics, or find people who did?

And statistics were enough? Did you try to repudiate said statistics, or find people who did?

Well I left out the part where I reasoned that banning guns isn't going to solve the problem(which we are NOT getting into here:) ). But the stats put me over the top.

Well I left out the part where I reasoned that banning guns isn't going to solve the problem(which we are NOT getting into here:) ). But the stats put me over the top.

But reasoning, logic, etc., were all it took? How important did you hold this opinion before you changed it?

And you hadn't made the connection before between illegalising abortion based on it being a child and imposing your beliefs?
where I live there is very much a feeling of "life begins at conception", until I was 16, I never really questioned that, or even really knew that there were people who didn't "know" that. I do believe it, but I had never had anyone point out that it's not a "fact", in fact, until I started posting on NS General I had never heard of anyone that believed that there was a difference between someone being alive and someone who is living. I got into quite a heated discussion on here once (maybe more than once) with someone who believes that someone can be human, but not be a person, that someone can be living but not alive. I still don't quite understand it, but the fact that they believe that and I believe differently and neither of us can prove it is rather interesting to me.

Were you already against imposing your own beliefs?
I have always been against imposing my beliefs on others, I have a hard time sometimes trying to draw the line. (that is where the line is between what is actually right or wrong, or what I believe is right or wrong but actually might be an area of preference or a gray area)

But reasoning, logic, etc., were all it took? How important did you hold this opinion before you changed it?

The opinion wasn't terribly important. IMHO, if one wants to own a gun for protection, hunting or recreation, fine. I still don't think people need Kalashnikovs and RPGs and such, but whether people own reasonable weaponry doesn't really bother me.

I'm not gonna lie though, sometimes I lapse back into the anti-gun mode. Usually when the pro-gun guys are being douches. Reminds me of the Niezche quote - 'At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.'

where I live there is very much a feeling of "life begins at conception", until I was 16, I never really questioned that, or even really knew that there were people who didn't "know" that. I do believe it, but I had never had anyone point out that it's not a "fact", in fact, until I started posting on NS General I had never heard of anyone that believed that there was a difference between someone being alive and someone who is living. I got into quite a heated discussion on here once (maybe more than once) with someone who believes that someone can be human, but not be a person, that someone can be living but not alive. I still don't quite understand it, but the fact that they believe that and I believe differently and neither of us can prove it is rather interesting to me.


I have always been against imposing my beliefs on others, I have a hard time sometimes trying to draw the line. (that is where the line is between what is actually right or wrong, or what I believe is right or wrong but actually might be an area of preference or a gray area)

There seems to be a pattern here. Most people who changed their beliefs about something did so mostly because they simply didn't know there were other opinions out there. That would mean that originality would be key to successfully converting people.

In almost every religious/antireligious thread ever to grace the wasteland that is NS Gen, someone, near the point when the thread falls into pointless bickering, posts some version of the following: "You people should stop arguing, you're never actually going to convince anyone"

This statement seems logical, until you realize that people convert between religions all the time, albeit not usually in forum-based circumstances. If there is one common thread in such conversions, it might serve to aid debaters on the Gen in their eternal battle to make people actually listen to them. Thus, this thread's question is:

Have you ever converted? What were the logical/psychological/practical factors that led to your conversion? It doesn't even have to be a religious conversion, converting from communist to capitalist would do nicely. Help the General community in their ongoing quest!


I think much of it just comes with age and experience. Ones opinions and beliefs are constantly evolving and changing based on life experiences, new information being revealed to you, and the influences of a wider range of people you are exposed to once you go out into the "real world." Very few people hold the same view of the world when they are 30 that they did when they were only 20. Most eventually realize that everything isn't black and white and thus become open to new ideas. Also, the human brain doesn't fully develope and mature untill the early to mid 20's. This has a great effect on ones out look on life. No matter how much you fight it, you eventually become a different person as you age. Not that that's a bad thing. ;)

I used to think that abortions should be illegal unless the mother was going to die if she carried the baby. I have since changed my view to, that while I believe that abortion is murder of a child I don't think that it should be illegal, well, at least not unless I can scientifically prove that it is a child.
Snip

I just wanted to point this out cause it is a major point of contention and just for your information

Murder = illegal taking of human life

It is emotive language that thends to get our hackels up :)

I think much of it just comes with age and experience. Ones opinions and beliefs are constantly evolving and changing based on life experiences, new information being revealed to you, and the influences of of a wider range of people you are exposed to once you go out into the "real world." Very few people hold the same view of the world when they are 30 that they did when they were only 20. Most eventually realize that everything isn't black and white and thus become open to new ideas. Also, the human brain doesn't fully develope and mature untill the mid 20's. This has a great effect on ones out look on life. No matter how much you fight it, you eventually become a different person as you age. Not that that's a bad thing. ;)

The question then is, once one is open to new ideas, what drives one to particular views? What makes certain sets of ideas attractive? And why, if everyone grows up and becomes open, don't people's ideas all eventually become the same?

The question then is, once one is open to new ideas, what drives one to particular views? What makes certain sets of ideas attractive? And why, if everyone grows up and becomes open, don't people's ideas all eventually become the same?

Experience and perspective. We all have different life experiences that shape how we see the world. For example, those who profit from capitalism and are sheilded form seeing and experiencing its down sides will most likely become ardent capitalists. Those who have been ground up in the gears of capitlaism and are exposed to anti-capitalist ideas will often become socilaists or some other sort of anti capitalist. And those who fall somewhere in the middle will likely follow a middle ground.

In almost every religious/antireligious thread ever to grace the wasteland that is NS Gen, someone, near the point when the thread falls into pointless bickering, posts some version of the following: "You people should stop arguing, you're never actually going to convince anyone"

This statement seems logical, until you realize that people convert between religions all the time, albeit not usually in forum-based circumstances. If there is one common thread in such conversions, it might serve to aid debaters on the Gen in their eternal battle to make people actually listen to them. Thus, this thread's question is:

Have you ever converted? What were the logical/psychological/practical factors that led to your conversion? It doesn't even have to be a religious conversion, converting from communist to capitalist would do nicely. Help the General community in their ongoing quest!

If you think that people engage in debate in these threads to convert people, I would say that you were mistaken. I tend to think that the main reason people engage in debate in religious threads is to deepen their own beliefs. After all, if one can still hold onto their beliefs after they have been dissected, dismissed, and ridiculed, then there is something there worth believing in.

If you are interested, I can explain how I became a Buddhist. I was first introduced to Buddhism in 1998 and tried practicing, but I had no real obstacles in my life, so I just wound up thinking "ok, this is stupid" and left it alone. About a year later, I wound up getting in trouble in the military and got assigned to extra duty, which meant 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, and 4 hours a day on Saturdays and Sundays for a month and a half. From previous experience, I had found I could handle about three weeks straight without a break from work or a week of 12 hour days before I would become burned out. This, to me, seemed like an insurmountable obstacle. Lo and behold, the same person that had introduced me to Buddhism about a year ago had decided to try again, and this time, since I didn't have any logical way of dealing with my situation, maybe I should try something that didn't rely on logic.

It was rough at first, trying to squeeze 45 minutes of gongyo (it's a ritual that involves lots of chanting, reciting portions of the Lotus Sutra, and offering prayers) into the beginning of a 12 hour work day and then in the evening after I got home, but after a few days, something just happened: I wound up having more energy at the end of 12 hours than I did just working 8 hours. So that was nice, and I figured, ok, let's see how far we can push this practice. So, on top of 12 hours of work, I was going to study meetings and taking college courses. And you know what? At the end of 45 days, not only was I not dead, but I had an associate's degree.

Can I explain why Buddhism works for me in some way that you will understand? Probably not. It works because I believe it does. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you think that people engage in debate in these threads to convert people, I would say that you were mistaken. I tend to think that the main reason people engage in debate in religious threads is to deepen their own beliefs. After all, if one can still hold onto their beliefs after they have been dissected, dismissed, and ridiculed, then there is something there worth believing in.

If you are interested, I can explain how I became a Buddhist. I was first introduced to Buddhism in 1998 and tried practicing, but I had no real obstacles in my life, so I just wound up thinking "ok, this is stupid" and left it alone. About a year later, I wound up getting in trouble in the military and got assigned to extra duty, which meant 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, and 4 hours a day on Saturdays and Sundays for a month and a half. From previous experience, I had found I could handle about three weeks straight without a break from work or a week of 12 hour days before I would become burned out. This, to me, seemed like an insurmountable obstacle. Lo and behold, the same person that had introduced me to Buddhism about a year ago had decided to try again, and this time, since I didn't have any logical way of dealing with my situation, maybe I should try something that didn't rely on logic.

It was rough at first, trying to squeeze 45 minutes of gongyo (it's a ritual that involves lots of chanting, reciting portions of the Lotus Sutra, and offering prayers) into the beginning of a 12 hour work day and then in the evening after I got home, but after a few days, something just happened: I wound up having more energy at the end of 12 hours than I did just working 8 hours. So that was nice, and I figured, ok, let's see how far we can push this practice. So, on top of 12 hours of work, I was going to study meetings and taking college courses. And you know what? At the end of 45 days, not only was I not dead, but I had an associate's degree.

Can I explain why Buddhism works for me in some way that you will understand? Probably not. It works because I believe it does. Nothing more, nothing less.

Most people don't directly debate to convert people, but they do like to believe that they actually have a chance of convincing their opponent, if only to legitimize things.

Was it just Buddhism's success in managing your life that led you to convert? Would something offering similar success command similar allegiance?

Do you think that the challenge of maintaining Buddhism and 12 hour days was a factor in making Buddhism important to you?

Most people don't directly debate to convert people, but they do like to believe that they actually have a chance of convincing their opponent, if only to legitimize things.

Was it just Buddhism's success in managing your life that led you to convert? Would something offering similar success command similar allegiance?

Do you think that the challenge of maintaining Buddhism and 12 hour days was a factor in making Buddhism important to you?

Ideally, in any religious debate, the end goal would be for both sides to recognize the validity of each other's beliefs, even if one does not plan on adopting them.

Essentially, that was the one thing that got me started. Since then, there are any number of things I can mention that encourage me to continue to practice, not just for my own sake, but for those around me as well. I'm sure that there are many people that could achieve simillar success following deist religions, but there are many beliefs in Buddhism that overlap onto my core beliefs that I couldn't imagine anything else working as well. I could get more into what those core beliefs are, but I don't want to make this too long to read.

It wasn't the challenge that made it important to me. What made it important was to be able to take this belief system and create actual proof of its validity. Anything that can take a horrible experience and transform it into something wonderful has got to be important, no?

I used to like only light to moderately heavy music, but now I accept everything from Simon and Garfunkel to Death.

Also, I used to think that religion actually was particularly useful to society, until I realized that morals can be formed with no trouble without a religion, and that believing in ancient/new mythology is really just always silly, and leads people in to long heated debates and wars on such silly mythology.

And I started out being a PC-FPS-Gamer, then became a Console-FPS-Gamer, and am now a PC-FPS-Gamer again.

I was converted from American-Democrat-esque welfare-state not-quite-socialism to a strong capitalistic bent by reading Atlas Shrugged, first, and helped (in the form of heated argument) along by some conservative friends I debate with. I'm still a social liberal (mostly), and I'm not an all-taxation-is-theft cut-all-social-programs-period-end-of-story anarchocapitalist, but I've definitely shifted well across the economic liberal-conservative axis, I think. I also converted to Objectivism, philosophically.

Ideally, in any religious debate, the end goal would be for both sides to recognize the validity of each other's beliefs, even if one does not plan on adopting them.

Essentially, that was the one thing that got me started. Since then, there are any number of things I can mention that encourage me to continue to practice, not just for my own sake, but for those around me as well. I'm sure that there are many people that could achieve simillar success following deist religions, but there are many beliefs in Buddhism that overlap onto my core beliefs that I couldn't imagine anything else working as well. I could get more into what those core beliefs are, but I don't want to make this too long to read.

It wasn't the challenge that made it important to me. What made it important was to be able to take this belief system and create actual proof of its validity. Anything that can take a horrible experience and transform it into something wonderful has got to be important, no?

So there was some overlap beforehand? How much? How close were your previous ideas to Buddhism, and was there anything else they were significantly close to?

I just wanted to point this out cause it is a major point of contention and just for your information

Murder = illegal taking of human life

It is emotive language that thends to get our hackels up :)
yeah. I know that it may be legal, but to me murder is the taking of someone else's life, period. I am kinda an objective morality person that way, it's always wrong to kill someone, but sometimes, you may feel that it's necessary. For example if someone broke into my house and I killed them, I would feel it was wrong to kill them, even in self defense, although I would probably do it anyway, because the benifit would outweigh the risk for me. It would still to me be wrong to do it.

I was converted from American-Democrat-esque welfare-state not-quite-socialism to a strong capitalistic bent by reading Atlas Shrugged, first, and helped (in the form of heated argument) along by some conservative friends I debate with. I'm still a social liberal (mostly), and I'm not an all-taxation-is-theft cut-all-social-programs-period-end-of-story anarchocapitalist, but I've definitely shifted well across the economic liberal-conservative axis, I think. I also converted to Objectivism, philosophically.

So to connect with some of the other accounts, how strongly did you hold your previous, liberal beliefs? Were there any previous beliefs of yours that were closer to an Objectivist/libertarian stance than to the semi-socialism stance?

So there was some overlap beforehand? How much? How close were your previous ideas to Buddhism, and was there anything else they were significantly close to?
Ok, we'll go there then:

1. No God
Granted, there are mentions of supernatural entities in Buddhism, but they are more for compartmentalizing ideas rather than actual beings. The true entity of all phenomena is emptiness. That's the Buddhist wording for it at least. My wording would be like "There is no point to life. If you want a point to life, come up with it yourself."

2. Reality is the way it is. About all that one has control over is their perception of it. Change your perceptions and you cange reality.
Rather than complaining about how life is, it's a matter of accepting it as a starting point, understanding what life can be, and persuing it.

3. The only person that is guaranteed to take care of you is you.
Rather than wallow in self-pity of being a worthless human being and the only way that one has any hope of any sort of life is through divine intervention, Buddhism recognizes the capacity within every human being to become a Buddha (enlightened one). It's merely a matter of making the effort to develop it.

Those were the main ideas that overlapped. Why I decided to practice Nichiren Buddhism as opposed to some other sect? It's what I had the most exposure to. For many belief systems, it's not a matter of which one is better, but which one is one willing to follow with the most sincerity.

Ok, we'll go there then:

1. No God
Granted, there are mentions of supernatural entities in Buddhism, but they are more for compartmentalizing ideas rather than actual beings. The true entity of all phenomena is emptiness. That's the Buddhist wording for it at least. My wording would be like "There is no point to life. If you want a point to life, come up with it yourself."

2. Reality is the way it is. About all that one has control over is their perception of it. Change your perceptions and you cange reality.
Rather than complaining about how life is, it's a matter of accepting it as a starting point, understanding what life can be, and persuing it.

3. The only person that is guaranteed to take care of you is you.
Rather than wallow in self-pity of being a worthless human being and the only way that one has any hope of any sort of life is through divine intervention, Buddhism recognizes the capacity within every human being to become a Buddha (enlightened one). It's merely a matter of making the effort to develop it.

Those were the main ideas that overlapped. Why I decided to practice Nichiren Buddhism as opposed to some other sect? It's what I had the most exposure to. For many belief systems, it's not a matter of which one is better, but which one is one willing to follow with the most sincerity.

Did your previous ideology (i.e. whatever Buddhism replaced) fully incorporate these ideas? I'm working on a theory here. How central were these ideas to how you formed opinions before you came in contact with Buddhism?

So it was basically just the suffering stuff? Because there are quite a few answers to that as an argument, some of which would probably have been made to you.

Yep. I know there are plenty of rebuttals to that, but that was the main turn-off and by the time I received better arguments for the existence of God, I better formed my own logical opinions about God's existence.

At what age did you finally convert? Was it just the general buildup of images of suffering that drove you to it, or was there a specific trigger event?

Well, the stuff happened somewhere between Grade 1-3. At first, of course, I listened to the teacher and just learned what I was supposed to learn, until my dad told me to keep my mind open. He said he was perfectly fine with me believing in religion, just that I should not do so blindly.

My grandmother died (who was very dear to me), our car that we had been working for the money for years and years was stolen, and I saw many stories on TV of innocent children and babies suffering. I then realized that God would not allow this to happen, and if he doesn't interfere in our world, then it's worthless to pray to him. That's what I thought and my opinion of God gradually evolved as my logic evolved.

I, too, blindly believed everything I was taught in Religion class at school when I was younger. However, then I realized what horrible things were happening on Earth with wars and hunger and overall suffering. Then I realized that God does not exist, or else he would stop all this suffering from happening, and if he does, what's the point in acknowledging his existence and praying to him if he won't do anything like stop suffering of innocent children and babies.

That's pretty much it.
Come to Buddhism my son, we shall teach you to overcome suffering in your search for Nirvana.

Did your previous ideology (i.e. whatever Buddhism replaced) fully incorporate these ideas? I'm working on a theory here. How central were these ideas to how you formed opinions before you came in contact with Buddhism?

Well, my previous ideology was Christianity, which I pretty much abandoned at 12. The only other option that I was aware of at the time was atheism, which really isn't a belief system, but to me, was better than Christianity. The one thing that Buddhism added was a spiritual practice in the form of chanting daimoku and doing gongyo. That's one of those things I could try to explain and it really would make no sense at all until one were to try for one's self. It would be like trying to explain what an apple tastes like to someone that has never even heard of apples.

I converted from Coke to Pepsi. :)

Good lord man, no! Look what happened to Michael Jackson!

Proprietary Software ----> Free/Open Source Software: business practices of proprietary software companies, aspects of intellectual property ("all your electronic devices are belong to us"), and the realization that I learned most of my programming skills by looking at other peoples code. I also ended up converting my college major from computer science to political science, essentially turning my educational plan completely on its head. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Protestant Christianity ----> Agnostic Empiricism: general hypocrisy, being treated like dirt on the rare occasions that I wasn't just simply ignored, failure to join the proper clique and social clubs, recognition of the fact that Christianity is not the religion actually described in the Bible, all rounded off by a college education in empricism and the scientific method.

Capitalist ----> Socialist ----> Capitalist ----> Socialist ----> Capitalist.....: Once I think I've figured it all out, the other side goes and makes a good point. This particular instance serves as the inspiration for my nation's name. :D