NationStates Jolt Archive

If you could convert everyone in the world to your religious/political beliefs, would you?

Nope, a NSG full of people going, "Sounds good to me" and "I agree" over and over again would be very boring.

I don't have any religious beliefs, and I find that exchange of different ideas is vital for a balanced political climate.
I might be wrong in my ideas, due to lack of insight and knowledge, or simple incapacity of comprehending. By converting everyone to my exact ideas, I might end up dooming the whole world... I wouldn't want to risk that.

In this case a lack of a religion is a religion. I personally view Atheism (and all its variants) as a religion, but thats for another thread.

I agree.
Now where's that fish...? :p

Nope, a NSG full of people going, "Sounds good to me" and "I agree" over and over again would be very boring.

QFT.

If you could convert everyone in the world to your religious/political beliefs, would you?

I don't have any religious beliefs, and I find that exchange of different ideas is vital for a balanced political climate.
I might be wrong in my ideas, due to lack of insight and knowledge, or simple incapacity of comprehending. By converting everyone to my exact ideas, I might end up dooming the whole world... I wouldn't want to risk that.

Nope, a NSG full of people going, "Sounds good to me" and "I agree" over and over again would be very boring.

I agree.

absolutely not. it's up to the invisible furry spirit people who they choose to invite or not.

=^^=
.../\...

Hm, time warp...

No...because one of the many people out there who suddenly believe as I do might realize that I'm completely full of shit. :p

damn clicked the wrong one
ah well

In this case a lack of a religion is a religion. I personally view Atheism (and all its variants) as a religion, but thats for another thread.

No matter how many times I hear that it always makes me chuckle at how wrong the statement is.

Yes, though with the caveat that I would never do so through any form of force or coercion.

I honestly believe that if everyone else saw religion for the falsehood it is we'd all get along a lot better.

In this case a lack of a religion is a religion. I personally view Atheism (and all its variants) as a religion, but thats for another thread.

Only I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. I simply don't care if there is a god or gods... I know some atheists can become pretty fanatic about their beliefs, so I understand what you mean by calling that a religion. Not the case here, though.

Only I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. I simply don't care if there is a god or gods... I know some atheists can become pretty fanatic about their beliefs, so I understand what you mean by calling that a religion. Not the case here, though.

My sincere apologies. I wasn't sure if you were Agnostic or not since you didn't specify in your post.

If you could convert everyone in the world to your religious/political beliefs, would you?I would convert them into fertilizer. That way people may finally do the world some good.

Are we talking forcibly, or simply by convincing them that I'm correct?
If the former, no. If the latter, yes.

Are we talking forcibly, or simply by convincing them that I'm correct?
If the former, no. If the latter, yes.

Since we're in the hypothetical realm, it would be like having a Genie grant a wish. Poof, and everyone shares your views.

I would convert them into fertilizer. That way people may finally do the world some good.

:rolleyes:

Since we're in the hypothetical realm, it would be like having a Genie grant a wish. Poof, and everyone shares your views.Eh. Nah, that's too close to forcing it, for my liking.

If you could convert everyone in the world to your religious/political beliefs, would you?
Depends on how said "conversion" would work.

I'd love it if everybody shared my lack of God-belief. I think that would be super. But I'm not remotely interested in forcing anybody to agree with me.

When it comes to the political realm, I'd like some of the most fundamental bits to be shared (like my belief in human rights, my belief in the equality of all persons regardless of sex, race, etc.) but I actually prefer to have people arguing conflicting viewpoints on most issues. It helps me take a better look at my own values and my positions, and it keeps me honest.

Depends on how said "conversion" would work.
See my post somewhere above yours.

I'd love it if everybody shared my lack of God-belief. I think that would be super. But I'm not remotely interested in forcing anybody to agree with me.

When it comes to the political realm, I'd like some of the most fundamental bits to be shared (like my belief in human rights, my belief in the equality of all persons regardless of sex, race, etc.) but I actually prefer to have people arguing conflicting viewpoints on most issues.
Forgive me for prying, but why would you prefer the world to be Atheist (or Anti-Theist), but not have them share the same political views as you? Extreme political ideologies have a following that might as well be religious (Communism, Fascism, certain Anarchist groups, etc.)

Forgive me for prying, but why would you prefer the world to be Atheist (or Anti-Theist), but not have them share the same political views as you? Extreme political ideologies have a following that might as well be religious (Communism, Fascism, certain Anarchist groups, etc.)

I find superstition boring, so I'd be happy in a world where nobody wasted time with it. I don't want a world where people are "anti-theist," any more than I want a world where people are anti-Santa, I just want people to stop fixating on fairytales and pay more attention to the amazing universe we've got to play with!

As for the extremist ideologies, that's where my bit about "some of the most fundamental bits" comes in. I'd like to be able to stop having to argue with people about whether or not women are actual human beings. I'd like to be able to quit arguing about whether or not black people are actual human beings. I'd like to be able to stop debating whether or not torture is an effective and justified way for a government to obtain information. These are subjects that really should not need to be discussed, and it is very annoying that we have to keep revisiting them because some people are slow on the uptake (or are sociopaths).

Most extremism as we know it is going to evaporate if you can get these kinds of fundamentals in place.

No.

Conformity is lame.

I learned that watching Barney.

I find superstition boring, so I'd be happy in a world where nobody wasted time with it. I don't want a world where people are "anti-theist," any more than I want a world where people are anti-Santa, I just want people to stop fixating on fairytales and pay more attention to the amazing universe we've got to play with!
To some extent, I agree. But to wish for all religion to disappear is a bit extreme in my book.

As for the extremist ideologies, that's where my bit about "some of the most fundamental bits" comes in. I'd like to be able to stop having to argue with people about whether or not women are actual human beings. I'd like to be able to quit arguing about whether or not black people are actual human beings. I'd like to be able to stop debating whether or not torture is an effective and justified way for a government to obtain information. These are subjects that really should not need to be discussed, and it is very annoying that we have to keep revisiting them because some people are slow on the uptake (or are sociopaths).

Most extremism as we know it is going to evaporate if you can get these kinds of fundamentals in place.

Agreed 100%. Although this sort of takes away discussion of political/cultural issues, no? If everyone had a shared set of core morals then what would we argue about? Economics? And even that fits into the morality thing.

To some extent, I agree. But to wish for all religion to disappear is a bit extreme in my book.

*Shrug* For somebody who believes that we all start life as atheists, it's not particularly extreme to envision a world where we stay that way.


Agreed 100%. Although this sort of takes away discussion of political/cultural issues, no? If everyone had a shared set of core morals then what would we argue about? Economics? And even that fits into the morality thing.
Oh, I think there would still be tons of debate!

From personal experience, I've seen how much debate there can be between people who share the same fundamental values. My lover and I certainly do, yet we have very different opinions on how the political sphere should be run. He favors greater regulation by elected government, while I favor less. We've had some real knock-down drag-out matches over such topics.

People can believe in achieving the same aims but have very different opinions on how best to reach them.

If you could convert everyone in the world to your religious/political beliefs, would you?

I actually voted yes. Why? Because I believe that first and foremost, Faith is an individual personal relationship and should remain that way. Organized group religion has cause more bloodshed than any other single thing man has ever devised.

But I really don't care what invisible man people worship. As long as they do it alone. :)

I believe that variety is the spice of life, and that all of the diverse cultures on Earth is one of the best, most interesting things about the World.

That said though, it is true that I am perfect, and if the entire world shared my religious views it would probably be better for everyone. There would definitely be a lot less killing all over the place.

Yeah i'd convert the world to my beliefs. I think quality of life would skyrocket afterwards, I hope. If not, oh well.

Oh, I think there would still be tons of debate!

From personal experience, I've seen how much debate there can be between people who share the same fundamental values. My lover and I certainly do, yet we have very different opinions on how the political sphere should be run. He favors greater regulation by elected government, while I favor less. We've had some real knock-down drag-out matches over such topics.

People can believe in achieving the same aims but have very different opinions on how best to reach them.

Eh... It's still like a group of preists arguing about God and theology. You can only carry an argument like that so far since the people doing the arguing all essentially believe the same thing. Besides, I'd miss the conflict. I tend to thrive on adversity and would hate to live in a world filled with people of the same mind.

I actually voted yes. Why? Because I believe that first and foremost, Faith is an individual personal relationship and should remain that way. Organized group religion has cause more bloodshed than any other single thing man has ever devised.

But I really don't care what invisible man people worship. As long as they do it alone. :)

I disagree. Organized religion in and of itself is not bad, but its when men use religion as an excuse to further their own ambitions. However, I don't want this to turn into a debate about religion... :(

Eh... It's still like a group of preists arguing about God and theology.

Dude, look at Northern Ireland. Talk about "debate!"


You can only carry an argument like that so far since the people doing the arguing all essentially believe the same thing. Besides, I'd miss the conflict. I tend to thrive on adversity and would hate to live in a world filled with people of the same mind.
Again, I don't think what I'm suggesting would remove conflict or debate at all. I simply think it would remove the stupid, trivial red herrings that dull people cling to, like sexism and racism and all that lame crap. Frankly, I think the level of intelligent conflict would go way, way up, because we wouldn't have to devote so much energy to "debating" bullshit non-issues any more.

I'd make everyone a lot more sane and peaceful, but variety is the spice of life, so complete uniformity would be a no-no.

Everyone alrady does agree with me. They just haven't realised it yet.

Dude, look at Northern Ireland. Talk about "debate!"
Point taken.

Again, I don't think what I'm suggesting would remove conflict or debate at all. I simply think it would remove the stupid, trivial red herrings that dull people cling to, like sexism and racism and all that lame crap. Frankly, I think the level of intelligent conflict would go way, way up, because we wouldn't have to devote so much energy to "debating" bullshit non-issues any more.
Neither am I. I'm just saying that it wouldn't really be true conflict since we would all share common morals.

Neither am I. I'm just saying that it wouldn't really be true conflict since we would all share common morals.
Hmm. Perhaps we view conflict differently, then. I prefer productive conflict, where debate and disagreement produce progress. Frankly, I don't think there's any progress to be had in "debating" with yahoos who refuse to accept reality. It can be fun, don't get me wrong, and it's a big reason why I come here for recreation, but it's just not nearly as interesting as disagreeing intelligently with somebody.

Debating things like whether or not black people are human is, to me, a waste of time. For a person to believe that blacks are less human, they must already have divorced themselves from reality. The subject is a distraction from topics of importance. It's like debating science with a person who believes the world is flat; what is the point? All I want is to remove the "flat-Earthers" from the equation, and leave those who can discuss things intelligently.

Hmm. Perhaps we view conflict differently, then. I prefer productive conflict, where debate and disagreement produce progress. Frankly, I don't think there's any progress to be had in "debating" with yahoos who refuse to accept reality. It can be fun, don't get me wrong, and it's a big reason why I come here for recreation, but it's just not nearly as interesting as disagreeing intelligently with somebody.
It would seem so. I believe that you cannot win a person over to your side of the argument through debate if they weren't ready to switch sides in the first place. I do however like engaging in pointless debate with people for no other purpose than to prove them wrong, or ruin their character.

EDIT: Maybe I came off like an asshole in that post. I don't see what we're doing at this moment as serious debating, but discussing the repercussions of having the world share a set of common morals. Sorry if I was offensive.

Debating things like whether or not black people are human is, to me, a waste of time. For a person to believe that blacks are less human, they must already have divorced themselves from reality. The subject is a distraction from topics of importance. It's like debating science with a person who believes the world is flat; what is the point? All I want is to remove the "flat-Earthers" from the equation, and leave those who can discuss things intelligently.
I would not seriously debate such a person in the first place, no matter how tempting it might be.

Of course I would if I could do so without harming anyone. I know atheism isn't a religious belief but I would "convert" everyone to it.

If you could convert everyone in the world to your religious/political beliefs, would you?

Yes, but not by force.

Read my quote.

Only I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. I simply don't care if there is a god or gods... I know some atheists can become pretty fanatic about their beliefs, so I understand what you mean by calling that a religion. Not the case here, though.

that's apatheistic then, isn't it?

No, mainly because it would violate my beliefs. The only way I would want someone to have beliefs similar to mine is if they looked at all of the arguments and evidence and came to the same conclusion after really thinking about it. Anything other than that would be meaningless because it would not reflect the process they took to come to their beliefs.

I would appreciate it if people were a little less belligerent about the truth of their beliefs (on all sides...nobody gets a free pass in this regard). Not to mention the fact that everyone agreeing on everything would be boring and would lead to complete stagnation.

that's apatheistic then, isn't it?

Yes. Although technically, it could apply to multiple beliefs; you could be an apathetic theist who believes God exists but that he is irrelevant to human concerns, for example.

I wouldn't. I know many people are weaker than I am and could not survive with my rather bleak spiritual worldview. They need a crutch. They need things religion gives them - certainty, community, written-down rules of conduct, hope for beyond the grave, solace during death. Excuses to hate people.

In this case a lack of a religion is a religion. I personally view Atheism (and all its variants) as a religion, but thats for another thread.

That's cool. I personally view baldness as a hair color. :)

That's cool. I personally view baldness as a hair color. :)

Well, it depends on whether or not you're implicit or explicit. Implicit is not, explicit is. There's a pretty significant difference between the two. But then again, an implicit atheist can kind of be folded in to apatheism; I'd say it's next to impossible to be fanatical about lack of belief, after all.

Well, it depends on whether or not you're implicit or explicit. Implicit is not, explicit is. There's a pretty significant difference between the two. But then again, an implicit atheist can kind of be folded in to apatheism; I'd say it's next to impossible to be fanatical about lack of belief, after all.

I disagree. I use this definition for religion:

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

There really isn't any institution, and most atheists don't have any atheist-specific "practices" or attitudes. Calling something a religion just because someone believes strongly in it is too broad; it turns pro-choice and pro-life into religions, it turns the GOP into a religion, etc.

I would not. One of the core tenets of my religion is that conversion is meaningless unless it's voluntarily and at the initiative of the converted.

There really isn't any institution, and most atheists don't have any atheist-specific "practices" or attitudes. Calling something a religion just because someone believes strongly in it is too broad; it turns pro-choice and pro-life into religions, it turns the GOP into a religion, etc.

In that case, yes.

It would be more accurate to call explicit atheism a "faith-based belief" whereas implicit atheism is simply saying "I see no evidence, therefore I do not believe in any of the Gods proposed so far". That's a very important difference between the two.

Now secular humanism or other secular philosophies could be considered a religion by this idea (and is legally in the US), but they are as far from implicit atheism as theism itself is in terms of its content.

In that case, yes.

It would be more accurate to call explicit atheism a "faith-based belief" whereas implicit atheism is simply saying "I see no evidence, therefore I do not believe in any of the Gods proposed so far". That's a very important difference between the two.

Indeed, and it's one I wish non-atheists would bother making more often. Too often I get lumped in with the "there is no God" crowd when I'm simply just "I don't believe in a God."

I certainly would. A humanity unified would be far more effective at addressing global problems than one divided, far more effective at perpetuating itself.

Indeed, and it's one I wish non-atheists would bother making more often. Too often I get lumped in with the "there is no God" crowd when I'm simply just "I don't believe in a God."

Well, it's a very important distinction. For a person who has not seen any evidence one way or another, it's the most rational position to take.

If everyone agreed with me, I'd lose my will to live.

If I could probably would, I'd lose certain things (including the ability to support my beliefs when challenged by those who disagree and a number of freedoms), but the world would be a place more to my liking overall (and obviously a think a better place).

Depends on the mood I'm in.

I certainly would. A humanity unified would be far more effective at addressing global problems than one divided, far more effective at perpetuating itself.

O Brave new world That has such people in't!

I certainly would. A humanity unified would be far more effective at addressing global problems than one divided, far more effective at perpetuating itself.

Not necessarily. Identical thinking eventually leads to total groupthink and stagnation; we would likely stagnate as a society rather than progress faster. As damaging as differing opinions can be at times, their benefits are far greater than any of their drawbacks.

Cooperation and competition combined are a very powerful tool for advancement.

If you could convert everyone in the world to your religious/political beliefs, would you?

are you talking 100% coversion to your beliefs? like not just Christian, but Catholic/Baptist/Mormon etc... and not just Democrat/Republican but down to the stance of abortion, Criminal Punishments, Gun Control etc...?

No. There are quite a lot of people who I would be quite embarrassed to agree with. I prefer that they keep beliefs that I can mock.

No because conversion should be voluntary.

Yes, I would convert everyone to my beliefs. Everyone would die. It would be the greatest.

Not necessarily. Identical thinking eventually leads to total groupthink and stagnation; we would likely stagnate as a society rather than progress faster.

Given that my political and ethical views have as an inherent goal the constant drive towards further improvement and development, I find that result highly unlikely in the case of worldwide conversion to my views.

There are a number of other views that would have the result of stagnation if implemented, of course.

As damaging as differing opinions can be at times, their benefits are far greater than any of their drawbacks.

Those benefits would be retained in a society dominated by my views, due to the nature of the educational system that would be implemented.

Cooperation and competition combined are a very powerful tool for advancement.

Indeed they are, and a world permeated by my views would have both in large quantities.

Nope, a NSG full of people going, "Sounds good to me" and "I agree" over and over again would be very boring.

That's not the point though, is it?

If you could convert everyone in the world to your religious/political beliefs, would you?Yes. That would solve all problems immediately.

Given that my political and ethical views have as an inherent goal the constant drive towards further improvement and development, I find that result highly unlikely in the case of worldwide conversion to my views.

There are a number of other views that would have the result of stagnation if implemented, of course.



Those benefits would be retained in a society dominated by my views, due to the nature of the educational system that would be implemented.



Indeed they are, and a world permeated by my views would have both in large quantities.


If the world was permeated by your views, clearly everyone would be too arrogant to get anything done.

If the world was permeated by your views, clearly everyone would be too arrogant to get anything done.

Does arrogance lie in those who propose sound solutions? Or is it perhaps in those who use ad hominem attacks disguised as refutations rather than providing a genuine counter-argument?