Psychology behind conversion urge

[joeactor]

Why do I find myself constantly defending the sane religious on this forum????

I'm not sure, but thanks!

I have seen a very predjudicial view on both sides.  It's easy to point out the extremists and believe they represent the group as a whole.  In my experience, both sides have thier share of nutbags, but many people are not that unreasonable or biased.  FWIW.

Not every theist wants to "lead you to god", just as not every atheist wants to "lead you to reason".

Here's one: why do atheists have the conversion urge?
Don't believe they do?
How about the plethora of obviously pointless conversations on this very forum?
Some have been going on for months.  It's obvious (to me) that neither side is going to budge.
So I stopped posting.
What drives an atheist to continue posting?

The flip-side of the coin may be just as valid, yes/no?
JoeActor

[Recusant]

How about the plethora of obviously pointless conversations on this very forum?
Some have been going on for months. It's obvious (to me) that neither side is going to budge.
So I stopped posting.
What drives an atheist to continue posting?

Some people (including myself) simply enjoy a good discussion/argument.
A good friend of mine in high school is now a Methodist minister.  We had many happy times together disputing on theological matters.  His nickname for me was 'the Nihilist.'  We both knew that the other was never going to budge from their point of view, but we enjoyed the give and take with a friendly adversary.  
Of course that is not the only motivation for pointless conversations such as you describe.  There can be a large element of ego involved too, and an urge to competition.  
I don't think HAF is nearly as bad as at least one forum I used to lurk on, (FRDB) where threads can go into hundreds of posts, with both sides repeating their argument ad nauseum, often quoting themselves repeatedly; "And why have you not answered this to my satisfaction yet!  You are ducking the issue!" On and on and on. There is a bit of that sort of thing here, but it does not seem to be the dominant form of discourse, unlike that other place.

As for the original question in the thread, I'll risk stating the obvious; that there are a lot of different reasons for the 'conversion urge.'  Both benign and not so much.  I think most of the everyday people who engage in evangelical activities genuinely believe in what they are 'selling,' and while there are some with a bit of doubt in their heart, on the whole they are true believers who will most likely never seriously question the basis of their faith.  Many of these consider it their duty to 'spread the good word,' while others think they are sharing something very important for all of mankind.  The fact that I consider them delusional doesn't mean that I think they're not sincere.
 I'm not forgetting the arrogant, pushy, self-righteous assholes though.

[PipeBox]

Here's one: why do atheists have the conversion urge?
Don't believe they do?
How about the plethora of obviously pointless conversations on this very forum?
Some have been going on for months.  It's obvious (to me) that neither side is going to budge.
So I stopped posting.
What drives an atheist to continue posting?

The flip-side of the coin may be just as valid, yes/no?
JoeActor

I only take real issue when dogma or personal hopes are taken to supersede reality.  You're as rational a theist as I am an atheist, though.  Other people come here speaking of their interventionist, supernatural-prime-moving deity, proudly proclaiming a flawed dogma.  Way I see it, they are strange to trust, without question, the bronze age books written by fallible men that claim to tell the story of creation, instead of trusting the evidence in the creation itself, which no man can alter.  What man can set Andromeda 2.5 million light years away?  Any literate man can write that God made Adam from clay and Eve from one of his ribs.

It chills me that people would rather walk blind than burden their spirits with knowledge.  They invent nonsensical reasons, ranging from reality being unreliable to scientists being ignorant of the fields they work in to global conspiracies.  More chilling is that they are generally unwilling to introspect why they believe these things.

This is reality.  This is life.  I don't care if they're happier asleep, without the burden.  I want them to wake up, before it's too late.  I don't think we get another chance to see this universe, and it breaks my heart that some people don't want to.  I'm irresponsible and disrespectful in this regard, I don't want to leave people to their wishes, I don't care if it's for the best they are asleep.  I just want to wake them.

I'm not sure if that's a relic, deep-rooted artifact from when I was religious, but there it is, my reason.  Unfettered and selfish.

I'll keep on debating anyone that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the sciences, insomuch as I can.  That much I can do.  I can at least let them know what science sees, and show them when it isn't behind them, but opposing them.  I can see if they are brazen enough to discard logic, reason, and the philosophies and sciences.  And at least then I can say there was nothing for it, that they were wholly beyond me.  And then I can take the perverse satisfaction in knowing they might just die happy because I wasn't able to convince them.  Maybe, just maybe, they'll die thinking the best is yet to come.  And that appeals to my empathy enough that it's all worth it, regardless.

As I like to say to others, I'm just damn happy to be making the journey.  My life will be enough for me.

[Phillysoul11]

Why do I find myself constantly defending the sane religious on this forum????

I'm not sure, but thanks!

I have seen a very predjudicial view on both sides.  It's easy to point out the extremists and believe they represent the group as a whole.  In my experience, both sides have thier share of nutbags, but many people are not that unreasonable or biased.  FWIW.

Not every theist wants to "lead you to god", just as not every atheist wants to "lead you to reason".

Here's one: why do atheists have the conversion urge?
Don't believe they do?
How about the plethora of obviously pointless conversations on this very forum?
Some have been going on for months.  It's obvious (to me) that neither side is going to budge.
So I stopped posting.
What drives an atheist to continue posting?

The flip-side of the coin may be just as valid, yes/no?
JoeActor

I realize that it is borderline impossible to "convert" anyone online, which is why I don't bother trying. I debate because it's entertaining, and a great way to learn about different points of view. I enjoy conversing with people. Hell, I enjoy people.

face to face communication is much more powerful and 100X more effective than chatting via the web.

[joeactor]

I enjoy conversing with people. Hell, I enjoy people.
face to face communication is much more powerful and 100X more effective than chatting via the web.

Yep, I understand... I do the same.  Had my share of conversations with the door-to-door preaching types too.  It's only when it becomes really obvious that no light is ever going to illuminate that I just stop posting.

As I like to say to others, I'm just damn happy to be making the journey. My life will be enough for me.

I'll say "Amen" to that!

Good points too, PipeBox.

Off for the night,
JoeActor

[Ihateyoumike]

I like to think that it's because ideas are like living organisms in that they need to multiply to "stay alive". They also need to be able to overcome the attacks of their adversaries. They also need to evolve, even if it is just a slow process. This applies to any ideas, not just religious ones... If they don't spread to more people, they get lost or replaced with other ideas.

Along these lines, one of the things I've always thought to be interesting about religions is that they seem to have an evolutionary tree of their own branching new ideas and religions out from common past ideas and religions.

[AlP]

I like to think that it's because ideas are like living organisms in that they need to multiply to "stay alive". They also need to be able to overcome the attacks of their adversaries. They also need to evolve, even if it is just a slow process. This applies to any ideas, not just religious ones... If they don't spread to more people, they get lost or replaced with other ideas.

Along these lines, one of the things I've always thought to be interesting about religions is that they seem to have an evolutionary tree of their own branching new ideas and religions out from common past ideas and religions.

Interesting. This sounds like memetics, which I find rather intriguing. Warning, I'm about to speculate wildly! It seems that in human memory and through human communication (speech, books, email, TV, etc) information could replicate and mutate. In much the same way as a gene is a kind of "replicator", information could be a "replicator". It doesn't seem so far fetched an idea to me that there might be an element of selection. Particular information might be more appealing or it might work well in the context of other information (though I suppose it would be artificial selection rather than natural selection). Getting even more speculative... Like a virus, which allows genes to pass between unrelated people rather than only from parent to child, information does not only pass from parent to child. There might also be a teacher to child channel, for example. I find it interesting that for the same reason that a virus does not rely on the well being of its host (because it can pass to a new host without the host reproducing), the replication of certain information would not require the well being of the host. It could be quite harmful and yet still effective at replicating. So in that sense, conversion would be a bit like catching an information virus. I wish Neal Stephenson would write some science fiction along those lines =).

[curiosityandthecat]

I wish Neal Stephenson would write some science fiction along those lines =).

No kidding. Snow Crash came close, but this would be really interesting.

Or maybe Peter Watts. That'd be good, too.

[Sophus]

I think you theory, Prometheus, is probably accurate in many cases. But as always it will vary among certain individuals. I think how the religious persons mind responds subconsciously depends on whether they truly believe in their god or are just clinging to their beliefs for reasons described by psychologist Andy Thomson. Since (I'm guessing) most fall into the second category, their minds would function this way.