Only if they wish to engage in the debate. Otherwise I would say leave everyone to believe what they wish, providing they keep it a private matter. I am as atheist as they come but I have no desire to convert theists. It is their choice. I will debate the issue from a philosophical perspective if anyone wishes to do so but I wouldn't go "door knocking for Darwin" or whatever (sorry to make atheism synonymous with Darwin but it does scan well...). I will push secularism as I don't want to have any religion forced upon me any more than theists want atheism pushed on them. Best to keep it a private matter and out of areas where it can affect those that think it is a load of rubbish (either way!). People should be free be as religious or non religious as they wish in society and that is the point of secularism.

This is a personal question rather then a intelligent question. I mean that in a positive way. It's important to acknowledge the difference. I would not discuss Religion with someone who did not broach the subject with me first. Religion is such a personal choice for so many people, rather then a logical choice, they make the decision with so many other factors involved. How they were brought up, personal experiences, trauma etc... For you to discuss the lack of a God, to someone who feels deeply about "Their God" would be insulting. Like wise, for someone to insist their is a God to you without proof, is insulting to you. So simply answering your question: NO. Do not try to convince religious people they are wrong, unless they brought the debate to you. Debate. If they are discussing religion this is not intended to be a debate.

Well, only if you feel that religious people should try (while remaining civil) to convince you that you're wrong. I have a very good friend who is athiest, I am Christian. We discuss our beliefs, frustrations, etc with one another. I don't try to convert him and I expect the same courtesy from him.

Nothing has stopped you so far.

i am religious. i usually enjoy religious debates, as long as they do not turn into arguments. i will not try to convince you of anything, just present my views and any evidence to go along with them, and as long as you do the same, everything will be peachy. this is a good question though. lots of religious people love to try to tell others that their beliefs are wrong. funny thing is, nobody at all can prove what they believe.

Even if you are civil, I bet it's a draw.

In so far as the religious try to influence the direction of science, such as president Bush banning federal funding for stem cell research (glad that is ending!) and certain school boards trying to teach creationist mumbo jumbo in the science classroom, absolutely. You have to if you care about humanity and the advancement of society and technology to improve the human condition. If they would keep to themselves and stop trying to pass off their belief systems as anything more than faith based, I would have no issue with it at all.

No, let them be. They may need the sense of comfort, or control that whatever they believe in gives them . As a person that doesnt believe in much at all, I find myself in the same situation sometimes, and I say to myself " wait a minute, I dont care what this fool thinks, it wont affect me in the end..." I hope this is somewhat helpful.

respect their beliefs as I respect that you don't believe. There are other things you can talk about aside from God

If you are a REAL atheist you should not care about superstition, nor people believing in nonsense. Let education make its work and people their decisions.

I think you always have to mind your own knitting first. But I disagree with those who want everyone to stay in their corner and not argue about religion... this is one of the most important issues in the world, and it's a legitimate part of the development of the human race to have a lively discussion about it. That's very different than trying to "convince people that they are wrong", though. I'm not that interested in convincing people they're wrong. I AM interested in shaking the tree... introducing doubt -- both for theists AND for atheists! Why? Because doubt is the oil that lubricates the engine of philosophical, ethical, and cognitive development. There's nothing worse than blithe and absolute certainty regarding the "big questions" in life... it's the recipe for complacency. The point in life is not to get "the answer", it's to BECOME yourself most fully... to be true to what you know -- and what you don't know -- with your whole heart and energy. Clinging to fixed ideas kills that off severely, regardless of what those fixed ideas are. So I sometimes yell at the theists. And sometimes I yell at the atheists. And the Druids. And the Hindus, and Muslims, and Flying Spaghetti Monsterists. We can all use some shaking up. Me too.

No one can change anyone's beliefs or opinions, no matter how hard you try to convince someone of anything otherwise. Whatever works for people works for them. Why change that? :)

No, from experience, it's a waste of time. Perhaps belief (or non-belief) is something in our nature, so trying to convince someone they are wrong about their belief is like criticising who they are, rather than what they think.

No, we should all be free to believe or not believe without pressure to change our minds. Why would someone feel the need to impose their beliefs on someone else? We are all capable of making up our own minds.

If you feel that is your life's purpose then go for it, but you will probably only succeed in making their faith stronger, just as so many religious people trying to convert atheists make there non belief stronger. People often get entrenched in their positions and will stick stubbornly to it and defend it at all costs when attacked.

Why would you do that? Why not let people alone to believe what they believe? Trying to convert people to your way of thinking is exactly what turns people off to those with other beliefs. If you are happy the way you are, be grateful and enjoy it...but don't force your beliefs on others. Perhaps they may approach you and ask about your beliefs...that's when you share your faith with others..or your lack of faith.I happen to believe that all religions have value and and I also believe that Atheists can be very good people even without a particular faith.They can be kind, helpful, accepting...and sometimes those of faith can be very unkind, hurtful and mean. Just my opinion. Happy Sunday! :)

Do on to others, as they have done on to you. It would be wrong to be pushy your beliefs and wrong for them to do so. Me, I'm Christian and I HATE when bible thumpers come to my door and push me. I already believe, I don't need to believe THEIR way. So I tell them I am atheist, watch their jaw drop to the ground, close the door and ask for forgiveness ;-)

Would you wake a child from a pleasant dream?! ;-)

Being an atheist takes faith, and believing in God takes faith. The question is, which one takes more faith? I don't think there's a whole lot of convincing necessary.

I think the point is can you PROVE that people who are religious, no matter what religion, are wrong. Can you PROVE the non existence of God, I think not. In the same way a religious person cannot prove to others that God exists.Both religious people and atheists have a faith, one being faith in God the other a faith that God does not exist. Both points of view are a faith because neither can be proved conclusively.

IN MY OPINION...A religious person who tells and atheist that he/she is wrong...is wrong! And an atheist telling a religious person that he/she is wrong...is wrong. Two wrongs never, ever make a right!

No, you should not try to convince religious people to change their view and, in liue, accept your atheist view. There's no need, reason and would serve no purpose to try to do that; nor you will be much successful attempting such a monumental task. What you can do, though, and as a member of this site entitled to do, is be a participant in religious Q & A and offer your inputs based on your depth and ability to reason, and also, whatever knowledge you might have obtained from an in-depth research on the matter. That's it.

My views on this are changing as I get older. Before, I would have said "definitely no," because I believed that proselytizing was kind of arrogant, and that trying to change people's religious beliefs was pointless and cruel. Now that I have seen the ghastly effects that religious fundamentalism/fanaticism has had in world events, and because of the commitment of Christian fundamentalists to intermingle their religious dogma with national politics, I'm not so sure about the passive stance I took when I was younger. These are the things that I think are important enough to argue (rationally) about: (1) It is in everyone's interest to maintain a separation of Church and State. (2) The United States of America is not (and never has been) a Christian nation; we are a democracy, not a theocracy. (3) People should be free to follow their religious convictions as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. (4) Literal word-for-word interpretation of the Christian Bible and belief in Biblical inerrancy are indefensible, because the Bible has MANY contradictions. (5) Christians who use so much energy spouting hate and judgment have missed the message of Jesus. (6) Just because atheists don't believe in heaven or hell, doesn't mean we don't believe in right and wrong; and just because we don't believe in a god doesn't mean we have no basis for having morals. (7) Faith is drawn from existing belief, not the other way around; you can't believe just by deciding to have faith. If people believe something just because they make themselves believe, then it is just that --- "make-believe." Having said that, I do not condone going around and just trying to bash people's beliefs (even if they are obviously flawed). That is kind of like going around and telling children there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. I wouldn't tell them there was in the first place, but it's mean to shatter their innocent beliefs. Of course most people would not really listen anyway, but if you did manage to crush someone's beliefs, it could be painful for them.

Nope. That would make you every bit as abominable as they are. You should just let them be while being prepared to fight back with all your might when they come knocking at your door or try to proselytize anywhere else

No. I think you can offer an opinion...but it isn't a competition...you don't have to win. You know how annoying it is when someone else pushes their point....don't be one of them.

yes! you should... i used to be christian, then i made friends with a atheist, totally converted me, it makes much more sence n i am much more happy and less confused. the religious religions leave u confused and scared. but beliefs such as atheist or agnostic buddist anwser your ?'s and make more sence.

No one REALLY knows what happens after death. I have an open mind, and am a Unitarian Universalist. (I've had some atheists attend my church as well.) I don't believe you're wrong, but I don't believe the Christians/Hindus/Muslims/Jews/Confuscians,etc. are wrong either. Since there is no way of really knowing, I think it's best to avoid telling someone that they are wrong. I do think it's absolutely OK to banter religion back and forth in an open discussion, provided both individuals are capable of doing so. Otherwise, I may avoid it for your sake.

If it comes up in conversation, I will politely try to gauge another person's interest in such a discussion. If I think they will be open to it, I will try to bring the conversation around to a point where I can ask some basic questions to see if they attempt to defend their faith. I might go as far as openly questioning them. - While I may do this, I don't go around looking for people to "convert." I don't walk around with my "Atheist Badge" on, thinking that I am better and that everyone should think like me.

You can TRY my foolish fellow. They won't listen.

If they are trying to convince you

yes and while you are at it, maybe in the discussion you will learn something about Christianity. Its always nice to have debates dont you think?

Do you like it when Christians try to convince you that you are wrong?

Not generally, no. You are perfectly allowed to correct religious people when they are wrong about specific things - science, history and the like - but that's the same for non-religious folk too...

There is no such thing as an atheist in the foxholes. So if their existence is tenuos, they are not real. They are therefore without relevance.

It's up to you. Do you WANT to convince religious people they are wrong? I can't tell you what you should do on a decision as personal as this. I can tell you that if you decide to pursue this, you should give some thought as to what would be most effective way for you (given your personality, talents, contacts, resources, etc) to persuade religous people they're wrong. If you're a comedian, satire is a valid way of pointing the flaws of something. If you're rich, put up some advertising. If you're charitable, be open about your atheism (maybe just wear a t-shirt)and you will catch the attention of those who think atheists can't be good people. Be prepared to take some heat, many people don't react well to being proslytized. Personally, I don't recommend talking to people about religion if they aren't interested in what you have to say, unless they're as up for an argument as you are.

No, but speaking about your ideas of religion is fine. In the end (after all) no one can truly prove the other right or wrong until death, so why argue? Savvy? :-)

You must have worded your question backwards.

((Thousands of atheists have served this country in the military. I am one of them. Soldiers are more likely to be atheists than the general public.)) **B.S. I was serving my country when you were still sitting on your mommys lap sucking on your all day lollipop. I have been in harms way, and all the bravos who were strutting around claiming to be atheists were praying when the mortars were falling.. so don't try that tired old line on me. Be there, done that, got the T shirt. There are NO atheists in the foxhole. Just scared boys praying.

Some people believe what they want to believe for a reason, and if some people don't share the same views its okay to share your opinions in a civil matter. But convincing a life-long christian that they're wrong can come off as an insult no matter how civil you are about it. The best thing to do is just remain accepting of different views, maybe share yours and listen to other opinions. I know its tempting to convince christians they're wrong as an atheist but people will believe what what they want to believe under their own will if they chose to.. its really not worth fighting for.

Part of me says no, you should leave everyone alone and let them all believe what they want. And another part of me says yes, why not preach what you believe? Everyone else seems to!!

no

I don't think you should, what does it gain you?

No because you would hate me if I tried to do the same!

That would be weird. No one is gonna change for you. You believe what u want and I what I want. I am Catholic all the way, my husband is, we got married in the Church, and my kids go to Church. I always slam the door on the weirdos who come to try to give me their papers on their religion. Not that they are weird for their beliefs. I say this because who are they to come to my home and try to tell me what to believe? I do not go to peoples homes and tell them to believe in God. Its a personal descion. Sorry im not trying to be rude here, just answering the question you asked, as honestly as possible.

Heck yes, but just realize that they prob wont change their minds.

I don't see why anyone would want to. Objectively, neither of you knows whether you're right or not; you just choose a path that seems useful to you. That's all anyone does. Why attack someone for doing his best to muddle his way through life? All of us need all the help we can get.

You should remain civil; Yes. Perhaps, you could do that, in fact, as you enjoy the Following: PROFESSORS: GIG’S & GENG’S WISDOM TIME AGAIN: EVOLUTION: Monkey-Ape Time Mrs Iva Tail To Tell (Dean of Makittup University) declared, "Our direct forefathers were gorillas. We straightened our backs and shortened our arms. The latter [or is that ladder?] meant we couldn't have such high shelves of course. But you can't have everything. Yes, we must have come from gorillas because they look more like us on the outside than anything else. That's obvious proof". "Yes", said Prof Gig (Professor in nuts bolts and screws of all kinds), "many years ago they used to talk about how intelligent dogs were, but now we say how intelligent gorillas are. Soon we will have research to prove that they are more intelligent than all other animals; if we can get someone to fund it". Mrs Soarit of Perth WA says, "I watched it on TV, how they put a monkey in a room with a box and put a banana on a string that he couldn't reach. The monkey worked out to move the box over and get onto it to get the banana. The only thing is I've seen a dog do the same thing years before". Dr Ivanew Mith (Vetinary Surgeon of Wefixit Clinic) said, "a gorillas stomach is very different from ours and many other parts. If we ate what a gorilla eats in a day (bamboo shoots) we would be dead. We are more like a horse in eating habits and can eat most things they do. Also we can eat most things birds eat. So horses or birds must be our closest relatives". Dr R E Movitt (Brain Surgeon of Qurem Hospital) said, "Talk is made of people having a so called "human" extra piece on our brains, that apes don't have, that makes us more intelligent. But there are many people who are born without this section as a deformity but it creates no thinking or action disability: The person is completely normal". Prof Gig stated in regard these things; "there are always facts we need to ignore in the pursuit of theoretical science and funding. In this case quite a lot of facts. But then we also get a lot of funding here, as it's a popular theory". Miss Itneedsta Makesens commented, "even if we found a group of monkeys that once wrote their history it still wouldn't prove that apes changed into man. All it would prove is that we found an intelligent group of apes. And anyone with any imagination could come up with another theory of our existence that would sound far more realistic than apes changing into people _ or at least equally as irrational". Why didn't I evolve into a human so that nothing would step on me? Evolution Dr F Roard (Phd., DOB, FBI, KGB, MIA, POT) said, "things all changed by deformities that survived and got passed on. So we believe that something as complex as an eye just happened by chance. Over MILLIONS of years, of course. It makes it sound more believable when we say that because no one can conceive millions of years. So each deformity that went into making an eye was passed on to the next generation. Now I know what you are thinking. You are wondering why we can't seem to find loads of animals, insects or people existing today with only partly formed eyes. Yes, it is true that there would need to be countless masses of them, for the working eye to exist on such a large scale. Particularly considering the seemingly endless intermediate steps and those who would have therefore failed to evolve the rest of the eye correctly by chance. We try to ignore these facts in the interest of 'truth'. And the theory is popular." Professor Messa of the Institute for Lost Scientists said, "We believe the other theory where evolution happened because things decided that they needed to change for their environment. Animals also did this. A lizard decided that it wasn't safe or getting enough food on the ground so it thought about the problem and decided that wings were the best solution to the problem and so he'd become a bird. It realised that this would take MILLIONS of years, of course. So as each of its children were born the lizard passed on his plan so that the children would carry on that approach to the problem. They, in turn, had to pass on this approach to their children to resolve the problem also. He had to make sure that they kept on with that plan or they would die out from the problem that they needed to change for. Fortunately he could foresee this problem becoming bad enough to need to make this change MILLIONS of YEARS before they actually would die out. Strangely enough lizards didn't die out anyway. So it was all in vain. But birds are glad that lizards did so; and now some birds feed on lizards, making it all the better that lizards didn't die out, but leaving lizards wondering about the wisdom of it." Miss White of Brisbane asked, "If we are evolving does that mean we may end up being little green men and going to other planets"? Professor I Dunno of the Institute for Unemployed Scientists said, "one day life just suddenly sprang up and there was an incredibly complex living cell". I asked how this could happen. He explained that it was sort of statistical/magical luck. "Then the cell got lonely and decided it wanted another one; so it worked out how to evolve so it would be capable of splitting (highly intelligent these cells); and did so. And then there were 2 of them", he said. "And before you know it they were just splitting everywhere and we had piles and piles of them: All over the place". I asked him how no life had ever existed throughout all eternity before that time? "Well this has probably happened elsewhere, I'd suppose", he said. "So this amazing magic of an appearing complex living cell just popping up from nowhere has happened other times you feel professor", I asked? "Well, over many MILLIONS of years, you see", he replied. Mr/Ms Los Tie-Dentitti says, "women have evolved into men's bodies". Mr I. L. Watchit asks, "I saw a documentary on TV about moths in a place in England. They explained how there used to be more light moths and few dark ones because the dark ones were seen on the light trees and eaten by birds. But now with so much smog the trees are dark and there are more dark moths, as the birds eat the light ones. But this only proves survival of the fittest. This doesn't prove the evolutionary theory because it was already known when the theory was invented. To prove the theory evidence would have to come forth to prove the theory itself, not the known facts it was based on."? Mr B Acake of Sydney asks, "as I have rheumatism in my back wouldn't it have been better to have stayed without one"? Of evolution Dr Pluggitt of Drippie University states, "yes, we now know that bugs turned into people". When I asked him how this could possibly be, he explained, "yes, well, it all happens over MILLIONS of years, you see. Anything can be believed if you talk about MILLIONS of years". PROFESSORS GENG AND GIG – AT IT AGAIN!! QUESTION: If we were to search for the Dead Center of EVOLUTION, would we find it at Darwin Cemetery, in Fred Flintstone’s Dinosaur Zoo or at a Barney’s Rubble’s Skeleton Bank??!! Ezekiel, Skeleton Bank Teller: ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones…’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Oh hear the word of the Lord.’ Dating Methods Professor Lessor of Fundus Institute commented, "we use the finest dating methods. And we know that we are right that these bones are MILLIONS of years old. Carbon dating has been shown to be correct sometimes, to some degree, over periods of hundreds of years _ usually only being hundreds of years out. And we have other dating methods now that are almost as accurate; particularly when we recalibrate our machines when we know what date is required". Mr Form at Hard Drive said, "I was watching a program on TV the other day that carbon dated a skull found in Australia to be 2,500 years old. But the scientists didn't like that date so they went around trying all these other dating methods and finally found one that said it was about 60,000 to 70,000 years old and so they took those dates. When asked why they didn't use the carbon dating method that is so 'accurate' they said it was because the lime in the soil must have confused it". Dr G Etpade of Theoretic Institute stated, "we are at a new age now where we no longer have the problems of science in the past that almost always had theories that have been proven wrong in spite of them proving them right at the time. All our theories are correct because we have proven them right on TV. We also have a new advantage to use to convince people we're right called 'dating methods'. This is a cleaver idea where you use some instrument to obtain the date you want. We decide it's MILLIONS of years old then it becomes MILLIONS of years old". Elder Harris (The Church of Jesus Christ LDS missionary) questions, "I have heard that a rock formed by a volcano only a short time before was carbon dated to be MILLIONS of years old. Also that a rock only a few years old, brought back from the moon, was similarly dated. On both occasions the truth had been kept from those doing the dating. Why should anyone believe all this, unproven, MILLIONS of years stuff"? Dr Thinkitt of the Local Logicians Club said, "All accepted fact must be based on proven facts (premises). Therefore talk of MILLIONS of years is illogical as no one can PROVE what happened in a time of which we have no way to prove it absolutely correct. If someone makes a claim about ancient Egypt from known facts about Egypt it could be logical. But we have no written record of MILLIONS of years ago and we can't go back to prove or disprove the claim or the premises upon which it is based: Regardless of what instruments are used. No logician could accept someone saying they KNOW about MILLIONS of years ago as anything but the ravings of a fool". Miss Daytmee of Hobart says, "yes, well, my dating method is to play hard to get".

Fantastic idea, good luck :)

no they shouldn't do it to you either unfortunately you find idiots on both sides of the religious spectrum who are dead set on shoving their beliefs down the other's throat :(

yes, I feel it is our duty as good atheists to spread the word of a nondelusional existence and to save those who have been brainwashed by religion from themselves and the oppressive lie they live. It would only be right of us to do so for the good of all mankind..... ok not really, but I don't see why not, I mean the religious think it is their place to intrude upon our atheist beliefs and try to dismiss or negate them in order to "save our mortal souls"...but oh no god forbid (pun intended) anyone ever try to dismiss, negate or show them another view..then we are attacking them! Just the fact alone that they think they know they are right shows how egotistical religion is.

Yep go around with a copy of Origin Of The Species and spread atheism.

No, they're fools. You can't convince a fool.

No. You should accept people for who they are, even if you don't agree with what they believe in. If you want people to accept you, you have to accept other people.

No, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Live and let live is the best thing to do.

I don't think so...it's a losers bet. And anyway, it's not for you to convince anyone they are right or wrong; it's for you to believe your stuff and realize that the rest of the world is suffering from a form of mass hysteria. They you can live peacefully knowing you are awake and aware and not prone to wild flights of fancy.

In my opinion, you should talk to them if they are interested in talking. I see no problem in discussing the matter with them, and even asking questions to make them think. I would not find it acceptable to keep pushing if they are not interested in talking.

You cant try but it will never work.

Yes you should. Religion has a lot of ridiculous ideas in it. We should NOT respect religious ideas if they're patently absurd, any more than we should "respect" ideas like the earth is flat. In your next conversation about religion, ask for some evidence of what they say is true. Read Sam Harris: "The End of Faith"

Sure, they have been trying to do the opposite since anyone can remember.

No. Do you enjoy it when religious people try to convince you that YOU are wrong? Of course not. I am not religious either, but I would never try to convince someone else that their beliefs are wrong. That's not my place. I will, however, have intelligent, civil conversations about the topic with anyone who is interested.

Not at all. I find that rude.

I guess you need to ask yourself what your motivation is?

No...I don't think so. It is the equivalent of arguing some one's favorite color. We can discuss and share, but religious conviction is not based in fact.

Well overall religious people are wrong too, im a christian and all religion is lies and crap but i dont mean to upset anybody whos cathlic or another religion but what im trying to say is that being religious is being controlled by god or the father. but people today dont know that being christian is not a religion, its a relationship with god. and what i mean by that is that being religious is very difficult because the things you have to do for example "cathlic" every month on a certain friday you cant eat meat for one whole day. which is kinda stupid because theres so many rules and things you have to do just for being religious, but see the important thing is to worship, pray, and love god with all your heart and not fell presurred by the father if you have sinned. All you need to do is ask god for forgiveness. but being athiest is really being a hypocrite because that means your life is worth nothing and you dont live for anything. So your basiclly saying that my lifes worthless and im here for no reason at all.

Civil yes. Convince? No. Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one who argues with a fool?

Why not?

no. for two simple reasons. 1. When you get into the 'yes/no'discussion the only point you'll make is that you don't agree. 2. A true atheist accepts religius people. You don't believe in god, so you believe in man-kind. You do not judge, you know you might be wrong because you tend to question everything that exists (everything has a reason, or it would not exist).

Religious ideas are simply ideas - we ought to debunk them if they're illogical or if they're factually incorrect. We have to find a balance between allowing people to believe what they want - they have the right to, and helping people learn more about reality and what to do. Many people depend heavily on their religious beliefs to make decisions in life. Sometimes those decisions intrude on other people in harmful ways. Sometimes they harm themselves. If we have information that we know would be useful to others in helping hem make their decisions, we ought to at least provide that information. If somebody says, "God has told me to kill my daughter for having dishonored herself." Would you just "respect" his religion? Or would you try to educate that man as to what freedom means or what gender persecution is or challenge that man to prove that it was indeed God's will that he murders? (After all, if it is indeed God's will, you have no right to defend that girl's life!) Almost certainly, the man would accuse you of trying to impose your beliefs on him. What would your response be if you were to simply decide that religion is off-bounds for any discussion? Religious claims have been respected far more than they deserve. e.g. In a trial in Oregon going on this very day, a church is claiming religious exemption for their doctrine of praying for healing instead of seeing a doctor, which resulted in numerous unnecessary deaths of children. They're saying that charging the parents with negligence would be a violation of their rights to religious beliefs. What would your response be, if your stance is to never challenge anybody's religious beliefs? Let the children die?

As long as you do not bother religious people trying to convert you. If you think they are annoying, I can assure you they will find you annoying too. Just leave them alone, if they want to believe let them (as long as they are not trying to convert you). What would you gain if you turned them into non-believers? Do your own thing and let them find their own way.

What will you teach them to believe IN?

Why would you want to try to convince religious people that they are wrong when you can't in all honesty say for certain that they are wrong? Personal opinions carry one just so far.

It's sort of like a serial killer convincing a judge that he lets soldiers kill, get paid for it, and come home as heroes whereas he's getting a kick in the groin from the people and a sentence.

When two parties agree on everything, there's not much point in having a conversation. A healthy and respectful debate on important matters can be refreshing and stimulating. If one is confident and competent in what they believe, there's no reason to be intimidated or bothered by discussing the issues with someone of a different mind.

Civil arguing is great and should be encouraged, but do expect the religious people to try and convince you of their point of view in return.

Why? what do you care if others believe in God or not? It's not like your trying to convince them that there is no God will be saving them from an eternity without God in Heaven or anything. But, you on the other hand, if you die, (and we all do someday), will spend an eternity without the one who created you and knowing this will bring you eternal grief and torture.

No, unless they are trying to convert or otherwise push there ideals into the public sphere. We needn't become that annoying, let people have there beliefs as long as it doesn't interfere with the lives of others.

Innocent babies fall out of the sky in plane wrecks and the sharks eat them. I have read stories of a church roof collapsing on people in the church. Killing the pastor. Evil men kidnap children and do horrific things to them. I really don't think God pays a lot of attention to what we humans are doing. At least I hope not...else he/she would be really pissed off at what we are doing to the environment and rectify the situation.

Live and let live. Just like they should not impose their beliefs on you. "Do unto others..." is something I believe very strongly, and I am not religious.

everyone has the urge to educate.

Feel free to try - but don't get too bothered if they chew you a new butt hole for your good efforts. Theists like to believe in incredible things...wild and imaginative and impossible things....what they don't like is practical, down to earth, simple statements of fact - for they prefer fancy to fact in their lives. Real theists will deny facts and quote belief - and belief is stronger in some peoples minds than facts will ever be. They may seem totally irrational on this subject yet be perfectly sane in others...and it has driven good men and women crazy from their efforts to just interject a little reality into the argument. Yes, you should try to talk to theists - but be prepared for hostility and anger beyond anything else known on this planet....it is fun to do, but is a trial as well. Take care my friend!

It depends on the situation. You have no right to storm into a church at the end of a church service and hand out pamphlets about atheism. However, if you happen to get into a conversation with a highly religious person; I see no problem with you trying to turn them to your viewpoint. Seeing as they will probably try to do the same with you.

Only if they ask for your help. It is reasonable to raise doubts about their beliefs and lack of intelligence in an attempt to get them to ask for your help.

Saying someone "should" try to do this implies a moral imperative to deconvert the religious. I don't think that's true and I don't think most atheists feel that way. Since there's no atheist equivalent of heaven and hell, we don't have a need to convert people to save their souls. Atheists and religious people ought to be able to coexist peacefully. Now, I *DO* think that atheists "should" try to convince religious people that they are wrong, on those occasions when they are in the wrong. It isn't wrong to have religious beliefs. However, if a religious person is stoning a woman for wearing a skirt that's too short, then YES, I think there's a moral imperative to convince that person that they are wrong, wrong, wrong. And, I think atheists are in the best position to do this of anyone. We cannot be threatened with damnation or excommunication, and we aren't going to pick apart scriptural phrasings and interpretations and whatnot. We can argue the simple matter of the base morality of this act, without getting tangled up in which translation of the bible you're using. I argue all the time with people who use religion to justify denying rights to women or to homosexual people, or to transgender people. I also argue with people who use religion to justify war, oppression, murder, and inequality. I think it is right to do this, and important to do this, and I encourage other atheists to do the same.

Why? How would it profit you?

no. why?

If you feel like it. People try to convince other people of things all the time. Conservatives try to convince liberals, people who do like a movie try to convince people who don't like a movie. It's a common human impulse, and although we rarely seem to change each other's minds once they're made up, often both parties walk away with a little better understanding of why they hold a particular opinion. Don't expect to be successful unless the other person already has doubts...and even then don't be surprised if you actually reinforce their previous beliefs, another good reason to be especially civil. Some religous folk will suddenly seem mystified that one human being might try to convince another human being of what he or she believes to be true, this is pretty much an indirect way of telling atheists to shut up, and we all know why they want us to shut up.

The existence of God is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. There is Proof. Incontrovertible, simple, and all around us. For instance.... the rose is in the seed. Not only does the rose grow from the seed... the velvet of the petals and the aroma, the sharpness of the thorn, are all there in the tiny cloistered confines of the seed.... but the bush is also self perpetuating. Given the right conditions, it is immortal and unrestricted to size.. In effect, we are talking infinity here. Infinity does not arise out of chaos. A tornado does not wind through a junkyard and reassemble a classic out of rusted parts. The rose and the seed are an exquisite design. An extremely complicated design is proof of a designer.

You also want to get into the conversion business?

Should you? No. While your intentions are good, people really don't like being told they're wrong. This goes double for someone who is arguing with you. The truth has never been popular. According to the statutes of atheism it all doesn't really matter anyway, I see no point in trying to give them a pearl of wisdom when they won't listen to you anyway.

I think banging your head against the wall will yield the same result.

If the other side is up for it, sure. I have a christian friend and we often argue over religion, but it is a friendly thing, and in no way am I trying to offend him, we just both enjoy the debate, as do i believe many people

I am not going to try and convince you to not be a atheist, you are old enough to deside what you believe in. I expect the same from you towards me.

Yes I would welcome talking with you! You just might come to know God through Jesus after all! But as far as convincing me that its not true, you would have no chance at all! You see, I was a unbeliever before I was a believer! I couldn`t see the truth then either!Jesus said, Unless a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of heaven. But He proves His faithfulness to me everyday now! It would be like trying to convince me that the name of our planet is really called Zore 7.

You really don't need to try, because they would feel thelselves in a gap if someone or something took the god from their lifes, maybe they thought this before and turn to the religion immediately lol