Proselytizing

[trotsky]

When does one cross the line between speaking about one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and outright proselytizing?

How, in particular, does an atheist proselytize? I and others have been accused of this, but I'm unsure as to why. "I don't believe in any gods." - Is that atheistic proselytizing? "I think there is no rational basis for religion." - How about that?

Where do YOU draw the line?

[TK421]

1. I draw the line when I feel that a certain belief is being pushed on me

"I don't believe in any gods" is NOT proselytizing-just a simple statement. It's when you get into details that the conversation can turn sour. For example, it's fine to say that you don't believe in any gods, but it would be insensitive to say that the other person is stupid for their belief. My two cents...

[IrateCitizen]

2. Here's where I think the line is...

An open discussion of religious and spiritual belief is a good thing, IMHO. However, when such a discussion stops being about a free exchange of ideas and thoughts, and turns into one person making the other feel as if their beliefs have less or no validity, then that crosses the line.

Proselytizing, IMHO, is when one person unflinchingly presents their beliefs as if they are possessing the single, unalterable truth in how to look at things. In my case, I may hold many Christian beliefs, but I don't believe that they represent the "truth" by any means. In fact, I'm a Christian really because the story of Jesus speaks to me more than anything else. The only thing I can accurately describe as "truth" is that I really just don't know when you get down to it -- I simply go with what "feels" best for me.

[trotsky]

5. It gets tricky, though.

An "open discussion of religious and spiritual belief" is naturally GOING to start to include elements of others being made to feel their beliefs have less validity, especially when a non-religious person is allowed to participate.

But even if someone non-religious doesn't contribute, if one person thinks that Jesus is the Son of God and another says that they don't believe that, but instead that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet - they are automatically invalidating each other's beliefs on a certain level. But I don't see the outrage when it comes to that.

So how does this fundamentally (no pun intended!) differ from a non-religious person saying they think you're all wrong?

[IrateCitizen]

10. There's a difference between stating one's beliefs and insisting...

That's my line right there. For instance, I will say that I have many beliefs that are founded in Christianity. But I also don't believe that Jesus was the literal "Son of God". I also don't believe in all of the stuff in the Bible that places man at the center of a vast and unknowable universe -- as a person trained in sciences I find that assertion to be patently absurd.

But if you notice, I state all of these things in the terms of BELIEF. If someone were to come to me and say that Jesus was the literal "Son of God", that it was an unalterable truth, I would challenge them to prove it -- and just citing scripture is not going to convince me. Perhaps such an encounter would end at an impasse.

I've had numerous conversations with atheists while attending a UU fellowship for a while. As a matter of fact, as a person with a more theologically-based set of spiritual beliefs, I was in the definite minority. But I never found the conversations to be disrespectful in any way, simply because they were always founded in the idea of us stating what we BELIEVE, not insisting that what we said was the TRUTH.

Those arguing against me didn't insist that I was WRONG, they simply stated that what I believed didn't mesh with their belief.

See the difference?

[trotsky]

13. But it's not that I *believe* that gods don't exist.

(Though many theists insist that's what we atheists think!)

I've just never seen any evidence or a logically consistent definition for one, so I know they don't. Just like I know that agreed-upon fictional characters like leprechauns don't exist. Personally, I can't see any reason why gods are different than leprechauns, other than the number of people who believe each is real. And unless you fall into an argumentum ad populum, there's no way to demonstrate otherwise, is there?

[IrateCitizen]

14. And here we are, once again...

I should have known better than to click on this thread. It's better to just stay away.

I'm certain you will get plenty of atheists to engage you on this thread though, and to validate your unshakable truth that you know to be the only unalterable truth.

Peace!

[trotsky]

15. I am trying to understand, you know.

Do you know leprechauns are fictional, or do you merely believe they are?

[arwalden]

20. You Articulated Your Points Very Well...

... and in this case, as is the case in similar thread--just like clockwork--the folks who argue the other side get frustrated and the exchange ends. Sometimes they simply walk away, other times they will lash out with anger and personal attacks, other times they'll just emotionally implode, or they will conversation will become a one-sided, rude, off-topic, incoherent, meandering, and rambling rant. (Remember?)

It all boils down to people confusing the meanings of the words "faith" and "proof". For those who are not critical or curious, their "faith" is as good a "proof"... they need no evidence. Their scriptures are all the evidence the need or desire.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. It's an interesting semantic point

I think it's a false dichotomy, though.

I hold many beliefs, with varying degrees of certainty. There are no beliefs I hold with 100% certainty, but many that I hold with sufficiently high certainty that 100% is a perfectly good approximation.

In standard usage in English, though, I think the difference between "know" and "believe" is not just that one is more confident of the first than the second, though.

Generally, I think one wouldn't say "I *know* X" if any great degree of deduction had been involved in coming to that conclusion, no matter how confident one was. "Know" is generally used to indicate direct evidence, I think (although that's a matter of usage, not definition).

I would say that I know the answer to the general knowledge question, or that I think I know the answer if I'm not confident. I wouldn't say I know the answer to the maths problem, even if I was confident my solution was correct, unless I wanted to imply that I knew it beforehand without having to solve it.

One usually says "I *believe* X" when one is acknowledging the possibility that one may be wrong, or that other people may disagree with one. I wouldn't say "I believe the sky is blue".

So while it's technically accurate for me to say both "I believe God doesn't exist" and "I know god don't exist", I would choose the former usage, as I've arrived at that conclusion through several layers of deduction.

For leprechauns, if I was talking to someone who believed in them I'd use "believe"; and if I wasn't I wouldn't feel the need to deny them.


As a side issue, I'd always use "believe" or "am confident" or some other usage rather than "know" when talking about the non-existance of God on DU, as saying "I know God doesn't exist" will be interpreted by most people, usually I suspect correctly, as a deliberate attempt to cause offence.

[cosmik debris]

16. self delete

[cosmik debris]

17. see post #11

You are projecting your need for validation. Atheist don't need validation. Nor do we expect it. How can you validate a negative proposition? It violates the rules of logic. But I forgot, logic does not apply to religion.

Pardon Me.

[cosmik debris]

3. Good question, I want to know

Is it proselytizing when I make fun of people who allow fear and superstition to rule their lives, or is that just bad taste?

[IrateCitizen]

4. It's not proselytizing, it's just being an asshole...

Do you like it when other people make fun of you for things you do or what you believe? Does making fun of them help you to maintain a smug sense of superiority?

[cosmik debris]

6. yes

absolutely

[MindPilot]

8. My sense of superiority is never smug,

merely justified.

[cosmik debris]

12. Sorry to hear that

But I have a pamphlet here that can change your life and make you as smug as any true believer. Just PM me. . .or don't.

[MindPilot]

7. There has probably never been an atheist

knocking on doors to tell people how silly and ridiculous are their beliefs in mythological deities. But there sure are a bunch of religious people who are willing to tell me how horrible I am for not sharing said beliefs.

So to answer your question, once you start trying to sell/pitch/market a religion, the line is crossed.

[trotsky]

9. Which is kind of what I'm getting at.

It seems that to some people on DU, merely speaking of one's atheism, which automatically negates all other religions, constitutes "proselytizing" for it.

[cosmik debris]

11. My experience is mostly with Christians

And whenever they start talking about religion they EXPECT you to validate their belief. If you fail to meet their expectation, they begin to sell/market/push their views. Sometimes I validate them just so I can change the subject, but sometimes not.

As an atheist, I never expect my belief to be validated in a religious conversation (oxymoron?) Also I find that it is impossible to discuss atheism in any discussion about faith, feelings, or other non-factual perception or opinion. That is why I believe that it is impossible for an atheist to proselytize. Proselytizing requires an affirmative option, not a negative rejection.

Then again, maybe I'm just an asshole.

[Tux]

18. For me

I will tell people what I believe if asked. I will tell them what church I attend if asked. Otherwise, I leave them alone. It's a UU tradition not to convince people to be members but let them know we exist. Makes it more open (even godless atheists). Once someone starts to push their beliefs or question another's faith, that is crossing the line. Atheists (few) and Christians (mostly) are bad for that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Proselytizing is when the Person A (the proselytizer) insists that

Person B (someone who thinks differently than Person A) must share Person A's belief, whatever it is.

Saying, "I view reality differently than you do" is not proselytizing.

Saying, "If you don't come around to my way of thinking, you're stupid/evil/deluded/missing out on something/other bad stuff" is proselytizing.

[arwalden]

21. Or... Saying Things Like

"Before we'll give you any of this Tsunami Relief Aid, you must first accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior."

Or would that be considered to be coercion? -- Anyway... I'm sure the tsunami victims are very happy with their new Christians churches... now they have a place to pray for food and medicine and shelter.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Why do you hate god?

[arwalden]

24. Funny! But Actually... I'm Surprised That Someone Hasn't Responded With

..."stop-bashing-Catholics!" or "stop-bashing-Christians!".

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

25. You know,

you really shouldn't make fun of the persecuted.

Some of them have spent their entire life looking for something that would allow them to get up on that cross.

[arwalden]

26. Oh You! Don't Be Silly... I Don't Do That!

What I do do is make fun of people with vivid imaginations who indulge themselves in fantasies of being persecuted and who delight in portraying themselves as a poor helpless victim.

-- Allen

(Heh heh heh... I said do-do.)

[beam me up scottie]

27. So you're really helping them live out their fantasies?

What a guy!:toast:

[arwalden]

28. Thank You.

Thank you for noticing. Sometimes I feel so unappreciated when my efforts go unnoticed. The occasional "atta-boy" from folks like you really does lift my spirits, and without it, I seriously doubt if I could continue my important work. A modicum of appreciation and gratitude isn't too much to ask, is it? What I do is hard work... it's hard work.

:hug:

[beam me up scottie]

29. Sigh...

I can only hope that someday, I, too can be as selfless and dedicated as you are.

[trotsky]

23. There's a big gray area between those two statements, though.

For instance, upthread, when I asked for clarification on the difference between gods and leprechauns, I was ignored. Presumably for offending. But personally, I really don't see how those two things are different. This doesn't outright say that "If you don't come around to my way of thinking, you're stupid/evil/deluded...", does it? But apparently it still offended.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. The reason it causes offence

is because you're not merely contradicting people's beliefs, but mocking them.

I'm afraid I think it does as good as outright say "if you don't come round to my way of thinking you're stupid/deluded".

Leprechauns are risible, so comparing belief in God to belief in Leprechauns is making belief in God out to be risible.

You may well feel that belief in God *is* risible (and I'd be inclined to largely agree), but obviously if we say that to people it's going to offend them. What balance to draw between honesty and politeness is one of the trickier issues on forums like this one.

Personally, I try and err on the side of the latter when in doubt.

[PsychoDad]

30. I would say...

That the line is where one or more people in the discussion states clearly, "That's your opinion. I disagree, but you have a right to it, and I have a right to mine", thus pretty much cutting off any further meaningful dialoge. The line is crossed into Proselytizing when one or more continue to hammer the point(s) dispite that there is no longer a consenting discussion of viewpoints.