Proselytizing (beliefs, proselytize, Satan, religions)

[MaddLlama]

I agree with what Gentoo said. Yes, in a debate we're all trying to agree with our own point of view, but I don't think that's the type of behavior that the rules are prohibiting. At least in a debate you are contributing something. When you are trying to convert someone to your religion you contribute nothing.
Saying "I believe this because of this this and this, and for those reasons it is correct" is far different from saying "I am right, and you are wrong because I say my religion is the right one, and you're an evil and wrong person if you don't agree with me". Which one is contributing something worthwhile? Which one can you actually learn something from? Which one of those promotes further discussion or debate, and which one breeds negativity and anger?

[Scott1]

OK all... thanks for helping me try to understand this.

Besides what we all do here at RF (discuss in one way or another our personal beliefs) it is possible to cross that line from discussion and debate to p-tizing.

I'm happy to see many believe non-theists can p-tize... I'm tired of seeing this scenario play out in my make believe example:
THREAD: The Bible and Genesis
Member 1: There are two creation stories in Genesis? Why?
Non-theist: You can't scientificly prove there even is a "god".

THAT is p-tizing. When the subject of the thread is changed- the question in the thread title is ignored- and the offending member seems only concerned with his/her belief system-and offers up their way of thinking to the other member... that is P-tizing is my way of thinking. I see this a lot more than I see any other form of p-tizing.... unless the subject of the thread is "Do you believe in God/why?" it should not be changed.... and debates in a Biblical thread should not be changed to a debate about the "sanity of those people who insisit on believing fairy tails".... etc.etc.

Thanks again for all your help... I think I can explain this subject much better now.

Peace,
S

[Feathers in Hair]

That's true, MaddLlama. (Why do I keep wanting to add an extra 'm' on the 'llama' part? *smacks typing hand*) For me, that's the main reason why I dislike proselytizing. While I recognize and respect that some people's faiths call upon them to attempt to convert others, that attempt seems to turn a thread 'negative' more quickly than anything else.

Perhaps the main factor in what makes a post 'proselytizing' to me is the way in which it is said. I can get hung up on the way things are phrased, but it seems like there's a world of difference between "It is my personal belief that those who don't believe in what the book I percieve as holy states is the moral way of life for people are going to be doomed to an eternity of listening to songs they hate" and " "There's a Monster at the End of this Book", by Grover, says that you're going to hell for blowing bubbles in your chocolate milk, so you'd better not do it."

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by Scott1

THREAD: The Bible and Genesis
Member 1: There are two creation stories in Genesis? Why?
Non-theist: You can't scientificly prove there even is a "god".

THAT is p-tizing.

Doubtful.

It's off-topic, certainly, and probably irritating to those already discussing the specified topic, but it's a real stretch to call it proselytism. Maybe if he'd said "You can't even scientifically prove there is a "god", so you should all drop all of this Bible and God foolishness and become atheists right now," then THAT would be proselytism.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Revasser

Doubtful.

It's off-topic, certainly, and probably irritating to those already discussing the specified topic, but it's a real stretch to call it proselytism. Maybe if he'd said "You can't even scientifically prove there is a "god", so you should all drop all of this Bible and God foolishness and become atheists right now," then THAT would be proselytism.

I get your point... but I don't see it as anything but p-tizing.... there are many examples of these "one-liners" meant to attack the belief system of the poster on RF.... it need not be "give Christ a try!" or something so obvious to be p-tizing in my opinion.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by dawny0826

I guess technically, many of us in a weak form, proselytize when we debate. When we debate, are we not trying in a way to convert others to our opinion?

Not necessarily. Someone might enter a debate as a "devil's advocate" or for the mental challenge, or to clarify their own views on a topic.

The topic of "what is proselytizing" comes up a fair bit in Baha'i circles, just because we have a religious commandment not to proselytize.

The thing is, what is considered proselytizing changes from one place and culture to the next. We do some door-to-door teaching in the U.S. in some places, but if someone expresses a non-interest in hearing anything, we just thank them and move on (and make a note on the address list NOT to bother them again, because it's really quite annoying to do so). In other places, door-to-door anything is the very definition of proselyting. In many places in the world, people think going door -to-door is just a normal thing people do, and they like visitors. And in some places, just answering questions is either unlawful or might even get you killed or imprisoned.

So, you have to be aware of where you live and what the community standards are.

My own cultural standards are these: No discussion of my religion to any "captive audience" or any place it would be considered unprofessional or interrupt the purpose for some meeting I was attending.

Otherwise, in public people converse randomly all the time. Grocery lines, waiting at the post office, whatever. If I strike up a conversation with someone and the topic of religion happens to come up, I don't think I'm proselytizing to mention my beliefs -- unless the other person in some way (verbally or otherwise) indicates they don't want to hear it, in which case shutting up or changing the subject would really be good manners anyway.

On a place like RF, I work under the assumption that people sign on here having some idea that they might actually hear someone else's religious views so I feel freer to bring up the subject where it's relevant, and would not think it proselytizing on someone else's part to explain their views, post apologetics, or, in debate areas, argue strongly for their beliefs.

Proselytizing I think of as an attempt to convert someone, especially if they've already said, "Thanks, but no thanks."

I don't think expressing one's religious views in the spirit of offering the other person something to consider is proselytizing.

And for the record, Dawny, that's what you do.

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by Scott1

I get your point... but I don't see it as anything but p-tizing.... there are many examples of these "one-liners" meant to attack the belief system of the poster on RF.... it need not be "give Christ a try!" or something so obvious to be p-tizing in my opinion.

The difference is in how it is worded. "Give Christ a try!" is a direct suggestion, whereas "You can't prove god" is not. A better comparison would be "You can't prove god" in that discussion and an interjection of "In the Bible, it says "Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe." in a discussion between non-theists about Russell's writings or something. Both are off-topic and largely pointless, but neither would count as proselytism, at least IMO.

The intent may well be the same (though one must wonder about strength of intent if the person can only manage a one-liner), but if we all counted every comment with an attached intent to swing around to one's way of thinking as proselytising, we could probably just dispense with the entire Religious Debates forum.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Can non-theists p-tize?

Sure, I've seen atheists proselytize for atheism plenty of times.

Also, many Buddhists are nontheists.