I don't evangelize, but someone insisted that I try to evangelize them. Your thoughts?

[More Than A Feeling]

Last night at a party, I had an atheist acquaintance demand that I attempt to evangelize him after I mentioned I had converted to Christianity from atheism (in the context of explaining how I met my girlfriend). I don't evangelize, and told him so, but he was persistently interested in how I could believe something for "which there was no proof". There was little I could say that would satisfy him. He's a good guy, and the conversation did get better, but its beginning was nonetheless uncomfortable.

Have you had a similar experience before in the real world (from either perspective)? How did you handle it? Does anyone here actually evangelize?

spelling edit.

[charles22]

1. I've been "evangelized" tons.

Like on a bus, etc.

[jimshoes]

2. I would have told him..

In keeping with the traditions of a long line of televangelists, before I can evangelize, you'll have to tithe $100.00 in cash. Only then can I evangelize properly. :evilgrin:

[Journeyman]

3. Tell such people you converted/accepted for yourself. . .

and any decisions they make about their personal beliefs on spirituality and religion will have to remain just that -- personal.

[Nay]

4. I am an atheist myself, and I also refuse to talk about how I came

to that conclusion. I feel no need to convert others, nor do I feel the need to justify myself to religious people. I tell them point-blank, and if they are so rude as to continue badgering me, I terminate the conversation as politely as possible and go talk to someone else.

I'm delighted to discuss the whole thing with my atheist friends and they are happy to relate their stories of "awakening" but few of us give a shit about hearing religious people's same tired old arguments for whatever god they worship.

[charles22]

5. never had a religious person ask about my beliefs

or maybe once or twice out a hundred thousand times

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. I don't set out to evangelise, but as God is more real to me than

anything else, I find myself talking about him on the basis that his existence is common knowledge.

The funny thing is, as G K Chesterton pointed out, people who don't believe in God don't believe in nothing, they believe in everything.

Atheists tend to be the most gullible people imaginable. They tend not to let facts get in the way. In Bill Bryson's most recent publication, A Brief History of Everything, he mentions - merely in passing, without having any axe to grind - that although physicists had long believed that life came about as a result pf lightning striking a particular kind of soup of chemicals - certain proteins, I think - yet nobody has ever been able to reproduce it, even to create the most modest and minuscule form of life.

I said, "physicists had long believed. Apparently, the same nerds still do. Why let unsucessful testing get in the way of a good idea, i.e. one that they think enhances their own God-like status amid a benighted, superstitious mankind? Should enhance it!

What's more, physics seems to have reached a juncture where pretty much all physicists can do is to manage paradoxes - paradoxical PHYSICAL concepts the human mind can in no wise understand IN PRINCIPLE. Logical impossibilities.

I'm sorry. I should have exressed myself more gently, but I've seen too much mindless ranting on here by the dopier kind of atheist.

[charles22]

7. Don't need science to talk about origin of universe.

Folks like Aristotle, and ancient Greek, was perfectly able to talk about world without a creation. As for "atheists" being gullible...bet you never contacted one, let alone debated one.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. Uh oh

I think those might be fightin' words!

[ret5hd]

9. That's all they were meant to be...

Words calculated to waste the time of anyone bothering to respond. Words calculated to waste the time of anyone bothering to respond to the responses. In other words, flame bait.

Now that I have wasted MY time, I will return to pastures not fertilized with bullshit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. My precise sentiments.

[Realityhack]

68. Um...

do you realize you just agreed that YOUR post was Flame bait?

[Evoman]

69. !!!!

:rofl:

damn...maybe we ARE intellectually superior!

[immoderate]

24. ...more real than anything else...

:rofl:

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

26. And he says atheists are gullible...

Of course, what else can you expect from someone who also said this:

However, the people who reject Intelligent Design under any discipline, I believe, do so because they resent the idea that human beings are made to certain specifications. Only a strongly negative and emotional reaction could have allowed them to buy into such manifest nonsense, when the evidence to the contrary is all around us.

and this:

Christianity always presents the only true values that can bring mankind peace and happiness.

[immoderate]

28. I really didn't want to get into the details of such a ______ post, but.

I could hear you, BMUS, saying something with the word "condescending" in it as I read it.

(The blank in the subject line is out of respect for the rules. It would be impossible to acuurately characterize that post and claim civility. It also must set some record for logical fallacies.)

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

29. I'm still waiting for the believers to call him out.

You know, the way we call out other atheists who insult them.

[immoderate]

33. Does that happen?

:popcorn:

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

35. Do we call out other atheists?

Yep, I've been attacked for doing so more than once.

If you mean do believers call out their own for insulting us, yes, it does happen occasionally.

[immoderate]

38. I was thinking them. I know we've done it.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

41. I think so.

I seem to recall T.Grannie taking a few to task.

[immoderate]

44. You're right! Grannie steps up here! (In her gentle way.)

--IMM

[NMMNG]

27. LOL

Atheists tend to be the most gullible people imaginable. They tend not to let facts get in the way.


:rofl:


It is the other way around. How do you think Bush got the religious vote--twice?

[kiahzero]

47. Wow

Bad spelling, bad grammar, bad ideas, all wrapped up into one post. You're a winner.

Atheists tend to be the most gullible people imaginable. They tend not to let facts get in the way.

The irony kills me.

[Evoman]

64. .....

:rofl:

Ha....*cries a tear*..ha...oh man.

I'm with you man. Those damn atheists are gullible, don't even bother listening to them. Lets just talk about something else...hmm. So, how big do you think the snake was that talked to Adam and Eve in the garden of eden?

[charlie]

65. Why would Bryson

mention what physicists "had long believed" about abiogenesis, rather than biologists and chemists? I doubt he did.

...a particular kind of soup of chemicals - certain proteins, I think... Yeah, you think. Reminds me of Steve Martin's advice on how to not pay taxes on a million dollars -- "First... get a million dollars."

[Odin2005]

71. This Atheist sure as hell ain't gullible.

The rest of your post is an anti-science rant want bother responding to because it shows you have very little knowledge of the research into the origin of life. Oh, and I've been told that book by Bill Bryson is so full of inaccuracies it;s pathetic.

[Tigress DEM]

74. When Christians belittle science, it's disrespectful.

As a Christian myself, I don't want anyone calling my faith a superstition and I allow that we simply don't know everything so the final answer will be whatever it is. Even if it turns out God is not what I envisioned, I still feel better living my life in Christ's example.

I don't feel the need to make anyone believe what I do, but I do request that people who can be open to such things as quantum physics can be open to the presence of an unseen force that has yet to be measured by objective science. I think of myself as a spiritual seizmograph. I feel the rumbles as the Spirit ripples through the world and think of it as being specifically sensitized by choice versus others not being sensitive.

[TheBaldyMan]

75. I believe you may be referring to the 1953 Miller-Urey paper

where an experiment derived organic compounds from non-organic compounds.

If this is the experiment you are referencing I would caution your use of the words life, impossibilities and dopier.

The experiment did produce amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. This did not produce life or even self replicating molecules. It did however show that it may have been possible that an atmosphere similar to the one conjectured in the early history of the earth could have produced a chemical soup that would be filled with the basic ingredients of proteins.

Recently radio astronomers have begun to map regions in space where complex organic compounds exist in vast quantities. The most memorable of them is a large cloud of containing billions of metric tonnes of methyl and ethyl alcohol, similar studies in the search for organic compounds in the interstellar medium continue to uncover organic compounds. As these studies continue so does the complexity of the compounds discovered. Indeed every new study discovers compounds more complex than previously known. The types of compounds detected now include several amino acids in vast quantities.

It seems that the universe allows the natural synthesis of these compounds and it would be strange if not contrary to logic to deny that more complex chemical systems could not occur.

I'd venture the fact that life exists on this planet is a very convincing contribution for proof that it happened that way here.

This particular physicist accepts overwhelming empirical evidence, belief does not enter into it. When Bill Bryson sobers up enough to study some physics I'll pay attention to what he has to say about science, until then he remains an amusing writer in my eyes at least.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. Was he drunk?

because if he was, then you would be in your rights to politely go to the restroom. Unless, of course, YOU were drunk, in which case it could get very interesting.

I have had atheists inform me that I have the burden of proof, which confuses me, because I'm not interested in proving anything, really. My faith is personal. I would feel a very great burden if anyone embraced faith because of me.

The whole proof thing is useless. We all have our opinions, intuitions and feelings, but none of us have proof. Personal proof, perhaps, but nothing that we can transfer to another person. I do find that most of the atheists I know personally (not necessarily those on here) do love a good argument. I think it has to do with the type of person they are. And there's nothing wrong with that, but personally I am not interested in that kind of argument.

[charles22]

11. I don't mind a good discussion,

but I find it bizarre, that Christians would come up to me on the street and say, Can I talk to you about Jesus? But never ask me what I think.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

12. I personally think that folks who can do that...

come up and evangelize... are indoctrinated into a cult that has taken over their minds. I could never, never do that.

[charles22]

14. Yes, Christianity is a cult. Doesn't matter what you call it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. Some groups of Christians meet the criteria

for cults, but not all. However, being so certain you are correct that you corner other folks to win them over, to me, that's a cult. That's the very essence of a cult.

[charles22]

17. Don't see the difference.

And don't see the value of such distinction, anyway.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. Well, I guess the distinction has value to me

as a non-evangelical Christian. Because I don't think I'm a member of a cult.

Well, except DU, of course.

[Odin2005]

72. A religion is a cult with political power.

[More Than A Feeling]

13. We were both buzzed, but it was civil. I tried not to take it personally.

I agree that when it comes to religion, believers can only speak from personal experience, which has precisely zero authority over anyone else.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. Well, it sounds like a fun evening!

And when religious folks claim authority, I back away slowly.

I'd move faster, but I twisted my torso getting into my husband's new truck.

[Coyote_Bandit]

16. I've had a similar experience

I responded by saying that God's existence and identity could neither be objectively proved or disproved. People come to different conclusions - for reasons that each view as valid and reasonable. I explained that my choice was my own and made for my own reasons - and that I respected differing views and felt that each person should investigate and come to their own conclusions. Sometimes folks need to know that you respect beliefs that conlfict with those you profess. The issue really has more to do with tolerance and respect than with religious faith or spirituality. At least that has been my experience....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Tell him that it's experiential, like falling in love

You can say that your beloved has good qualities X,Y, and Z, but that won't make another person understand why you're in love. You can give all the logical reasons that you and your beloved are perfect for each other, but that still won't necessarily convince a third party. In fact, the third party may think you're crazy to be in love with that person, but that doesn't make your feelings any less real.

[charles22]

19. Good metaphor.

A friend when to a school for parapsychology and got a reading. I asked him what he thought about ESP and he said, "Oh, I believe in it, I just don't care."

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. Beautiful.

Thanks. It is a lot like being in love with the right person.

[kiahzero]

25. He was projecting

He was evangelizing to you.

[beam me up scottie]

30. So you believe atheism is a christian religion?

To evangelize literally means to preach the gospel to or to convert to christianity.

Since atheism is the absence of belief, how is it possible to evangelize something that doesn't exist?

[More Than A Feeling]

31. What would you call trying to convince someone not to believe in God?

Not to say that's what he was trying to do to me, but if someone was trying to so convince someone, what would that be called?

[beam me up scottie]

32. Trying to convince someone not to believe in God. n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

34. Is that similar to evangelism, in process if not in substance?

[beam me up scottie]

36. Is belief in gods similar to non-belief in gods?

[More Than A Feeling]

37. That would go to the substance part, and I acknowledged the difference

What about the process of evangelism versus "trying to convince someone not to believe in God"? Are the two processes analogous?

[beam me up scottie]

40. Is asking someone to use critical thought when considering the existence of gods similar

to asking someone to have faith even though no evidence of such gods exist?

[More Than A Feeling]

42. When either is unwelcome, they seem awfully similar to me.

How about you?

[beam me up scottie]

43. I couldn't say, I've never seen an atheist knocking on doors trying to de-convert people.

Or leaving Chick tracts under my windshield wipers.

[kiahzero]

45. That's not the only form of proselytizing

If, in the midst of a conversation, someone started rattling off reasons why you should be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Neopagan, trying to convince you that you should believe as they do, that would be proselytizing. Similarly, if you weren't an atheist, and an atheist tried to convince you that you should believe as they do (or shouldn't as they don't, if you adopt the non-belief position), that's proselytizing.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Proselytizing is an attempt to convert one to your religion or faith.

Atheists don't have a religion and lack faith.

How do you proselytize nothing?

Is the English language so deficient that you need to use religious terms to describe non-religious behaviour?

[kiahzero]

49. You know, I thought about linking the definition

For some reason, I thought I wouldn't need to. :shrug:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proselytize
pros·e·ly·tize (prs-l-tz) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "proselytize"

v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es
v. intr.

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.


You're right, you can't proselytize nothing, but you can proselytize the belief that atheism is superior to Christianity, or more generically, that non-belief in the divine is superior to belief in the divine. Quite frankly, however, I feel that the "It's not a belief, it's a lack of belief" claim becomes nothing more than a semantic game when one starts trying to convince others of the rightness of that "non-belief." It isn't necessarily something of the form "Belief(~God)" - it could well be "Belief(InsufficientEvidence(God)) && Belief(For all x, InsufficientEvidence(x) -> ~Belief(x))" - belief that one shouldn't believe in anything without sufficient evidence, and there's insufficient evidence for God, or some other construction. I'm not saying that people who simply have no belief on the topic, but it seems to me that if you want to convert someone to your way of thinking, there would have to be some belief driving that desire.

Is the English language so deficient that you need to use religious terms to describe non-religious behaviour?

I guess you haven't seen the trend of "evangelize" being used in decidedly non-Christian contexts. For instance, http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+evangelize . Basically, it's usage has broadened to express the same type of zealous attempt to "convert" someone.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Not necessary, I already knew the definition. And as you admitted,

a lack of belief is neither a political party or a doctrine.

The rest of your post is a long winded diatribe that appears to be based on your dislike of atheists and I don't wish to divest you of your belief that we claim intellectual superiority.

It seems to be essential to your world view and I believe everyone has the right to remain ignorant of the fact that there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism.


I also find it amusing when religious people use religious terms to insult atheists.

I guess when you're in the mood to shoot and there's no target, drawing one and sticking it on our backs is your only option.

[kiahzero]

51. Whatever.

The rest of your post is a long winded diatribe based on your dislike of atheists and I don't wish to divest you of your belief that we claim intellectual superiority.

I'm not sure why you're so hostile. I have no qualms with atheists. I have qualms with people who go out of their way to change other people's religious beliefs, as it appears that the friend of the original poster was attempting to do. I really don't understand what the semantics of "proselytize" have to do with any of that. I know the concept I'm trying to express, you seem to know the concept I'm trying to express, so why are you attacking me and claiming that I dislike atheists?

Edit: If you think that the only people who use "evangelize" in a broad sense are religious, you might want to check out Slashdot. There are a fair number of posters (I'm not sure enough to say they're a majority, but if not, a sizable minority) who are atheists who explicitly claim intellectual superiority over any and all theists, and in spite of that (or, in my estimation, because of that), they use "evangelize" to refer to spreading the use of Linux and other Open Source software. In fact, I suspect that's how the broader sense of the word crept into my lexicon. I apologize if this was just another long winded diatribe.

[beam me up scottie]

53. I'm still waiting for you to point out all of the posts where we want to ban religion.

Sometimes I lose track of what it is we're being accused of.

[kiahzero]

56. What's with the "we?"

You're taking my posts refering to a small subset of the larger group of atheists (in the present case, a subset literally containing ONE PERSON) and claiming that I'm generalizing over the whole group, when I've explicitly REJECTED that generalization a number of times. I'm not saying that you, or MOST of the atheists I've run into, want to ban religion. I'm not saying that you, or MOST of the atheists I've run into, want to convince other people to be atheists. I'm going to emphasize this to be absolutely, 100%, crystal fucking clear. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF ATHEISTS.

Was that sufficient? Are you satisfied yet? What more do I have to say to make it any clearer that I do not have any animus directed towards atheists as a group? Do I have to tell you how I was a proud member of the Secular Student Alliance in undergrad? I would be now, except there's not one at my law school. Do I have to tell you that I'm hoping to work for People for the American Way, a group that routinely protects the separation of church and state and freedom of, and from, religion? Do I have to go into my own religious beliefs, within which I hold that it doesn't matter whether a divine entity exists in the sense that you or I exist and a fictional character doesn't, which would make many people classify me as agnostic at the very least? Is any of that good enough? If not, what?

[beam me up scottie]

58. When you misrepresent atheists, you should be able to back up your claims.

You said we must have missed all of the "ban all religion" posts by atheists on DU.

That's like an atheist claiming that you must have missed all of the "burn the witches" posts by christians.

You really don't see why making such claims is offensive?

[kiahzero]

60. Is that what your animus towards me is all about?

Fine. I retract my statement. While there are posts claiming that Christianity is a cult (see this very thread) or claiming that religion is a cancer (I sent you a PM about it, but the message has been deleted), which is generally something that you want to remove from the body, I cannot find a post which literally reads that all religion should be banned. I apologize for the inference. I don't understand why it's such an objectionable premise that such people exist, but since I can't drag the particular people I've encountered who have made such claims and point to them, saying "See! See! They do exist," I will abandon the claim.

I'm done with this now... I should have gone to sleep hours ago, but I let you get under my skin. Good night.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Okay. Thank you.

Oh, I know for a fact there are a lot of offensive posts made by atheists, many of which were deleted.

And there are plenty more that were never posted at all because we try not to offend believers.

[beam me up scottie]

55. In response to your edit:

Edit: If you think that the only people who use "evangelize" in a broad sense are religious, you might want to check out Slashdot. There are a fair number of posters (I'm not sure enough to say they're a majority, but if not, a sizable minority) who are atheists who explicitly claim intellectual superiority over any and all theists, and in spite of that (or, in my estimation, because of that), they use "evangelize" to refer to spreading the use of Linux and other Open Source software. In fact, I suspect that's how the broader sense of the word crept into my lexicon. I apologize if this was just another long winded diatribe.

I made no claim about how others use the word, I explained why it was ridiculous to use that word when referring to atheism which is simply a lack of belief.

Your stories about what atheists did on other forums perfectly illustrates my point about your dislike of us.

Do you think I should revoke their license and confiscate their badges and rubber chickens?

Atheism is not a religion, we have no churches, no doctrines and no dogma. What one atheist says or does is not a reflection on atheism or any other atheist.

[kiahzero]

57. Perfectly, but for

But for the fact that the dislike DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST.

I am, however, starting to dislike you, specifically, because you seem to want to be disliked.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Why bring up your previous encounters with atheists then?

If you weren't trying to prove your assumption that atheists think they're superior to believers, why use anecdotal evidence from other boards?

[kiahzero]

61. Because I was trying to prove that "religious people have to use religious words" was wrong

My point was that people who are pretty aggressively against religion still use the term "evangelize" to refer to something that isn't religious at all, so my usage of "evangelize" doesn't carry the implication that because I'm theistic, I have to use religious words.

Good night.

[beam me up scottie]

63. I think you mean anti-theists, and I agree, they do have a cause.

I also think those words can be used to define their behaviour.

But all atheists aren't anti-theists and all anti-theists don't actively seek to de-convert believers.

It's not so much about semantics as it is about stereotypes.

I've been picking at those since I joined DU, and not just the ones about atheists.

You say you have noting against atheists, and I believe you.

[Vidar]

39. Personally I despise proselytizing from any direction. Religion

or lack thereof should be a personal choice.

[immoderate]

48. My first experience with Evangelicals...

I was in high school. I grew up in a neighborhood with lots of Jews and Catholics, neither of which evangelized. My high school drew from a much larger area and was very large. And one of the older students had a button on his lapel, that just had a question mark on it. I said, "What's with the question mark?" He said, "What do you think of Jesus Christ?" I kind of :shrug: as I was a Jewish atheist then as I am now. But it took me aback as I was not used to strangers bringing up religion. I walked away. It was a set up, that button.

Since then, and it's been a very long time, I've been evengelized by Christians and their offshoots, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, many times. I have also caught a glimpse of Lubovitcher Hassidim, a Jewish sect, doing similar things. Rare thing for Jews to seek converts. Usually, it's to convert liberal Jews to ultra-orthodoxy. When I'm approached, I politely suggest that their time would be more productively spent seeking better prospects.

Sounds like your atheist friend was looking to joust. This, in my experience, is rare. Atheists usually do not introduce the subject of religion into a conversation. Even in this case, you say you made a reference to your church first. And I gather you weren't looking for a theological debate. (Coming to R&T is a different case though.)

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

52. Wikipedia has some great info on proselytism, including a mention

of the attempt to convert non-practicing jews.

Proselytism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion, usually another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to the Jewish religion. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith.

***

In Christianity

Many Christians consider it their obligation to follow what is often termed the Great Commission of Jesus, recorded in the final verses of the Gospel of Matthew: "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." The early Christians were noted for their evangelizing.

Some Christians make a distinction between proselytism (illegitimate) and evangelism (legitimate). An Eastern Orthodox writer, Stephen Methodius Hayes has written: "If people talk about the need for evangelism, they meet with the response, 'the Orthodox church does not proselytize' as if evangelizing and proselytism were the same thing."

Some Eastern Orthodox objections to proselytism are far from consistent. The Moscow Patriarchate has repeatedly strongly condemned what it describes as Catholic "proselytism" and is opposed to a prominent Catholic construction project in an area of Russia where the Catholic community is small. But it is currently seeking to do some similar building projects itself in a predominantly Catholic country, where the first-ever Russian Orthodox church was consecrated in 2003. On 29 June 2005, the Pravoslavie.ru Orthodox website outlined a Moscow meeting between the Patriarchate's head of External Church Relations, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, and Irish ambassador to Russia Justin Harman. At this meeting, Dublin-based Russian Orthodox priest Fr Georgi Zavershinsky reportedly brought up the question of building a traditional Russian wooden church in the western, predominantly Catholic, Irish city of Galway, which "would adorn the tourist centre of the city and bear vivid witness to Orthodox tradition and culture, both to immigrants from the CIS and to Irish people living on the Atlantic coast."

Most self-described Christian groups have organizations devoted to missionary work which in whole or in part includes proselytism of people of other faiths (including sometimes other variants of Christianity) or none. Groups noted for their extensive proselytism include:
Southern Baptist Convention

Jews for Jesus

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (also known as Mormons)

Jehovah's Witnesses

***

Other religions

Some religions such as Islam (see dawah) share the Christian belief that they should try to convert people. Others such as Judaism do not, though they will accept converts (traditionally after discouraging the one who wishes to convert; see Ger tzedek) and may attempt to convince those they consider non-practicing members of their group to become practicing. In ancient times, there have been periods (especially the Hellenistic) in which Jews were more favourable to proselytising than they are today. Some historians believe that one of the major sources of the early Christian movements were communities of pagans who had been attracted to Judaism. However, with the dominance of Christianity and Islam, Jews came to avoid proselytism, since that might incite Christians and Muslims to persecute them. Still others do not accept converts at all (membership is inherited), such as the Druze and Zoroastrians.

Hinduism (and to a certain degree, other dharmic religions) are largely pluralistic, drawing their beliefs from a Vedic proclamation which states that "Truth is One, though the sages know it as many". As a result of this acceptance of alternate but valid religious practices, the phenomenon of proselytisation is largely absent in these religions but not unknown. One group that does is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness also known as Hare Krishnas.

***

Limits

Limits on proselytism is a combination of what is considered legal (and this varies from country to country) and what is considered moral (and this varies from person to person).

Some countries such as Greece prohibit all proselytism, some such as Morocco prohibit it except for particular religion. Some restrict it in various ways such as prohibiting attempts to convert children or prohibit offering physical benefits to new converts.

Religious groups also draw lines between what they are willing to do or not do to convert people. For instance the Roman Catholic Church in Ad Gentes states that "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles." The World Council of Churches in The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism#Limits

[immoderate]

54. Thanks. Interesting stuff. Nice that it vindicates my conceptions.

--IMM

[Evoman]

66. Did he want you to "evangelize" or did he want you to engage him in debate?

Theres a difference, you know. Maybe he wanted to have a discussion with you...and he wanted you to defend your religious position. Not insisting you try to convert him, but insisting you defend your position, and perhaps attack his.

While I don't condone having a debate or argument with someone who isn't in the mood, or who feels uncomfortable doing so, its different than "asking to be evangelized to". I think a lot of people have that confusion. Evangelizing is one sided, debate has two or more sides:

"Let me tell you about Jesus, and lets ignore your position" = evangelizing

"Why do I hold my position regarding Jesus? Here are my reasons... Now what is your argument?"
=defending a position in a debate.

[More Than A Feeling]

67. I said, "I don't evangelize." He said, "evangelize me."

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Finder]

70. Like your friend, I welcome attempts and invite at times...

in order to educate.

I assume your friend is concerned about you since it is almost unheard of for an atheist to become a believer.

[Tigress DEM]

73. I've seen it here on DU. I think it's a back lash from the overkill of the RR.

Lately even people who would have been more live and let live have been angry as hell about religion being used as a club to force the sheeple to stampede over others.

My main strategy has been to define belief as what someone believes to be true... since none of us have the time to rediscover everything personally we all take some things on faith without feeling the need to explain ourselves. AND as a long time Christian who also understands their frustration, I still feel the need to ask for respectful behavior. Calling my faith a superstition is rude.

To evangelize is to try and convert him. Since that wasn't your agenda, you can't be forced to do it. Ergo you weren't.

Although he may have been more feeling disbelief that someone could go from atheism to Christianity without being able to explain what Christianity means personally because he can't see himself making that leap.