I think that we all have the right to believe in the manner than feels right in our hearts and our soul.  We do not have the right, however, to insist that other people believe the way we do. It is up to each of us to find our own answer regarding faith. We should not badger others about their faith or presume that we know what is best or right for anyone but  our own spirit.

Maybe if the news and press would stop helping these people create an issue out of it, we may be able to tone down the whole fight regarding this issue. It is personal, leave it that way, encourage people to find their own way and do not give the bully's air time.

Maybe if the news and press would stop helping these people create an issue out of it,

 

Who exactly are you referring to when you say "these people" and who are the "bullies" ?

I think that we all have the right to believe in the manner than feels right in our hearts and our soul.  We do not have the right, however, to insist that other people believe the way we do. It is up to each of us to find our own answer regarding faith. We should not badger others about their faith or presume that we know what is best or right for anyone but  our own spirit.

While I happen to agree that religion should be a private matter, there are nonetheless those whose religious beliefs include a duty to spread their beliefs as much as possible.  This is the heart of evangelicalism.  Many evangelicals also believe that attempts to stop them (such as by enforcing church-state separation) is actually an infringement on their beliefs.

I happen to strongly agree with church-state separation, though; one's right to believe ends where the next guy's right not to be coerced begins.

"While I happen to agree that religion should be a private matter, there are nonetheless those whose religious beliefs include a duty to spread their beliefs as much as possible.  This is the heart of evangelicalism." -Dreamer71

   Though there is a lot of truth in this statement, I see some confusion on your end.  Evangelizing is not contrary to private matters.  If a person, in public, goes to another person, in public, engages them personally one on one...that matter is private.  So what does it mean then, to not be private evangelicism?  It means state-sponsored evangelicism.  That certainly isn't happening right now.  So for the time being, your point is moot.  But do not confuse keeping religion private to mean "a person cannot come up to another person and discuss religion with them."  The day you say that, believe that, or it becomes law...is the day I tell you you violate the law when you try to discuss large scale evolution or atheism to me.

     "though; one's right to believe ends where the next guy's right not to be coerced begins." -Dreamer71

     And probably several steps prior to that, even.  Though there is a HUGE difference between coercion and evangelicism.  Heck, even those annoying Jehovah's witnesses aren't even an inkling of 1% coercive.  Coercion means to compel to your side (your belief, in this case) with the use of force, physical force.  Don't link nasty words to very reasonable loving actions such as evangelicism.  Though if someone literally throws a Bible at you...you should probably do something about it lol.  Call the police or somethin.

Don't link nasty words to very reasonable loving actions such as evangelicism.
--------------------------
Q.  There is nothing reasonable or loving in evangelism to someone who does not want or care for your personal beliefs.  It is offensive, rude, and hateful.
 
You are walking up to someone and saying, "your beliefs are not worth believing, but mine are."  That is arrogant, proud, condescending and incredibly rude.
 
You won't understand this, because it has been said to you hundreds, if not thousands of times, on this board, but that is EXACTLY the message you and your ilk give to others.
 
The nasty words are exactly appropriate, and hard earned.

"Q.  There is nothing reasonable or loving in evangelism to someone who does not want or care for your personal beliefs.  It is offensive, rude, and hateful." -Physics

    Offensive, rude, and hateful?  Hardly!  Its about the furthest from rude and hateful, and only questionably offensive because "offensive" is a subjective word.  Evangelicism is undoubtedly done in wrongful ways sometimes, but evangelicism itself is not any of those characteristics AND most evangelicists are very kind, courteous, loving, and charismatic in their approach.  The only true offensiveness, rudeness, and hatefulness common in evangelicism is when the approached person responds back to the evangelist in rude, hateful, or offensive ways.  If you do not want to be engaged by an evangelist you can kindly ask them to leave and close the door on them, game over, no offenses committed on either side.  But thats just not the way you would like to portray it would you?

     Allow me to flip the coin to the other side if you insist on your prognosis.  Look at the other side of your prognosis.  Evangelism is not strictly a Christian word.  Evangelism means to convey a message, a personal one at that.  So how does that play into atheism, for example?  Every time you spout off any thoughts about atheism in this world, according to your own statement, you are being offensive, rude, and hateful towards those you preach it to.  Consider that food for thought.  Once again trumped by the very ammunition you use to attack others, when you find that ammunition pierces the armor of your own school of thought.

Evangelicism is undoubtedly done in wrongful ways sometimes, but evangelicism itself is not any of those characteristics AND most evangelicists are very kind, courteous, loving, and charismatic in their approach.
-------------------
 
Nope.  I notice you cleverly did not quote the meat and potatoes of what I said.  Please address what I say below.
 
For you to come up to me and 'evangelize' to me, you have to believe that: 1) Your beliefs are better than mine and 2)  I should adopt your beliefs and discard mine.
 
Those two statements are rude, arrogant, hateful, condescending and completely anthetical to any kind of 'kindness' or couteousness that you can come up with.
 
1 is completely false, and 2 is arrogant, prideful, condescending.  When 1 and 2 are combined, you get an arrogant person who despite how politely phrased is still arrogant, condescending, rude and hateful.
 
You are confusing politeness with "kind, courteous, loving, and charismatic".   You can be very polite, and still hateful.

Every time you spout off any thoughts about atheism in this world, according to your own statement, you are being offensive, rude, and hateful towards those you preach it to.
------------------------------
 
No.  Because  I have never told anyone their beliefs are wrong.  Never. Not once.  Never happened.  You can search the forums here for days, and you will never find one single sentence that makes a claim that your beliefs are wrong.
 
I HAVE said that your (and others) attitudes towards science is wrong.  I have said that you don't know what you are talking about when you attack science on false information. I have defended science from your misconceptions and your false accusations.
 
That has nothing to do with belief.  It has to do with the FACT that science works.  Science is how the world gets things done. 
 
As to your belief in whatever diety you choose?  That is between you and your diety.  When you allow your beliefs to infringe on the practice of science, then you have crossed a line.  Not me.
 
If you don't choose to be challenged on your ignorance about science, then you should not come to public boards and say ignorant things about science.
 
And besides, I am not an atheist.  I just defend their position vehemently when attacked.

For you to come up to me and 'evangelize' to me, you have to believe that: 1) Your beliefs are better than mine and 2)  I should adopt your beliefs and discard mine.

Hey PPhun,

I totally agree with you. I think this is just rude no matter who is the one dishing it out.
I also believe this attitude is becoming less and less affective at winning converts.

More than not it just separates us even further.

So what does it mean then, to not be private evangelicism?  It means state-sponsored evangelicism.  That certainly isn't happening right now.

Really?  Phew!  Am I glad to hear that.  I'm so glad politicians will no longer be using their office to try to advance their religion.  I'm relieved to hear that there will be no more attempts to infiltrate school boards and replace science with religious mythology.  I'm happy to hear that religious judges will no longer be fighting to have their holy texts displayed within their supposedly neutral courthouses.  And that local xtian politicians will finally concede that it is both wrong and a violation of the 1st Amendment when they put up xmas Nativity scenes on gov't property (and usually at taxpayer expense).  How joyous that gov't legislatures will no longer open with prayers and appeals to the One True God of the Majority.  How wonderful that religious incumbents will no longer hold a challenger's religious beliefs (or lack of) up for media scrutiny.  And what a relief that all those hundreds of cases that organizations like American Atheists and the ACLU have been fighting all these years were just simple misunderstandings.

Q.  There is nothing reasonable or loving in evangelism to someone who does not want or care for your personal beliefs.  It is offensive, rude, and hateful." -Physics

    Offensive, rude, and hateful?  Hardly!  Its about the furthest from rude and hateful"

 

Wrong, it is rude.  Very.

 

It's not like there is a human being in this country with even limited cognitive ability that hasn't already "heard the good news", ad nauseum.  We have the information, and we know where to get more if we want it.  It's not like there isn't a church on every other street corner.  We've heard it all.   And, we have made our personal decision as to what we believe! That's just not it

 

And  so yes, it is rude when somone tries to evangelize me.  They are basically telling me that the way I already believe with all my heart is somehow faulty.  My beliefs are  not good enough.  In fact  ,the message they convey is that my personal beliefs are so  faulty, evil even,  that I am doomed to eternal hell; but their (correct) belief can save me.! 

 

And  in the case of a stranger; even approaching me about something so personal as my own spiritual beliefs,  is rude and intrusive...let alone doing it to  tell me that how I believe is wrong.

 

It is not only rude, it is presumptive and arrogant.

Oh, but just incase y'all want to keep attacking evangelism remember this:  Every time you speak against evangelism (of Christianity) you become a hypocrit when you evangelize against Christianity or state things like atheism is the only reasonable religious belief.  How is it you are entirely BLIND to the statements you make, and how they are self-contradicting?  Its not even a reasonable belief to say that one cannot convey one religious message, but not another religious message.  Its not even reasonable! 

Well obviously I think my beliefs are better than any other beliefs contradictory to mine.  Be modest.  Who doesn't?  Again, the ammunition is sent right back at your face.  When you evangelize atheism and large scale evolution its because you think your beliefs are better than another person's.

     "2) I should adopt your beliefs and discard mine" -Phy

    Well, certainly if I think my beliefs are better than those that contradict them it would only be reasonable that I think others should adopt them.  And in that same light, AGAIN, you believe the same as you constantly banter on this forum about how you need to spread your message of atheism and enlightening others to get them out of their brainwashing religions.

--------------------------------------

Sorry, Q.  But I don't think my beliefs are superior, and I have NEVER ONCE evangelized for atheism.

 

You will not find one single, in context, quote from me that evangelizes for anything other than an honest practice of science.

 

Search.  Look.  I urge you to find one.

 

You will not.

 

Which takes your entire rant and off topic post full of admitted arrogance and condescension and makes it completely false.

 

Further, science has nothing at all to do with religious beliefs.  Not one single small little piece of science has anything to do with religion.

 

Your ignorant merging of the two is what is objectionable.

 

If you wish to vainly attempt to attack science, then feel free to create a new (and another useless) thread where you are ripped apart by every other rational person who posts.

     "No.  Because  I have never told anyone their beliefs are wrong.  Never. Not once.  Never happened." -Phy

You told me I was wrong about 100 times at least, me alone.  How can you make such a statement without feeling like a liar?  You do it to just about every person on this forum every day.

-----------------------------

I have never ONCE told anyone their beliefs are wrong. You have done so several times in this last posting of yours alone.

 

I have told you your FACTS are wrong.  I have patiently explained where you are ignorant about science.  I have firmly and clearly told you where you are wrong about science.

 

That has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, and everything to do with the world.

 

You have never once had any evidence to support your claims of false science.  No journal articles, no peer reviewed sources, just your own personal opinon.

Oh, but just incase y'all want to keep attacking evangelism remember this:  Every time you speak against evangelism (of Christianity) you become a hypocrit when you evangelize against Christianity or state things like atheism is the only reasonable religious belief.

When some atheist walks up to a total stranger on the street and shoves a Robert Ingersoll tract into that stranger's hands, or convinces the local elementary school principal to hold a school assembly where an atheist can preach the benefits of non-belief to a captive audience, or a sports coach coerces his team players into praying to Darwin that they might be deemed the fittest team, then yeah, there might be a bit of hypocricy going on.  However, stopping religious evangelists from doing the same is not evangelizing for atheism.  Arguing the case for rational thought on an Internet forum titled, "How do you feel about atheists?" is not evangelizing for atheism, either.

Oh, and only a theist would refer to atheism as a "religious belief."