so knock it off, already.

Most people already have systems in place that serve them very well. They're going to resent some arrogant proselytizer who comes along out of the blue and tells them they're all wrong without being asked and without knowing anything about them.

That's why people get angry.

I'm not inclined to simplistic views about "most people"

Everything.

It goes something like this: Leave my politics and religion alone.

If you don't understand that, I can't explain it to you.

in trying to explain to people how ridiculous their religious beliefs are. They just don't want to hear the good news about atheism, and how it sets the mind free. I really don't get it.

No is needed.

If you force it on them it is aggressing.

...constitutes "force"?

No means no.

If it continues after letting the person know their attention is unwanted, it becomes harassment.

What it does is to harden either person's position so that no movement is possible. I think whatever the subject, politics, religion, atheism, etc. we should follow Francis of Assisi's advice to Leo, "Preach the Gospel always, when necessary use words." Just replace Gospel with politics.

Can anyone honestly say that they have converted a RWNJ relative at a holiday dinner? or did they move you to the right?

with fundamentalism. And on that basis, atheists who speak out on their own views become "just as bad" as the fundies.

Never mind the actual beliefs, which group is politically active attacking LGBT rights, access to abortion, science education.

Nope, that doesn't matter.

Never mind which ones go knocking door to door, as compared to simply bringing up their beliefs (or lack thereof) in online or in-person discussions.

Nope, that's "just as bad".

Apparently the most important thing for many people is some strange notion that people should be left as alone as possible when it comes to what they think about religion. It's viewed as some terrible intrusion to dare make other people think about religious notions until their minds get there on their own.

If I heard a great new album and started talking about it, that, in and of itself, wouldn't likely be considered a bad thing to do. There are any number of ways I might get obnoxious about the way I talked about the album, but that's a separate issue from whether I talk about the album at all, or keep my thoughts to myself until asked.

If the same rules applied as some people seem to think apply to the topic of religion, I'd be expected to keep my thoughts about the album entirely to myself until asked, or until someone else clearly indicated that they were "ready" to hear what I had to say.

While there are different degrees of proselytizing, it's still proselytizing whatever side of the coin you on.

If you think it's ok to "make other people think about religious notions", I don't think you can only have that one way. If it's ok for you to do it, then it's ok for them as well.

Right?

I expressed surprise that proselytizing is considered way up there with what's wrong with religion.

I mentioned as an aside that some forms of proselytizing can be more aggressive and annoying than others -- but saying that is not creating a double standard.

To spell it out plainly so hopefully there's no further misunderstanding: I see nothing inherently wrong with anyone trying to convince or persuade other people about any issue, be it religious, political, philosophical, horticultural, etc.

Complaints can certainly be made about how that convincing or persuading is done, but that's a separate issue.

had total strangers, co-workers, or people I barely know, try to convince me
that I should be atheist.

...shows that they're being, apparently, far too pushy and aggressive, besides being big meanies. It's a ridiculous double standard.

I'm making a point that's related to this double standard, but a bit different. Fundies are allowed to be more obnoxious in how pushy they get before they're considered to have crossed a line. But what line is it that shouldn't be crossed?

As far as I'm concerned, the line people shouldn't cross is defined by normal standards of harassment or coercion. By "normal" I mean without special standards granting religion a privileged status.

Many people, however, seem to draw a line merely at the point where one person dares to challenge someone else's religious ideas, or is enthusiastic and vocal in expressing their own views, regardless of the approach taken. People who would never react this way about, say, a political position on taxes or labor laws or gun control, decide that religious ideas are a special class of ideas which people should develop privately inside their own minds. Any form of attempting to influence those ideas, until individuals "reach out" for someone else's opinion, is treated as a terrible intrusion.

Comments along the lines of "Dawkins is just as bad as the fundies he criticizes!" are an alien concept to you, one that leaves you needing concrete examples, or you'll never believe it happens?

And since you present something in quotes here, I think it's even more incumbent on you to name names.

Did someone actually say that?

This making stuff up about what other people have said and presenting it as fact has become somewhat rampant.

Because I was only talking in broad generalizations about American culture, not even DU specifically, and certainly not particular posters.

As for the quote marks, that's perfectly valid punctuation for representational phrases which aren't direct exact quotes of a particular person.

Did you happen to have said something very similar yourself?

by people in your same religion is like rubbing salt in the wounds. That's why. No means no.

Threats of violence? Fines? Harassment? Social shunning? Simply hearing something you don't want to hear?

I'm certainly against anyone truly trying to force their beliefs on anyone else. The problem is that the word "force" gets trotted out at times to describe nothing more than a sharply worded post.

going into countries and completely disrupting their way of life by forcing (in the literal sense of the word, including deadly force) their god down the throats of the natives. What were the California missions if not proselytizing centers? All the Mormon missionary work in poor countries, sending bibles with, or even instead of food to disaster areas?

In fact the main opponent of "Proselytizing of any kind, even atheist" has no problem with it when it's attached to a meal for the homeless.

Not sure why that is in quotes, as I never said that and I challenge you to find anything at all to substantiate your false claim.

Don't you get tired of making shit up about me?

"I tell them straight up that I'm not interested in what they are selling and walk away.

And that's the case whether they are trying to convert me to a religion or deconvert me from a religion."

It's a paraphrase, and I don't have to make anything up, in fact I have to edit what is actually said on here because I've seen people get hides for showing what has actually been said.

consider my reply an addition rather than a detraction.

Not to mention you never know what else is going on in someone's life, maybe their dog just was run over or they lost their job or any of a nearly endless series of calamities.

I've learned over the years that we never truly know another person no matter how long or intimately we may associate with them.

Some examples of NOT fine:

1. Screaming at people through bullhorns at sporting event entrances about how each and every one of you are going to burn in hell forever if they don't accept their imaginary friend. Double points if my child or other children are present while they are rattling off a litany of horrible things that god is going to do to us.
2. Knocking on my door sunday morning, waking up my kid, freaking out my dogs, etc. Seriously. The sign says 'no soliciting'. Your 'no profit' status doesn't mean you are exempt.
3. Walking up to my open garage door to talk to me about your imaginary friend while I'm under, and up to my elbows in the car. Seriously. If you want to catch a wrench with your face, this is how you do it.
4. Continuing to bring it up over, and over, and over, and reminding me that you're praying for me, and that you even pray for horrible things to happen to my family, like unemployment, so I feel more need for assistance (break my self-reliance, seriously, this was said once. I am too capable, apparently, and that's why I don't need got, so I need some 'obstacles' in my life that I can't surmount on my own.) leaving me notes, with mustard seeds taped to it, blah blah, etc. Seriously, knock that shit off.

No. 4 is disgusting! Did someone really do No. 3? - I would assumed they would realize you couldn't pay attention to them under those circumstances!

I made a quick run to the store this morning, and passed two sets of young men in pastel long-sleeved shirts, ties, holding leaflets - I believe I will be talking to Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses at some point. Hopefully, a heartfelt "Thank you for caring, but I am an atheist" will suffice to send them on their way. I don't mind talking to them, as long as they accept that I am an atheist and that is a fact. I don't think they mean me actual harm. My sister was a Mormon, she converted many years ago, and then, after ten or fifteen years, I think, quit because the way she was treated as a divorced woman was pretty shabby and led her to question their beliefs.

Political proselyting - to me, I might very well be - and yes, this is dramatic - arguing for someone's life - if I think about food stamps and health care and those who would ignorantly deny people food and health care. Gotta try.

not interested in what they are selling.

I recognize their right to push whatever it is they are pushing, and on the rare occasion that it is something I am really interested in, I will take the time to talk to them.

But I am one of those people you describe who generally doesn't even like someone handing me a flyer.

Too broad.

The door-to-door people are mostly innocuous. I tell them I'm content and they leave.

Some door-to-door people are pushy. I tell them I'm content and I get an argument. They're irritating and obnoxious, predispose me to dislike their message, and get the door closed firmly but politely in their collective face.

I don't really care if it's somebody trying to sell me insurance, lawn services, an electricity plan (I live in Texas, where there's not just a single municipal utility company), or their god. Or philosophical tradition.

The bits of paper rubberbanded to my door or wedged in the doorjamb quickly meet their trashy demise.

I'd prefer that all the door-to-door salesfolk stay away, but the local Scout troop uses the same tactics and methods for their canned food drive. Part of me wishes they, too, would stay away; part of me says it's a good thing when they raise tons of canned and dried food for the city food bank. Net: I'm indifferent to his form of advertising, as long as it's not too frequent.

Now, at an individual level it's the same, but a bit more aggressiveness on the part of the proselytizer can be okay. Depends on whether we're work enemies, work acquaintances, work friends, or friends. The level of acceptable pushiness varies by closeness of relationship and by context.

In the end, as far as I'm concerned proselytizing is just somebody saying, "Hey, I think what I think is better than what you think. Let me explain and try to change your mind." That can be religion, politics, GMOs or climate change, or whether Hunts or Heinz ketchup is better.

Having an uninvited conversation with someone about their religion is like this conversation on the street with a perfect stranger:

You: Hi. Wow, I see you're really fat. Hey, let me give you a marketing spiel about my favorite gym. Oh yeah, and if you don't go there, and only there, really bad things are going to happen to you. But if you just go, you'll be thin right away and everyone will luuuuuuuve you! Automatically!

Only a seriously screwed up individual would take it on themselves to decide that a perfect stranger has something wrong with them, put themselves in the stranger's face, start spouting unwanted opinions and "advice," offer them a dubious solution in a marketing pitch, threaten them with dire consequences if they don't take the offer, and offer completely unfounded results if they do.

But if you can't get that simple concept, someone punching you in the mouth eventually might just make the point.

They have no respect for a person. They want to force themselves onto people who don't want to hear about it any more. They don't even understand the concept of no means no. They think no means push harder and be more forceful. I wish more people would outright punch them. Maybe they would think twice before cornering and harassing the rest of us.

If the person wanted your religious views, they would ask. Otherwise, you are overstepping when you try to harass someone into submission with your religion. At least, in my case, you would be, if you got that close to begin with. I can spot people on a religious mission to try to beat me into submission to them a mile away. I already got raped in the name of God. What more do you people want? To spiritually rape me repeatedly too? Get a clue. I'd rather go to a million hells than spend eternity trapped with people who think raping lesbians is A-ok.

Unless someone asks your religious views, you should leave them alone. It's about boundaries and you violate a person's boundaries when you try to shove religion down their throats against their will. I can't believe someone has to explain that to you. You won't listen, of course, but no means no.

other things you mention are near reality.
Also there are many brands of religious superstition. All believers think they have a lock on the truth. .

Wow, didn't have to get past the first sentence to disprove that.

...but the minute you do, you lose the right to complain when someone attempts to do the opposite.

It can easily become a form of nagging, and nagging is annoying, but we all nag sometimes about some things.

I mind telemarketing much more than I mind most forms of proselytizing.

What really bothers me is not proselytizing as such, but attempts to impose right-wing views into law - on any grounds. Thus, I rather like religious proselytizing when it's the churches criticizing the British government over its poverty-creating economic policies. I don't like religious proselytizing when it it's the political 'pro-life' movement campaigning to restrict the rights of women and gays and to smear and defeat progressive political candidates. Hypocritical and inconsistent? No - entirely consistent with my value system, which is secular but places more importance on actual policies, than on the explanations of the world and its origins that may be used to justify them.

Throughout my life, I've regularly spent time trying to persuade other people that they should care about matters that I think are important and that they should share my opinions about such matters

people who disagree with me, they'll tell you their opinions are based on facts and reason. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that's exactly why people are willing to settle disputes in court: everyone thinks their own views are convincingly based on facts and reason.

"everyone thinks their own views are convincingly based on facts and reason."

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)

Jamais on ne fait le mal si pleinement & si gayement, que quand on le fait par un faux principe de conscience.

We never do evil so completely & so cheerfully, that when it is done by a false principle of conscience.

He did say this though:

for the actual translation ... I guess that's why its said: "only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear"

Welcome to DU and to the Religion group, Peace_maker.

convictions and their misuse.

Here's the French, posted by cbayer, emphasis mine:

Jamais on ne fait le mal si pleinement & si gayement, que quand on le fait par un faux principe de conscience.

My French is appalling, but even I can see that

a) he explicitly specifies "false".
b) he says "conscience", not "religion".

If they've distorted the meaning of that bit so badly, I don't have any faith in them not to have similarly manipulated other passages.

has nothing to do with religion.

OK.

Report back!

or the reason I won't knock doors during the Superbowl

"Let's talk about bullshit you have already rejected, because you have time. Besides, you need to hear this because I have a personal relationship with the most powerful entity in the universe and therefore know more than you. Let me start by presenting a set of logical contradictions you need to accept as fact."

If I wanted to buy snake oil, I'd go to a snake oil store.

approach.

When someone is trying to sell you something for an illness they have decided your have because you are not just like them, it's all snake oil.

I don't have to pretend to know everything because my magic book has all of the answers and have to be reassured by believing the most powerful thing in the universe them.

It's quite freeing to be open to discovery rather than being chained to strict revelation of unsubstantiated and often contradictory dogma. It's how I can both not know everything, but still recognize delusion and snake oil.

You appear to think you have all the answers and didn't even need any resources to get them.

Cool! You are free. I am happy for you. It's the amazingly judgmental attitude towards others that have a different experience that is so striking.

It's just like, well, religious proselytizing. You've got the one way and everyone else is just delusional. The harder they bray, the more insecure they really are in their beliefs (or lack of beliefs), imo.

Bravo!

Thanks for being happy for me. I hope you achieve at least as much benefit from it as I.

Proselytizing is proactive. I am responding. Action / Reaction. It's a science thing, you'd choose not to understand, I guess.

When it is, I win the argument.

Unless it is about a subject in which I am interested, which would be primarily political, I find it really annoying.