I think there is a big difference between pushing your beliefs on someone then to having a civil discussion about the differences in your beliefs. 

As long as you can discuss your angles without insulting people I think it can be a conversation that is worth having.  If you have any of the, “Well you’re just going to go to hell” or “You’re an idiot for believing in something that doesn’t exist.” It just won’t work out very well.

Even if you do have the conversation, you rarely are going to make any progress.  It all boils down to faith really.  Or lack thereof for whatever case you may make.  I have many religious friends that after a discussion, they just say that is what I have faith in.  And for me, I just can’t make that leap of faith.  My mind just can’t let go of what I perceive as reality. 

Does that make them or me more right, not really.  It just means that on something like religion, it is such a polarizing subject, that it is hard for people not to get offended when you talk to them about it. 

Personally, I like to think the bible is a really old history book, told in a way that people that wrote it could understand what was happening to them.  They didn’t fully understand the way the world worked, and so it must be caused by something “god” like.  I have little doubt that all these people lived at some point, including Jesus.  I just can’t make the connection that he rose from the dead and all that.  I have little doubt that he was a great man of his time, and did a lot of good.  But the son of a god?  That is a stretch for me. 

It really all boils down to the way you have the conversation with people.  If it is done right, it can be productive.  At least in small ways. 

The essential claim of the fundamentalist, whether Christian, Jewish, Moslem or political totalitarian, is that he knows the truth. The fundamentalist doesn't guess or argue or wonder of question. He doesn't have to. He knows.  The distinction that others make in the modern world - that there is a difference between what we know empirically and what we believe normatively - is one the fundamentalist rejects.

And what the fundamentalist knows is true. It isn't a proposition, held provisionally, to be tested by further evidence. It isn't an argument from which he could be dissuaded by something we call reason. It isn't something that is ever subject to change: what is fundamentally true now, by definition, must be true for all time. 

For the fundamentalist, there in not a category of things called facts and a separate category called values.

The values of the fundamentalist are facts. God has revealed them in a book that is inerrant, whether that book is the Bible or the Koran; or he has entrusted them to a hierarchy whose interpretation of the scripture and tradition and history and nature is authoritative and even, in some case, literally infallible.

So, when you are arguing from empirical fact with a fundamentalist, you are to be immediately regarded with suspicion because they not only have that book, but often that trusted interpreter of what is true to not just believe, but to answer to; most usually at the expense of their eternal soul's salvation, but sometime - in the case of a totalitarian ruler - their life.

When I use the term "forcing beliefs" I'm almost always speaking of instances where a moral code is being added to the law. I think Proposition 8 qualifies as a religious moral code that is intent upon establishing a religious morality legally. It amounts to legal enforcement of a moral position and when we have the ability to vote on such a thing, it's immediately possible to "force a belief" on people that makes a moral matter a fact of law.

I admire your rejection of Relativism which teaches that all things are true and that there is no single truth.  Plus your dedication to seeking what is true and attempts to actually use objective reason.  So many people claim these things ,but what they end up saying is that I must take their atheistic beliefs on faith.  I do disagree with your conclusions or if reason alone is a suitable tool for experiencing the Divine ,but that doesn't make me hate you.  I also appreciated your comment too, Btown.  

Thanks everyone for commenting. However, my argument is mainly for those who feel as though trying to convince others of your beliefs is wrong.

Which makes Buffoo's response particularly ironic.  But he's got a pronounced irony deficiency.

I myself don't try to convince others of my beliefs.  I share mine with others ,but it is up to them and God to form their own special relationship. 

My husband and I have discussions about this particular subject quite often. I am pagan, he is christian, and while I must admit that he does at times attempt to "convert" me, we usually discuss the difference in our beliefs as a learning experience. If more people could do that, there would be much better understanding in the world and less judgmentalism. When it comes down to faith, there is no way anyone can say for a fact that what they believe is absolutely true. That's why it is called faith.

I follow the thinking of George A. Kelley that humans are scientists; everyday we make hypotheses and predictions pertaining to the world around us. The observations we make informs us, and either upholds or refutes our hypotheses.

Basically we are all making null hypotheses tests about reality. We have a null hypothesis (H₀) that says this is how things are. Then, we make an alternative hypothesis that says this is how we think or believe things to be. To do this, we look for information that will support our alternative hypothesis, building evidence to reject our null hypothesis.

There are four possible outcomes from our decision to either reject or not reject the null. However, we never accept the null as truth, we are always looking for evidence to disconfirm the null.

                         True State of the Null Hypothesis

Decision           

                                        H₀ True                                    H₀ False

Reject H₀                       Type I error                            Correct

Fail to Reject H₀             Correct                                 Type II error

If we reject the null hypothesis and the null is true (i.e., science best explains the universe), then we have made a fatal Type I error when we express belief in God (or any other alternative). if the null is false, then we can reject the null (i.e., have a significant amount of evidence to indicate that the alternative hypothesis is correct).

Alternatlively, if we fail to reject the null and it is false, then we have made a Type II error (i.e., we have stated that science best explains the univese when another explanation is more correct). If the null is true, then we fail to reject the null (i.e., we do not have enough evidence to revolt against the present paradigm).

As scientists, eveyday people determine which of these errors is more important to them if they are making a decision. One can never be sure if the decision they are making is indeed the right one, so one must weigh it out. For example, would one rather live their life as a Christian and in the end discover at death they are anhilated from existence, or would one rather live their life as an atheist and then discover science was wrong? Beliefs then seem to depend on how you weigh the errors in your decision making. So, indeed there are more than one truth in the world, and those truths are dependent on the individual making the claim. The validity of the truth, however, is determined by the amount of evidence one has for the claim versus the amount of evidence there is against the claim.

Unfortunately, the strength of any particular evidence is based on the individual's acceptance of it. If they believe that testimonial and authoritative evidence is greater than rational and empirical evidence, then that is their perogative. This creates diversity in thinking. As long as peple see the world through their own eyes, there will always be a difference of belief and perception of the truth of reality. So, there will always be discussion between one's truth and another's, as one tries to convince the other that their truth is the one truth.

As a scientist who believes in God, I always leave that 1% possibility that I am wrong.

And it is not Conversion, it is Enlightening.

I try to convince others of my ideas all the time. I think its good.

Axiom, did you write this?  If you did, I enjoy philosophy.

I would not say that the majority of people hate thinking.  Many people have, however, developed short attention spans and, without intention, have become too lazy to think.

I just live my life so I can feel good about it~ try to be compassionate,try to see the other guys view,help those I can,recognize those I can't ,keep my mind open and keep learning.

The older I get,I realize how little I really know for sure,philosophically speaking.

everything I post I wrote.

I applaud you.

Is there something that you wish to convince me of?  :)

AXIOMTEK

Who gets to decide what is a true belief and what is a false belief?

On the subect of forcing your religion onto others, let me share how Pontiac an Ottowa Indian war leader felt.  He said:

"They came with a Bible and their religion, stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved".