Secular humanism is a well-defined movement, and there’s no reason why a secular humanist could not become evangelical. People change their views as they learn and grow all the time. I was an atheist until age 23 and then converted to Christianity. While I didn’t become and evangelical, I’m met many of them and often been impressed by their intelligence. Certainly people on this board are wedded to the idea that religious believers must be less educated than nono-believers, though the evidence speaks otherwise. Likewise with the canard that religious folks know less about religion. A recent Pew study on the topic showed that "there was no significant difference between believers and non-believers". However, certain nay-sayers have gotten their identity so wrapped up with the claim that their non-belief makes them more intellectual than everyone else that they ignore the evidence, which is, of course, exactly what they accuse believers of doing.
Boy, you sure left out a lot of studies!
This list covers the same studies from above and more here.
I…
No, I’m going to leave this one alone.
You believe its not true But how do you know that?
You are conflating Evangelicals with evangelists.
According to the wiki cite helpfully provided by Lemur above, Evangelicalism is a flavor of Christianity characterized by beliefs in:
– the need for personal conversion
– actively expressing and sharing the gospel
– high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy*
– an emphasis on teachings that proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus
*N.B. “inerrant” does not mean “literal.”
That definition still provides a lot of wiggle room. I’m a pretty moderate Episcopalian and would not be considered “evangelical” by most conservative Christians, but I’d say I more or less subscribe to those four beliefs. And yes, I fully embrace evolution and science in general, as do most major churches and denominations.
I reject the notion that my faith makes me ignorant a priori, but I readily admit there is plenty about even my own faith that I have little hope of understanding this side of the grave.
By that definition, every single person who existed prior to the 19th Century is fictitious!
Well, not really. You can go and dig up any number of them in graveyards.
Most of the poster here are mixing Evangelicals with Fundamentalists. Some Christians are both, some are just one and some are neither.
The people who publish Sojourners would consider themselves Evangelicals. According to this definition, the American Protestant tradition is strongly evangelical.
Many of the Evangelicals in the above groups do not believe in Fundamentalism (or Biblical Inerrancy).
Catholics can evangelize (preach their faith in order to win converts–or, at least, understanding).
My answer to the OP: Yes.
Right, that’s my point: “evangelical” is a fairly useless category to consider and should really only be used if people self-describe that way. Although I fit the wikipedia definition, I don’t call myself Evangelical because it is not a very descriptive label. If I told you I was Evangelical you wouldn’t assume I vote Democratic or belong to a church that has gay bishops, for example, which are both true.
Like who? They could be anybody. How do you know who they are?
revelator771 writes:
> However, whenever I posited cogent exercises of logic in the discourse I was
> met with venom and marginalization.
Whenever? What do you mean? You’ve written a total of 19 posts in your short time here (and some weren’t really debating religion at all). You’ve hardly even begun to get into the debates here. Show us some evidence that you’ve been met with venom and marginalization. I’m not sure myself that it’s worthwhile to get into the debates in Great Debates (since nothing ever seems to get resolved), but I don’t see what you mean when you say that you being treated with hostility.
Hmm…using DNA of course.
OK, “by that definition anyone living prior to the 19th Century, whose skeleton we do not have is fictitious.”
Better?
Yes better. But the bodies are evidence of at least some human having existed. If one was concerned about it being a particular person, the headstone is another clue as well as the date, although mishaps occur. If one still doubted, as you noted DNA could be obtained, and compared to descendants living today. Compare this evidence with the often anecdotal evidence or metaphysical musings for God.
I find all of these groups kind of confusing, I guess. Evangelicals, evangelists, fundamentalists, born-again Christians.
Like, you could be a Methodist or a Presbyterian and also a born-again Christian??
We’ve wandered a bit from the original post, so I’ll repeat it:
So, yes, a specific “him”. The headstone doesn’t provide any clue since it is merely “old writing”.
Well, not without some bodily remains, which is why I amended my original statement and I allowed for photographic evidence as well. My point still stands.
Right, and I’d say that’s an example of the ignorance that atheists often have regarding Christianity. It’s also one reason why I reject the claim (stated earlier) that most atheists know the Bible better than Christians do. They may be pretty vocal, but that’s not the same as being well informed.
I’m guessing you don’t know a lot of theists. It galls me how utterly ignorant the American lay-Christian is about their beliefs.
Now that we’ve both made unsupportable generalizations I suppose we can go on. 
Not only could you be, you probably would be, because being “born again” is how Jesus described it:
Not all Christians use the term “born-again” to describe themselves because of the baggage the label implies, but it’s an accurate term to describe pretty much any Christian. I don’t think you’ll find one who denies having been born again.
I’m between religions, myself.
But I was raised Catholic in Texas, where the Free-Range Bible Belt Fundamentalists roam. So I studied up on them & their brethren in my Guide To the Texas Protestants. You can distinguish them by their plumage (often rather drab) & song (sometimes quite excellent).
Any religious person is ignorant on the issues where they side with doctrine over rational explanations and science. If you’re religious but accept rational arguments and scientific explanations on all issues over doctrine, you’re not ignorant, but then the question is if you’re actually religious at all. So I guess you could argue that religion = ignorance, and the level of ignorance is equal to the level of religiousness.
Currently I believe that people are much less religious than what is commonly believed. For one thing I believe there are a lot of “closet atheists”, but also that a lot of people who claim to be religious are just posing or going through the motions because of socialisation.