Ha-ha. I guess I messed up. I thought that “witnessing” meant speaking about one’s spiritual experiences alone without the connotation of evangelizing, preaching, and proselytizing, because I read a rather simple definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary that didn’t really talk about the connotations. I suppose I should have read a Wikipedia article on it. 
In fact, I have just looked up “cross-examining the witness”.
Long experience, insight, and education has brought me to very much doubt that any false or unjustified belief above the level of having faith that Corn Flakes are as tasty as Wheaties is ever truly “harmless”. The way I see world events, the vast majority of what’s damaging and hostile in this world can be traced back to false or unwarranted beliefs.
See the website What’s the Harm? for several specific examples.
Whatever your definition of “witnessing” may be, the first thing you need to realize is that this is a DISCUSSION board. People come here for the specific purpose of talking about things.
Whether you want to talk about God (either as a theoretical abstract or your personal experience) or the relative merits of Star Wars vs. Star Trek, there will be someone here who doesn’t automatically accept what you have to say. There will be people here whose style of disagreement may be much more vehement than you’re accustomed to.
I suggest you read some of the religious threads that have been discussed in Great Debates. If you’re uncomfortable with the types of discussion generated in those threads, this may not be the place where you want to witness.
Are you not familiar with the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Yeah, i’d tend to say that witnessing is essentially a one-sided debate, or at least intended so by the witnesser. The point isn’t just to explain or set out, but to actively persuade.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but how old are you and where are you from? I ask because most people for whom English is their first language would have some knowledge of the meaning of both “witnessing” and “cross-examining the witness” without needing to look them up. “Cross-examining the witness” in particular is a very common phrase on television, given all the courtroom dramas and police procedurals. On the other hand, your English seems very good, so maybe you’re just very young.
Putting on my GD SDMB hat:
Define respect.
Define harmless.
Bloody oath! 
Respecting someone’s right to have a view is part of what we call thought freedom. I can think what I like and no one can stop me, they can try and convince me of course and if they truly believe that the world will be a better place then in some respects they have an obligation. Just like me when I try and convince fundys that they are wrong.
Respect is different to tolerance.
Well, I do not come from a religious background. And, I can say that I am part of Generation Y.
It seems to me that your definition is different than the definition proposed by SDMBKL, who says
I agree with you (sisu) in that it should be OK to try to convince someone that they are wrong. SDMBKL (unless I misunderstand him or her) is saying that we shouldn’t question their beliefs.
Questioning someone’s beliefs depends on the situation. If you are a person interested in so-and-so faith by choice, and you invite so-and-so into your home by choice, then you are allowed to question their beliefs before you accept them.
Now, if you have a Muslim friend who is simply sharing his family traditions and beliefs with you on so-and-so holiday or so-and-so topic, then I do not think it would be polite to question your Muslim friend; rather, it would be considered inconsiderate to doubt an innocent sharing of religious beliefs.
What about in the debate forum of a message board that has the stated purpose of fighting ignorance?
I get the point. Being religious inherently means being ignorant. Although I have heard that religion has an association with poverty and oppression, I still think that religion, in some respects, is helpful for society. Religion has contributed to art, to science, to culture, to academia, to morality, et cetera, and deserves a place in society. I can see why being religious can be perceived as being ignorant, because believing in imaginary beings without proof is a sign of a mental illness, like schizophrenia. However, I do not think that believers really believe that such beings exist in objective reality. Perhaps, they secretly know that gods do not exist, and religions are all make-believe, but they insist on religion, because they want emotional and spiritual security. Therefore, perhaps, even though religious people may appear ignorant and want to persuade other people to appear ignorant, maybe the best way to deal with them is to comfort them that being irreligious can be just as satisfying as being religious. 
Well said but if he/she is going to crap on about how science proves god is real then I go to town and it is my passion to banish bullshit.
Possibly, but overall net effect is bad.
[O/T]What does the “KL” stand for?[/O/T]
I do not think that such people would be so interested in trying to convert non-believers using the science as evidence to prove their god is real. Religious people would be more interested in humanitarian efforts and try to touch you on your emotional side. Maybe you have lost a loved one, and to heal your pain, you think you would like to join a faith so that faith can heal your pain. The religious people may tell you to pray to their god/your god that someday you would see your loved one in heaven or that your loved one is already in heaven. Such a method can be a nice, soothing placebo effect to relieve stress. 
I have never encountered a religious person who would try to persuade me to follow his or her faith, unless I have an interest in it. (I usually just decline the offer; I’ve never got the belief-of-a-god system.)
You don’t want to know. :rolleyes:
Um, you may be missing something.
If you make a claim in a debate forum, you can expect to have your argument challenged. If you witness in a forum devoted to fighting ignorance, it is reasonable to both counter-witness or point out unsubstantiated claims.
I agree that there are situations where challenging somebody’s beliefs isn’t appropriate. This isn’t one of those situations though.
Sounds like a claim worthy of Great Debates.
I was curious about that myself - how do the numbers of respondents to those threads compare to the active membership overall, or at least regular readers of GD, assuming such stats are known?