yes
Great!
OK, if that were the meaning of the term, then I would be in agreement with you: a donkey speaking is impossible under normal terms.
But the problem is that “scientifically impossible,” in my opinion, doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Do you now understand what is actually meant by the term?
Do you realize there is a difference between a hyper-literal use of the word and the way that the other 99.99% of the population uses a term?
Which is generally to be done to those who don’t have the faith. Proselytizing and missionary work by Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. are generally done in other countries, not necessarily in religious areas in the US. People in my Lutheran church are generally uncomfortable with even the thought of knocking on doors, which isn’t something we’d do anyways. We ‘witness’ and ‘[spread] the good news’ by doing good works in the community.
Random people coming up to you and saying you should believe X isn’t particularly ‘social pressure’ if most people in your society don’t believe it - the term even speaks to it, its pressure by the society. I mean I don’t feel as if I am under social pressure to vote for Bernie Sanders even though I have seen pro-Bernie folks at festivals around town trying to get people to sign up for his campaign, or better yet, people posting scores of pro-Bernie stuff on Facebook.
It does not, but you tried to equate the two. I think because you realize that social pressure is sometimes considered an ok think (such as social pressure to accept LGBTQ individuals), while proselytizing hardly ever is.
In the general areas where they are knocking on doors? Or that proselytization is evidence of social pressure, as you with the face was attempting to imply?
Since you are insistent on this point, cite? Proselyzers are not known to conduct needs assessments before they hit the streets. They will send tracts out to anyone and anywhere.
Cite for this?
I don’t see how anyone could read this article, and still insist on seeing proselytizers as limited to where faith is absent. As a former resident of the Deep South, I assure you the culture of “Believe in Jesus or else” is rampant throughout the so-called Bible Belt–the most religious region in the nation.
Lutherans represent only 5% of Christians in the U.S, so even if your church is typical for the Lutherans, it is a minority among Christian sects. In other words, not a particularly meaningful counterpoint.
If 86% proportion of the population professes a belief in God, why does it seem unfathomable to you most people in the country don’t have the luxury of living in the belief-free society you’re talking about? The very statistic that has triggered this thread speaks directly to the contrary–that non-believers are very likely to be living in communities where they are surrounded by believers. So to balk at the notion that there is social pressure that favors belief over non-belief indicates a simple failure to deduce meaning from numbers.
Your argument looks exactly like this to me:
This is a perfectly valid argument to make if we’re talking about a place in which the majority of the population possesses and embraces dark skin. But if we’re in a country that not only is 86% white, but also has a long and sordid history of treating dark skin as a sign of inferiority, well, it’s pretty asinine to say something this, wouldn’t you agree?
Maybe because a vote for Bernie Sanders isn’t seen as a prerequisite for eternal salvation, as it is for belief in God? I’m thinking that has a little something to do with it.
Because a poll states that 86% of people believe in god, it cannot be taken at face value - because if 86% people profess to believe in god, it must be the intense social pressure of so large a majority that is causing a sizable percentage of people to falsely self-report their belief, even on an anonymous poll?
Strikes me as a theory wonderfully incapable of disproof, given that the more people profess belief, presumably the less the poll results could be believed! 
Can you read this article? Please help me understand why an HR lawyer would bother writing this piece if workplace proselytizing wasn’t an issue, even in the most religious of communities.
I’m sincerely, curious: where do you live? I grew up in Georgia and spent grad school in Alabama. I suspect some of the disconnect in this thread comes from people not realizing how radically different communities can be regarding religion. The peer pressure is real, particularly if it’s all you’ve known.
It’s not a mistake that it took me moving to MD before embracing my agnosticism.
The kid’s faith was ‘absent’ - he’s a Buddhist. FWIW, the religious questions on the test is social pressure, while the belittling the Buddhist is proselytism - they are different.
I travel all around the Deep South for my job. There is plenty of social pressure, but I can’t say I’ve ever witnessed proselytizing, apart from the aforementioned 7 Day Adventists or Mormons, aside from billboards on the highways.
To be quite honest, I witnessed far more proselytism at college in the Northeast - where the levels of faith were likely far lower than in the deep south.
Catholics then?
I never said there wasn’t social pressure. I’m quibbling (and have made this quite clear a few times) that proselytizing and missionary work isn’t evidence of social pressure. In many occasions it may be the opposite - proselytism and missionary work happens in areas where there is a perceived lack of faith.
The reason behind the proselytism is how the proselytism becomes ‘social pressure’ now? Once again, it just seems you want to label social pressure as equivalent to proselytism and ONLY in this one instance, seemingly because you want to affirm social pressure when its for things you’d rather see pressured.
Maybe not a large majority, but perhaps a measurable percentage, considering the factors that have been brought up in this thread previously?
The HR lawyer seems to gets proselytism and evangelism confused (or maybe doesn’t do a bang up job of differentiating the two). Sharing the good news by wearing a shirt or button is not the same thing as actively trying to get someone to change their faith. To back to politics - its the difference between wearing a “Bernie” shirt and by actively engaging people to vote for “Bernie” and yelling at folks who prefer Hillary Clinton or (heaven forbid) Trump. People would definitely bristle at the later, while being perfectly ok and tolerant of the former, no?
Decatur, Georgia. I went to law school in Atlanta, Georgia. I grew up in New Jersey.
BTW, I didn’t try to the equate the two; you did. I view proselytizer pressure separately from the peer pressure exerted by friends and family.
And I will also point out that proselytizing is not viewed the same way by all Christians. Not only is it accepted practice in many evangelical denominations, it’s often expected practice.
Your post (#218):
What does that mean if you don’t intend to say that proselytizers and missionaries aren’t evidence of social pressure?
(I am adamant to separate the two, because I think while everyone is somewhat anti-proselytizer, even for things they agree with, a lot of people think peer pressure has a good side)
Polls are always subject to a variety of errors. Polls about beliefs, probably more than most.
The issue, in poll-speak, is one of “measurement error” as a result of “respondent bias”. All polls are subject to a certain amount of it:
http://mospi.nic.in/informal_paper_17.htm
Given that we have little information on how the question was designed and the survey tested, it is impossible to say how much “bias” could be expected.
On thing is sure though - baldly stating that because the results are overwhelming they can’t be trusted looks like “special pleading” - if the results were on another topic, I doubt we’d be discussing the mechanics of poll error to explain them. 
We’d just note that an overwhelming majority apparently believes X and move on.
In the former case, it isn’t the donkey who is talking, and in the second case, it isn’t a “donkey” anymore, but some other critter. (As already noted.)
Also, do you have any falsifiable evidence for genetic engineering in Biblical times? If not, you’re just making stuff up, and that is a non-scientific practice.
*Sigh. * My point is that Bernie Sanders is not treated like a divine figure that you need to embrace lest you earn a seat in Hell, and that is reason why you personally don’t feel any pressure to vote for him. Not that there isn’t social pressure in an absolute sense. (But obviously I was addressing seriously, and it’s a bit pathetic to sink your teeth into this as if I was. )
If you really think religion is no different than politics in terms of psychological weight on the individual and the social pressure at work in reinforcing conformity, then frankly we’re at an impasse. Although I will say that it surprises me that a Believer would treat support for a politician as analogous to believing in God.
The trouble with opening up the word to mean “anything that is conceivable by any stretch of the imagination” is that it vacates the meaning of the term completely.
It’s now scientifically possible (by your definition) to rise from the dead, live naked inside a volcano, read people’s minds, go back in time and kill your grandfather, and drink a barrel of whisky and live.
It’s bad rhetoric to define a term such that it has no meaning.
Well, I don’t believe in an eternal damnation for one ;). Though I never really felt much social pressure on being a Muslim due to the threat of hellfire - the social pressure was far more about my parents being pissed due to a notion that I was turning my back on my culture. They still don’t think I’m going to burn in Hell, FWIW… even if I am a Christian. Interestingly they were far more ok when I was an atheist - I think they thought I was going through a phase ;).
Irrelevant, as already addressed in one of Bricker’s quotes:
Note that Bricker (who is, after all, a lawyer) is simply arguing about whether it fits the definition of “scientifically impossible.” This may be both silly and tangential to the point of this thread, but if you’re trying to address his point directly, bringing in stuff like this isn’t useful.
You seem to be getting tripped up on some things, as if you’re overthinking things or something, I dunno.
I said social pressure is a thing, correct? And then I mentioned proselytizers and missionaries, as evidence of one source of social pressure. And then I mentioned family and friends as another source of social pressure. Following me so far?
You then wrote this:
I then said this:
This is such a small gnat to be straining, but to clarify: proselytizers exert pressure on others, but not all people who exert pressure count as proselytizers. In other words, I’m not conflating peer pressure with proselytizing.
As I said before, a lot of people think proselytizing is a good thing. If you think otherwise, you haven’t been around enough people who live, breathe, and sleep evangelism.