Psychological pressure to believe

Now, if the notion of "forcing people to believe" would hardly make any sense to be taken literally (because "force" and "belief" do not refer to the same type of reality, and work quite differently), let us explain how it may still somehow occur, how we might say that some people do have a behavior of "forcing" others to join their belief - even if they forcefully and sincerely reject this accusation of trying to force people to agree with them, as this is not their conscious will (but only, perhaps, some collateral damage produced by the holiness of their attitude where they are so highly into, far above human senses, that it becomes disconnected from the concrete reality of their behavior).

Some of these means may be called "psychological pressure"

To consider that those who don't agree, or don't listen to them and trust their teachings, are proud, dogmatic, narrow-minded and hard-hearted. But it is very unspiritual to be proud, dogmatic, narrow-minded and hard-hearted. Thus if people want to be spiritual (good-hearted, open-minded...), they need the humility to listen to and trust the good teachings of these generous spiritual teachers, without any further argument.
To replace the matter of what is true or false, or a matter of fact, by a matter of what is good or bad, what is virtuous or vicious, either towards others, towards God, or towards one's self-fulfillment. This is often presented as an advice for the interest of the person, especially if there is a difference of well-being or of virtue between both people (so as to make it feel that one's opinion is more virtuous or source of well-being than the other). Ignore that believing something for an advantage rather than after an evidence, is the very definition of corruption.
Ways to artificially strengthen the impression of how you feel better or are more virtuous than the other (for example: are filled with a divine serenity), either in terms of serenity, fate, self-fulfillment; feel offended by the other's position, or anyway provide the impression that it is offending
Put forward your good intentions and try to help the person - as there is no more devastating force than the force of goodness and pure intentions, to defeat by condemning as "evil", any try to come and contradict a claim
Put a hard burden of study on the other person (reading the Bible, apologetic treaties...), but don't care yourself to study as much of the other side's arguments, because "he is free to believe what he wants" and you will not bother about it; be convinced that whoever disagrees must have not done his homework yet, but don't checking whether this is the right picture of things - anyway, it is virtually impossible to prove how serious and deep the search has been, especially in the very small size of replies in conversations.
Claim that the truth (or God) reveals itself to any sincere seeker (or to anyone with the right attitude - insert here whatever definition of the "right attitude" can be considered); and more precisely that it is what one claims (this must be so anyway, because it is one's conclusion of a deeply sincere search, and who can dare to deny one's sincerity and dedication to the truth ?). Disregard that this claim is rigorously equivalent to a personal attack against anyone who disagrees (as it means they did not sincerely seek the truth, or did not have the right attitude whatever it is), and is utterly refuted by evidence (as there are very sincere people in all religions, who reached opposite conclusions from the same sincere search).
Generally, sincerely develop some view (while staying stupid and unaware how absurd your view is), namely some "explanations" of the other person's position, such as that his search for truth was not serious, or that his position is the result of some sin. This will make the discussion go mad, and either directly convince the person without genuine evidence, or upset him and force him to fight back and tell you that you are claiming nonsense. But insist that you had very good intentions and were telling very normal and polite things in a civilized discussion, while on the other hand, feel yourself martyred when hearing any criticism, any view opposing yours, any expression of a disagreement that is addressed to you.
Blame what you feel as a disrespect (fight) started by your opponent, on his "ego" or bad character and picture this as his entire "fault". This way, explain that this is the sign he is a wrong person and needs to change - by receiving God (your religion) in his life.
Claim that you will pray for this person to change and convert (for God to reveal Himself to him)
Prophesy that the person will come to agree with you later once the right search for God will have been proceeded; consider that it was his fault if it does not happen. Or, claim that your position has been successfully defended and that it is thus gaining growing support, or prophesy that it will do so at some time later.
Request justifications for his views, and don't tolerate the idea that his position could be anyhow justified unless his replies will have convinced you; disregard that this burden of care for your understanding may have nothing to do with the real search for truth he may have carried out, either because you are unable to understand or properly assess arguments anyway, or just because the evidence is a result of years long search and analysis that cannot be summed up just for you
Anyway, don't wait for replies. If he did not convince you in 5 minutes (or in one email message), conclude that he had no argument, thus he's just wrong
Dismiss any try to contradict you as "mere arguments" thus "mere theory", "human thoughts" (as if your own thoughts were not human), and unholy, while the real life with God has nothing to do with arguments. Therefore if people want to sincerely search for God and find Him they must agree with you.

Example: to persuade people that the Earth is flat, or at least demonize the claim that it is ball-like, you just need to consider that the claim of the ball-like shape of the Earth, is an act of hatred and persecution against the Flat Earth Society, its members, their freedom of consciousness, and also against God who had the goodness to come to Earth and die on the cross to reveal us His word which describes the Earth as flat.
Indeed, according to Wikipedia,

"After Rowbotham's death, Lady Elizabeth Blount created the Universal Zetetic Society in 1893 in England and created a journal called Earth not a Globe Review, which sold for twopence, as well as one called Earth which only lasted from 1901 to 1904. She held that the Bible was the unquestionable authority on the natural world and argued that one could not be a Christian and believe the Earth to be a globe."

About the burden of search: active atheists are usually more knowledgeable about religions, than religious people themselves. Either because this knowledge led them to deconversion after they were Christians, or because the arguments by believers that have excessive study requirements on the other part, led them to do this study, in order to provide replies.

As remarked there:

"I'm angry that I have to know more about their fucking religion than the believers do.
...when believers treat any criticism of their religion -- i.e., pointing out that their religion is a hypothesis about the world and a philosophy of it, and asking it to stand up on its own in the marketplace of ideas -- as insulting and intolerant.
...when Christians in the United States -- members of the single most powerful and influential religious group in the country, in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world -- act like beleaguered victims, martyrs being thrown to the lions all over again, whenever anyone criticizes them or they don't get their way."

So, the problem that they don't understand, is, if they want their position to be respected, it's up to them to opt for a position that deserves respect; it's not the fault of others if they criticize and even condemn a position that is not defensible (because it is blind and disrespectful against more knowledgeable people). The problem is, the question of which position is defensible and deserves respect, can be very hard to discern: anyone having any position thinks that this position is true and thus deserves respect...

Let me mention an experience trying to with a Christian in a team trying to evangelize people in the streets (he was probably evangelical, but I had a similar experience with a Mormon).
He said something like: it is pointless to try arguing because the depth of the issue is not a matter of argument, but a matter of God's power coming to your life (and of course, as usual, stupidly repeating the old empty buzzword that "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with God"). So, yes, this is power that he's talking about.

Now, is this power real, what does it make ?
In the experience of trying to talk with this guy, I must admit there really is some overwhelming power in his life, and a power that he is bringing to his conversation.
Here is how this overwhelming power feels:
In conversations, like a bulldozer, he smashes all possible chances of meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding, under the blinding radiations of his divine serenity. This powerfully makes things feel in some way, as if they were completely different from whatever they are in reality - not letting any sufficient room (time, attention) for the other one to explain himself.
This force of blindness and distortion of feelings, has the power to make conversations go completely crazy. This does not leave any decent chance to behave sanely, rationally and humanly when dialectically interacting with such a natural disaster.
Even though this person is totally sincere, this behavior acts as a provocation. This makes the other part go mad and angry at trying to deal with this natural disaster, and makes it feel as if it was their fault (bad character, "lack of spirituality"...), as if the true origin of the clash was not the provocation by this powerfully unshakable "divine serenity" that does not let any room for meaningful debates and human understanding.

If Christians wanted to behave decently as concerns the search for truth (I mean, to be really, methodologically decent, not just to fool themselves into feeling that they are behaving decently just because they have a feeling of honesty in their heart, as they usually do), they would no more go and bother people with their divine serenity and other such provocative personal pressures on people to convert. Instead, they would go and examine the deep logic and structure of the arguments (now rather by Internet, where there could be more decent room for such careful study and meaningful debates between opposite sides, if only it was better worked on...).

Back : Anti-spirituality home page - Explaining religion or Christianity main pages