We people think emotionally. We also think rationally. But emotions always play a part. It is not just access to different literature that made the majority of

We people think emotionally. We also think rationally. But emotions always play a part. It is not just access to different literature that made the majority of Russians 100 years ago Marxist while making most Americans 40 years ago anti communist free marketeers. The rational behind most atheists' position is pretty simple. It is also pretty dry. You can dress it up in Russell's Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Dawkins' garden fairies. That is insulting because what you are inserting into the framework of the argument is: 'X is stupid. You are like X' Everything else is politics. Is religion good or bad? Is it an innate human property etc. etc. None of that is very important to the argument. Nor are the various arguments within religion presented by atheists (shouldn't you believe that.. Why do you believe x & not y). I don't have much contact with 'Evangelicals.' I have had a fair bit to do with with 'progressive Christians,' Jews of various positions & (mostly expat) Muslims. I have to say that I think they all react to completely different things emotionally. The first group are usually concerned with the community & work of the churches. There are in fact many jobs performed by them that are otherwise left undone. Jews are often moved by identity issues. Many of the Muslims I have known seemed moved by a sort of loyalty. The latter is similar to how I've seen (normally leftists) Americans react to 'foreigners' making the same complaints they themselves make about their culture. In none of the questions did the simple argument that convinces me, have much bearing on anything. Ocasionaly I was indulged with a discussion so that we could move on to the more important things. These things I find irrelevant before i am satisfied on the teapot point. In a way it is similar to the argument I criticised here: The concepts of 'justice' or 'ethics' stand on philosophically unsound foundations. You might indulge someone for a few minutes if you want to discuss Gaza, Mumbai, South Ossetia or something, but you don't want to get bogged down in Kant or Bentham. But anyway what I am saying in this long winded way is that for the purpose of 'winning' the argument. It is important to acclimatise your audience to an idea. Convince them that it is not insane. The argument themselves will come into play are not in defence mode. It may at some later point. A good time is if/when they ever find themselves defending against a more 'extreme' point. As I said, I know few evangelicals. But I hear that they often associate atheism with crime, immorality etc. To counter that, you just need to show them that morality is possible without believing in god (even if it does requires His existence). You would have heard all sorts of rubbish said about Communists back in the day. A young American refusing to buy in & attacking the anti-communist rubbish (there was plenty that anyone would now consider rubbish) would have been in a position to consider communism on it's merits. Dido on Soviets with Atlas Shrugged under the tiles. They may find themselves defending humanism. Which is step to considering it.