The annoyingness of New Atheists: declaring God Dead makes you a Complete Monster?

I get my points across to a theist the same way I get my points across to anyone else:

• I get clear in my own head what point I want to get across, and why I want to get it across.

• I get clear in my own head why I believe that.

• I consider my model of the other person and how they differ from me and whether those differences are relevant to how compelling my reasons are. If the differences aren't relevant, I share my reasons for believing what I believe.

• If the differences are relevant, I either explicitly note that ("You'll probably disagree with me about this, because you generally believe X where I believe Y, but I think Z.") if my goal is to let the person know what I think, or I set my own reasons aside if my goal is to convince the person that what I think is true.

• If the latter, I try to imagine whether I would believe Z if I believed X, and if so, why I would believe that, and I share those reasons instead. Otherwise, I give up on the point I started out with, which is too many inferential steps away, and either go do something else or I pick some instrumental goal along the way (e.g., decide to convince them of Y).

Worth noting is that at every step along the way I might fail. That is, I might discover that I don't have a clear understanding of my own point, or of why I want to convey it, or of why I believe it, or of what the other person believes that might be relevant, etc.

At which point I generally switch goals, from trying to get my point across to the other person to trying to better understand my point, or my goals, or my reasons, or the other person, or etc.

So, here is my question to you all: how do you get your points across to a theist without pushing any of their Berserk Buttons, without coming off as a condescending and dismissive jerk, and without having to shorten all of the freaking Inferential Distance?

As others have pointed out, in this article you are already behaving like a condescending and dismissive jerk. You adduce no facts, just making a rant against an imaginary caricature. This is mind-killer territory. No productive conversation is possible on that basis. Any attempt will lose.

The only way to not come across as a condescending and dismissive jerk is to not be one.

On of the things that irritate them the most is the phrase "God is Dead". A phrase that is obviously meaningless in a literal sense...

What Nietzsche was saying when he said "Gott ist tod!" was not what most people think.

He first made the obvious point that modern science and in particular evolution made God redundant and belief in supernatural beings was not longer credible.

At the time (mid C19) many people had lost their belief in God but continued to act as though nothing had changed. That is, they continued to act as Christians but had no basis for doing so.

Nietzsche's real point was that the non-existence of God is a big deal and that we need to take the implications of this seriously. He was not merely saying what everyone knew (there is no God) but that we need to forge a new morality that is not based on discredited and useless religious ideas.

This idea can be relevant in discussions with theists. Just telling the story of what Nietzsche was saying is very powerful, because it takes as a given that religious belief does not make sense now that Darwin has done away with the argument from design. The discussion can turn to the real question: given no God, what do we do with our lives?

I'll share some thoughts since I've been through a recent deconversion...

• First, let go of any notions you have of changing someone's mind. Especially in one or more sittings filled with discussion.
• Second, drill into your mind that typical gauges of the accuracy of a theory/explanation such as tangible evidence, repeatability, and predictability will fall apart in theological discussions. There will always be an apologist to provide a counter-attack for any charge you bring, and this counter-attack will not have it's roots in tangibility, but in a possibility which the theist knows you cannot demonstrate to be conclusively false.
• Lastly, I have begun to postulate that any discussion of reasons a theist might think support their belief will be fruitless, as I'm not convinced many theists realize what actually provides their belief. I say this as 80% or so of believers will have been raised in that belief system. No reasons necessary -- only trust in parents. Only later were reasons a-z provided as a "defense" of the belief. When a theist volunteers some set of a-z as supporting their belief... they may believe those reasons to be crucial without recognizing that the set was only tacked on afterward. Thus, don't be surprised if even if you can destroy a-z... the belief still stands. It was never based on a-z in the first place for most theists.

Lastly, to share my own tactics since I happen to be married to a believer... I never engage in any head-on confrontational debates anymore. I find it fruitless and that it only leads to dissent on both sides. It's difficult enough to discuss these matters... don't add resentment as a further barrier to someone listening to you and changing their mind.

I have found it helpful to simply ask questions. My wife just heard a talk on prayer and intercession and "Why god says 'no' sometimes." I found the whole thing riddled with issues, but I have come to find it more effective to simply ask inquisitive questions rather than ridicule or attack:

• Hmmm. Interesting. So, if I understand correctly, the speaker said that sometimes god wants to let us suffer to be more united with him. He also said we should pray only for things that are god's will. If that's the case, how might we know if someone gets hurt if we should pray for their healing or pray for them to remain injured to suffer and grow in holiness?

Things like that. After a number of those types of question (and my wife not being sure how to answer), I simply asked if she felt like the questions seemed to require somewhat convoluted answers. She said yes. Does't mean she's going to abandon belief. For now, she believes that someone "smarter than her" would be able to answer the questions... but I find it enough at the present moment for her to at least be brought to understand that the answers seem convoluted. And then I can introduce the fact that correct solutions tend to be the simplest ones that can account for all the details.

I'll depart with a flow-chart for these discussions I was just sent. It's filled with unstated assumptions and other flaws, but interesting nonetheless (LINK).

As a former theist myself, I have found that the most effective strategy is to argue with them from within their worldview and by their own rules. The reason for this is that they (in my experience) flatly reject any evidence external to their religion.

So, rather than discussing the existence of God, assume God exists and then point out that if God were a human, we'd call his motivations needy and depraved. Rather than bringing up outside savior myths which influenced the gospel writers, assume that the gospel is divinely inspired and then point out that it was divinely inspired in four different (contradictory) ways in the story about Mary visiting Jesus' tomb. There are plenty of these.

In my experience, this method is far more effective than outside evidence, but tends to lead to dismissals of logic itself, which is where I get frustrated. I try to explain that logic is embedded in language and thought, that to dismiss logic uses logic (albeit poorly), but I can't seem to make that point stick.

On of the things that irritate them the most is the phrase "God is Dead".

What the? You say that to religious people? How rude. I would be offended if was in mixed company and you said that to a religious believer without some rather significant provocation.

bypassing their knee-jerk defences...

Try not hitting people just below the knee with a hammer with the intention of provoking a response.

Developing a general algorithm would help us spread our ideals further

One option is to make a concerted effort to signal dissafilliation with those atheists who act like obnoxious fundamentalists.

TV Tropes will ruin your vocabulary.

I guess, if you had a theist friend whose quality of life you think would be improved by greater rationality, the way to do it would be to talk about general rationality (The Simple Truth, Bayes, Occam, etc), then move on to reductionism, and once they'd accepted and understood all that, and seemed to think of rationality as a good thing, to point out cautiously the implications for the existence of God.

Essentially, shorten the inferential distance, preferably before they know you're an atheist. Then when they think of you as a sane person, and think of themselves as a sane person, point out that sanity means atheism. It takes a while, and I haven't tested it, but it's more likely to work than one conversation, especially if the theist is deep in Dark Side Epistemology.

How do I get my points across to a theist? Well, I don't. You'll never change anyone's mind by "convincing" them unless they're already a very good rationalist, and even then, it's not really guaranteed to work.

"Convincing" is more often about signaling, whether to yourself or people besides the one you're trying to convince. If your goal is to change someone's mind, try to make them think they already agree with you. I'm not aware of an effective way to do this for theists or "spiritual" people or new-agers or anyone else in that category.

This is the first time I've ever written an article that got shot down so violently. I'll admit it is poorly planned and kind of chaotic, but I feel I was misunderstood. While freeing people from religion is a cause I endorse, especially for those that suffer guilt, anguish and pain because of it, rather than those who derive happiness from it, this is not what I am looking for here. What I want to do is to express my points to religious people without coming off as a condescending jerkass Straw Vulcan. And, revently, I have found myself unable to. Despite my best efforts to be respectful and kind, I haven't managed not to hurt theist senstivities. Which baffles me, because I used to be a theist not so long ago, and felt the same pain reading, say, some of Yudkowsky's posts, or anything by Dawkins, and if it weren't for my overwhelming curiosity and the fact that I was almost a born rationalist (something that, as we can see in the Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story thread, is exceedingly and worryingly common for an art that should be accessible to all of humanity) I would have been completely turned off the rationalist project because of its atheistic component, and would have continued to fruitlessly try to be a rational Muslim. And yet I am unable to avoid striking the exact same sour spots I got struck in on my way here.

I don't even remember how that pain felt, but I know it was great, and I want to avoid inflicting it to potential newbies. Ways of avoiding this, is what I am asking for.

So, suggestions...

(Seriously) Become more attractive. You can't do much about height and not too much about facial symmetry either but if you gain a lot of social status and dress well you will find yourself much more persuasive. If you want to take it to the next level try seducing believers of the preferred gender.

I don't try to convert theists to atheism, and I don't have trouble with "reasonable" theists. If we get into a discussion of religion, then I explain what I do (and don't) believe and why, and they come away with a better understanding of atheism (or at least of me).

It also helps that I'm familiar with a variety of religions (not just Christianity, but different types of Christianity, as well as non-Christian religions of course), so I can get a good idea of where they're coming from. But it's important not to presume, or even to let them think that you're presuming, too much.

Don't you see that by trying to convert people you are in fact acting precisely like the 'new atheist' types that they dislike? Why, precisely, do you want to convert them anyway? Have you considered going door-to-door saying "Have you heard the bad news?"? Theists compare Dawkins et al to fundamentalists because both groups are more interested in winning converts than having a conversation. When discussing religion with a theist - just like when discussing politics with someone of opposite views - far better to go in asking them, with honest curiosity, why they believe what they believe. Go into any conversation, on any subject, thinking "my view is the obviously correct one and anyone who doesn't hold it must be stupid or dishonest" is a sure way to alienate people. Not all religious people are stupid or evil - a majority aren't. Some will even have already considered and rejected your arguments. Even as an atheist, I would be infinitely more likely to point to Andrew Rilstone's series of essays "Where Dawkins Went Wrong" ( http://www.andrewrilstone.com/search/label/Richard%20Dawkins ) as an example of rational thinking than I would The God Delusion.

If you go into each conversation, not as an adversarial means of forcing others to share your worldview, but as a collaboration to try to find the truth, Aumann's Agreement Theorem says that you'll eventually come to an agreement with the other person assuming they do the same. If before you start you've already decided not to update on anything they say, which it appears you have, then you are a fundamentalist...

So, here is my question to you all: how do you get your points across to a theist without pushing any of their Berserk Buttons, without coming off as a condescending and dismissive jerk, and without having to shorten all of the freaking Inferential Distance?

If I was trying to get my points across to a theist and they didn't show any sign of being offended, I would conclude that I was failing to get my points across, because the main point is that their beliefs and the way they arrived at them are completely insane.

That's OK though, people can still be convinced even when they're feeling offended, if they're the kind of people who care about the truth (deep down, on some level). If they don't, you're wasting your time anyway.

I don't mean to nitpick, but "ahteism" looks very weird when spelled that way.