I would disagree, since there are a few who would change their mind, and anyone listening/reading who is "on the fence" that understands logic will realise the atheist position makes much more sense.

Still, even getting one person to choose reason over superstition is worth it, and some might not change their mind, but at least be a bit more open minded.

What about people out there who don't believe in any religion but haven't heard of atheism/freethought? There are still people out there who think they are the only ones who think this way.

That's the problem, the real foaming at the mouth, completely irrational ones. They totally abandon logic and get mad at you when you point out what's wrong in their beliefs.

Maybe, but I myself have to say something when they are spouting off their bullshit.

I doubt Voltair or Jefferson would agree with you.

An argument may not change someone's mind. But to never try is to allow them to assume dominance. Arguments dont have to be about winning a war. But you certainly dont want a majority shoving you around as a minority.

I do think it is good to debate theists. At a minimum it makes them realize that they are not the only "club" on the planet.

You don't allow them to assume dominance, you just get to them by different means. This isn't an all or nothing proposition. Argument isn't the only tool we have available, and I doubt it's the best.

That sounds positive, and I'm tempted to agree, but we've been debating theists for centuries. It's not as dangerous today--the penalities aren't quite as severe, but religion has been less affected by debate than communication practices and major changes in society.

The changes in society that I just referred to didn't come about quickly, the influence of debate is minor compared to more significant influences like the printing press and the focus on the indvidual through authorship.

Now we're in a situation where the intellectual elite no longer control the output of materials, as they did in Voltair's time. Ready to adopt new practices to spread their messages, the Abrahamic religions, while distinguishable from their ancestors are still a pressing majority.

We need another enlightenment, and the internet may provide and answer to the journalistic questions, but we have to take its use much more seriously than we have been. I think that the Rational Response Squad, Sam Harris's future organization, Dawkins's foundation, and Dennett's push for research are all positive steps in the right direction, but I also think we need something along the lines of a think tank, which returns me to my premise that argument is an inefficient and unproductive means of addressing these issues.

Why? I've mentioned some reasons already, but I think the way our media currently deals with these issues is something worth noting. We don't have actual mainstream debates, even when important forces are at work, like determing an election. Serious discussion is not taken seriously in our society, and argumentation has a reputation that limits its appeal to soccer moms and overworked salarymen.

I think we need to adopt the mindset that continues to dominate the evangelical community, by making use of the the communication strategies that bypass the belief engine.

Did any of that make sense or am I full of shit?

I umderstand your point of view. I see the merit of your intentions.

However, engaging in debate with theists, while sometimes futile, often helps in a quest to understand the cause of the theism.

I have no research to cite concerning my next statement, only experience. When I have taught the basic principles of something to someone, then I have learned more myself. Even if the pupil has not learned the lesson, I have still expanded my knowledge because there is always something that still needs understanding until that something is mastered.

Discussing religion with yourself or a 'think tank' of like-minded people yields the expected result without necessarily examining every argument. In fact, I would posit that if not for reading something that a theist would say then we would not be made to think further than our own questions, which in reality are very few.

Recently, I've been talking with 'Junior', a church of christ member. He is genuinely a nice guy. I visited Junior at work and then stunningly he visited me at mine. Many minutes, nay hours, of conversations about nothing and everything finally came to a conclusion the other night. Junior looked at me and said, "I want to see, but I won't. I can't allow that because if I blaspheme then it's going to be harder for me to get into heaven."

I was dumbstruck. We had discussed science, psychology, ethics, and biblical 'issues' for a couple of hours a day for a week. All for nothing. Willful ignorance. Chosen stupidity because the threat of damnation is too much to bear.

At least he had the choice.

That seems to be the fundamental difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorant people have never been exposed to their irrationality. Stupid people simply choose to ignore it.

Would you want to let the world revel in ignorance?

I guess I'm not getting my point across as well as I'd hoped because I have the distinct impression that many of us see argumentation as the primary, and in some cases, only method of affecting people.

I'll try and be more specific, to see if that improves communication. I think entertainment media like The God Who Wasn't There and The Root of All Evil will ultimately be more effective than sitting down and arguing with a Christian about how they cherry pick the Bible to fit their own agenda.

I suppose The God Who Wasn't There is presenting an argument, but the feedback is delayed and it reaches more people than a debate. Entertainment can be effective in bypassing the belief engine. The brain according to James Alcock is a "belief-generating machine, a system that evolved to assure not truth, logic, and reason, but survival."

Most theists have poor critical thinking skills, and even the most arrogant believers can feel self-conscious when one of us demonstrates that we know more about their holy book than they do.

When people are self-conscious, they feel defensive, and are less likely to use their underdeveloped critical thinking skills. Entertainment is a way of breaking them down in a way that feels less invasive. A movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 does considerably more to advance a socio-political outlook than anything Michael Moore could say in a debate. .

We've all heard that a "Spoonful Of Sugar Helps The Medicine Go Down," and this is what I'm referring to, now in less abstract terms. This doesn't mean that we have to go out and makes a bunch of movies, because there's more than one way to accomplish the same task. Marketing is a highly effective strategy for getting a message out to people, and theists have been using it with fantastic results for centuries.

Organizations like The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada don't depend on debate to get their message across. Even the door to door missionaries rely on other tactics to convince you to "hear their message." They show compassion, ask questions, socialize, and try to connect their observations with their ministry. It's a process of seduction, and as transparent as it may seem to us, it does work.

Argumentation doesn't reach enough people, and considering the amount of work that's involved, it's the least efficient method we have available of getting our message across.

Maybe I'm spending too much time at evangelical websites because the more I think about these issues, the more I think we need to turn what we offer into a product. We need to sell atheism, critical thinking, and skeptical inquiry. Take a look at the Christian Coalition of America if you get a chance. It'll probably make you vomit in your mouth, but it might give you a better idea of what I'm getting at.

I don't really look at my engagements with theists as debates, I look at them as interventions and lessons.

I am watching and reading this thread closely for ideas, as I have a load of respect for everyone posting in this thread so far.

Hasn't the RRS already been selling atheism, to a certain extent? More imporant than deconverting Christians is motivating atheists, as most don't actually care about religion. They just want to get on with life, and activism isn't on the table for them.

How much more difficult is it to sell atheism to Christians? I don't have the answer to that question, but any idea can be sold, as history has repeatedly shown us. If we can't sell atheism, then we can sell our view of Christianity.