This is an attempt to have a 'meta discussion',  about how to fine tune our debating skills, rather than talking about specific theological / metaphysical issues.  It is aimed at fellow atheists, and I apologise to any religious people for being condescending.  Perhaps the same thread could be had 'on the other side of the fence', and we can peek over there some time.

Some evangelical people are trained in 'appearing to listen and be open minded', as a way of trying to convert people.  I think we atheists should adopt something of the same approach.  There's very little point in putting someone's back up, by pointing out where they're going wrong, they'll just dig their heels in more.  Perhaps (and I only say perhaps), it may be better to learn the art of simple naive questioning, so as to appear non confrontational, and let them work it out for themselves.  A Thus,

 'Just because you believe something, does that mean it's true ?', or  

' Why does God have a gender ?', or

'Why are you an atheist towards the other Gods (Thor, Allah etc. )'   might go somewhere, for example.

A bit like Louis Theroux's wonderfully innocent lines of questioning, if you know him.

I hope that this thread could be used to develop some empathetic communications skills.  How far do we attempt to empathise with Christianity ( or other religions ) ?  This is a very serious point - I hope that even someone who feels very threatened by religious fundamentalism (as do most liberal Christians, of course) can display some empathy in their discussion.  Is it worth reminding ourselves that the subjective sense of wonder felt by a mystic might be similar to the sense of wonder felt by an (non-theistic) astrophysicist ?  There must be something very deeply satisfying about having a faith in some sort of anthropocentric story to the  universe (yes, ignorant, I know, but that's not what I'm getting at here ) - should we remember to include phrases such as ' It must feel really nice to believe that, but .... ' ?  Some religious people (self deludedly, I know), believe they should remember God's love (and perhaps pity) for us before embarking on a debate.  Should we try to get into habits of reminding ourselves of our positive principles before we start getting confrontational  - be it humanistic positive regard, or scientific wonder at this paradoxical universe, the joy of intellectual freedom and honesty (freedom from religious oppression), or whatever ?  ( I imagine that revealing a love of intellectual freedom wouldn't go down well with an insecure bigot .. leave it for later ? )   It may also be helpful to get straight to the point with 'what is it that is really bothering them? Apart from the dogma, what do we both positively love / hate ?', and reframe it in non religious (and non confrontational) terms. Is it excessive individualism ? materialism ? consumerism ? the unpredictable nature of modern life ? the tendency to 'use' people? The devaluing of family and community in favour of economics ?  etc).  You never know, there may be so much common ground, it's only the precise details of the afterlife left to discuss.  And that's all hypothetical anyway, so we'll leave that for later.

Humility may go down well in dealing with religious people too.   (He says, preaching ! ). While we don't go around claiming we have 'the answer'  (and indeed, I imagine many religious people would be disturbed by such crude thinking), perhaps there is a tendency to think that replacing religious power structures with rational ones would necessarily bring a better world. An atheist utopia, dare I say it ? Maybe so, (and hopefully), but with billions of free thinking rational individuals .... Murphy's Law may be our only prophecy.  Or not.  I'm not saying what will happen.

Last and by no means least, humour may also be a far more persuasive tool than strident non-bible-bashing.  So perhaps this thread could be used to share humourous approaches.