Let's also remember there are people who believe that insults and condescension are the least effective ways to help someone see they are acting irrationally, and that attacking a group of people's shared identity is the worst way to work with them on the substance of the challenges of our time.
> attacking a group of people's shared identity is the worst way to work with them on the substance of the challenges of our time
"when we insult their intelligence and mock the things they hold sacred, they fight harder against us. maybe we should try something different?"
"are you crazy? they're bad guys. they believe what they want, regardless of what empirical reality says. now let's do the exact same thing again, maybe it will work better this time."
You're right it's a poor way to change someone's mind, and certainly doesn't foster inclusion, but what of people who are still making up their mind? Mainly, I'm talking about young people who have been raised in a mostly religious context, but haven't gone head-over-heels yet.
It might be that challenging superstition in the most brutal way possible (outside of physical violence, that is), serves to promote more rational beliefs among this group.
I doubt it. I won't repost my other comment which addresses this [1] but in my opinion people like Dawkins are fanatics. And science/atheist fanatics are no better than religious fanatics. Religious fanatics drive me away from religion but Dawkins fanaticism drives me away from atheism.
I think it's calm, rational argument that has swayed me most away from religion. Just a simple thought experiment:
1. You think religions like scientology are crazy.
2. You believe in a man who was born of a virgin, died, rose from the dead, and who hundreds of millions of people eat and drink every weekend.
3. How can you call them crazy when you believe that?
Even still it's hard for me to get off the fence but simple arguments like that, which aren't arrogant and totally patronising, but lay out the facts in an honest way, are what convince people.
I think the problem with a more aggressive approach is arrogance. Most religious people probably accept they could be wrong - their belief is based on faith. But aggressive atheists argue that religious people are wrong and stupid when from a religious persons perspective the atheist has no proof they are wrong. Evolution is real and correct but isn't proof their is no God. Atheists say it's not up to them to prove their is no God, it's up to religious people to prove their is. But if you're calling someone out as wrong they will think you need to prove it. Because there is and never will be a way to disprove the existence of a God I don't think this approach works. You have to present the facts in a way that is honest but in a way that the other person hasn't thought about before.
