There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with someone in public, as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. I've seen this happen in creationism/evolution debates: the only way to win a debate with a creationist is by trouncing them so hard that the peanut gallery silently drifts toward accepting evolution. And, invariably, someone claims that this strategy is completely ineffective because it fails to convince the one hard-line religious nut that you're arguing with. (I'm sure other examples exist, but I'm most familiar with this one.)
It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges.
In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible).
For example, here's my argument about why I'm an atheist:
God gave humans rational minds where he gave animals teeth and claws. He surely didn't give us rational minds so that we would stop using rationality. Thus, God intended humans to be atheists at first. If He intended humans to be faithful (which you claim) then he intended it not as a counter to rationality but as the result of the application of rationality. Just as the bird is meant to flap its wings in order to alight, the human is meant to exercise the full strength of his rationality in order to thrive.
By contrast, God also created angels, who lack the problem of rationality-inspired doubt. They are in essence "faith robots" who are incapable of achieving faith, since they start out with it. Such a being is really little more than a slave or automaton.
As we all know, the plight of humans toward faith is a far higher cause than if we were simply pre-programmed. God intended humans to have a journey whose reward at the end (a solid, rational, unwavering faith) is not something that can be gained by reciting something as a child or sitting unquestioningly in a pew, but must (and should) be earned via the most earnest rational inquiry one can muster.
Thus I, an atheist, am completely confident that if God one day wishes me to be faithful I will discover that faith through the same process of rationality that currently makes me an atheist. QED.
A counterargument that I've heard to abbreviated forms of this argument runs like, "God gave us the ability to feel lust and envy, as well, but that doesn't mean that He intends us to follow through with fornication and coveting, and we know this because He told us so in His inerrant Word..." ;)
Lust is a variation on an emotion that is necessary to truly be close to God, known as rapture. Lust is simply the profane version of it. We may misuse any of the gifts God gave us, but that doesn't mean that their intended purpose isn't to bring us closer to him.
Ok, so presumably you have enough of a religious background to argue from the viewpoint of your opponent. There are advantages to that approach but also disadvantages.
The advantage is that, if there is any claim to rationality in your opponent's view, you can use it to build a bridge to alternate viewpoints that they'd never normally consider. It can be very persuasive.
The downside is that this persuasiveness can be so strong as to feel invasive. That can provoke an angry reaction; in some countries it could endanger your life. There's a reason that several religions prescribe harsh punishment for apostates: someone who has left a religion knows enough about it (and about what they see as its shortcomings) to be dangerously good at 'leading others astray'.
In addition, by arguing from their axioms you are implicitly accepting large parts of their viewpoint which they can then use against you. For example, any sufficiently persuasive argument against Christianity from a Christian viewpoint can be met with "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Why should they trust someone who seems to acknowledge Christianity as true, only to argue against it? Surely only someone on the side of the devil would fight God while acknowledging his existence.
And once they've labeled you as being on the side of devil, the more persuasively you argue, the more sure they'll be that they're right ... and that you're just deliberately lying to lead them astray.
Good points. In response to the "devil could use scripture for his benefit" I'd argue:
What tool did God give only to humans to bring them closer to Him? Rationality. Thus, who would want you to suppress this but God's opponent Satan.
What does this irrational faith look like? It's like the child's faith in the easter bunny, juvenile and hollow, the kind that will not stand up to scrutiny. Is this the kind of faith that God intended for you? Did He want you to simply claim things that you do not fully believe? Did He want your prayers to be lies or mere wishes?
All I am arguing is that God wants your faith to come from his greatest gift to you, which is Reason, not from the part of you that can easily lie to yourself about things, for that is what Satan is trying to harness.
Satan knows that faith is difficult and knows that you would happily take the easy way out. He knows that you would enjoy patting yourself on the back for being more faithful than others and for enjoying the resulting feelings of superiority. It is Satan's victory over God when your faith is shallow and self-serving.
Only a solid, adult faith that has been honed by every ounce of your rationality can help you get closer to god by avoiding the various traps laid by Satan.
And that might even work on some people. The problem is that as far as I know, there is actually support in the New Testament for blind faith - something about a doubting Thomas.
When fundamentalists say there's no morality outside of the bible, I've tried telling them to look at certain parts of the Buddhist scriptures (which in my opinion covers some of the moral parts of religion without the blind belief parts). But it just seems to go over their head. Anything outside the bible is suspect. If it seems to contradict the bible, it must be devilish. Etc.
Not every religion has a Kalama Sutta (also known as "Buddha's charter of free inquiry").
Doubt as a path towards (deeper) religious faith lies at the heart of the story of Saint Thomas the Apostle. Note in this respect the theological views of Georg Hermes:
... the starting-point and chief principle of every science, and hence of theology also, is not only methodical doubt, but positive doubt. One can believe only what one has perceived to be true from reasonable grounds, and consequently one must have the courage to continue doubting until one has found reliable grounds to satisfy the reason.[3]
Okay! A well thought-out argument about religion/atheism. It's very rare thing.
I'm a theist, but the way I see it, God made atheists (or made the conditions under which atheism would occur) to get a new and important perspective on things (eg God, science, society).
The irony of it all is this: the atheists I have met are generally devout servants of God who deny his existence. And yet I hear those of suspect motives condemn atheists!
Arguments won via "Argument by The Stick" will work only as long as our institutions of learning continue turning out more sheeple than rational humans (once upon a time, this was not true in the U.S.; I know because an elderly friend of mine was required to take a "Critical Thinking" class in high school).
As for the "advertising immunization shots" the author of the article talks about, the authors experience is beautiful confirmation of what C.S. Lewis writes in the first few chapters of "The Abolition of Man".
If you argue with someone in public, as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you.
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Often, victory is achieved in ways that damage reasoned public discourse, even when the "right" side wins. And the "right" side doesn't always win.
