Skeptics Should Argue with Theists

There is a fundamental difference between arguing with Theists and persuading come Theists to convert to atheism.Arguing with Theists pleases an audience outside of the Theist community, the Theists themselves get pleased when other Theists argue back at the atheists and put them 'in their place' so to speak. Arguing achieves very little other than to please a bloodthirsty audience and to make the opposing side feel stupid and humiliated. It is not the same as appealing to Theists in order to persuade them of the truth of atheism, this is not arguing at all. Arguing is tearing at the Theist's logic in a manner that directly offends, or humiliates the one making those arguments and, at its worst, results in the terrorism that Theists have become infamous for resorting to (I am referring to people like Guy Fawkes who directly fought for religious purposes as opposed to organized terrorism for political reasons that coincidentally are done by people of a certain religious outlook).The fact is that arguing has no positive outcome unless you're trying to appear smart and bully your opponent into submission, as both Pro and I could be doing in this debate.Debating is the hub of both persuasion and arguing and the difference between the two is most significantly highlighted in debating. I could begin tearing apart Pro's logic in the next round, and I probably will because I do not fear a violent backlash from Pro as opposed to what I'd expect form Theists if I continually offended and humiliated their most revered intellectuals very openly and without any shame. I am both persuading Pro and arguing with them in this debate.I do not hope to achieve anything constructive, in my relations with Pro, by the arguing, only by the persuading do I hope to achieve this.Let me give an example to highlight the difference between persuading and arguing:(1) "Theism is fundamentally flawed because there is no need for a God's existence. Therefore, believing in God is irrational and you should become atheist because the tri-omni God cannot both allow evil to exist and expect to be considered worthy of worship."(2) "God is a great source of morality and religion has done many great things in the past but through compassion and empathy, God may not be so strongly needed for you to lead happy and fulfilling lives as citizens of a moral society."Can you work out which is a strong argument for atheism and which is a strong persuasion towards it?The correct answer is that No. 1 is the argument and No. 2 is the persuasive tactic.No. 1 is guaranteed to get an uproar of applause form an atheistic audience and an uproar of rage and offence from a Theistic one. There is not use of doing it other than to keep those who are already atheist from remaining to be so. It is more likely to cause an aggressive backlash from Theists, resulting in them holding their views even stronger than before the argument. On this, it is more likely that Theists will now have the motivation to spread their 'lies' (as atheists call them) and therefore, if anything, would result in Theism spreading faster and more persistently than prior to this argument being presented.No. 2 is different to an argument in that it infiltrates from within the belief system of Theists. It shows reverence and respect to their ancestry and the role of God in the past that they are so proud of and hold dear to their hearts, it then gently suggests that because times have moved on, this magnificent God may not be needed for a morally beautiful society to proceed. Of course this wouldn't persuade extreme Theists, who worship their God regardless of its effect or the results of that belief but it would definitely have an effect on consequential Theists who find comfort in the idea of God out of anxiety for what society would become without religion. In the past there have indeed been societies saved by religion but due to progress of science and the ability to objectively analyze the suffering actions cause and to create sophisticated laws that take motives into account, it's possible for a secular society to be as morally rich as a Theistic one. The realization of this may indeed convert many Theists to atheism.The fundamental difference between argumentation and persuasion is that argumentation seeks to tear apart the history and reasoning of Theists in order to convert them immediately in the hopes that the future will be an entirely atheistic one whereas persuasion respect the history and reasoning of Theists and expects a lengthy, difficult transition for converts that the persuader will be with the Theist every step of the way to help move on.In essence it comes down to timing.Arguing:Attacks the past, tries to cause immediate conversion in the present and has over-expectations of the future.Persuading:Respects the past, uses the present to set converts off on the long journey to atheism and has reasonable expectations of the future.I am also yet to meet a single Theist-to-atheist convert who converted due to the arguments presented by atheists as opposed to emotional struggles leading them away from God. Arguing doesn't convert any Theists. It might convert agnostics or deists but it's never likely to convert Theists because they are the victims in any argument that atheists make.In conclusion, arguing with Theists achieves nothing constructive in the long run, only destructive outcomes will commence. Arguing Theism itself may be constructive, if done in a community where either no Theists are present to be offended or only Theists capable of being objective on such sensitive matters are present.