This is something I think about a lot. We all know pure rhetoric is never going to deconvert someone, but a combination of “dark arts”, emotional vulnerability, and personal connection seems a likely recipe.
A quick summation of how I feel about religiosity: I hate the belief, but love the believer. I went through a long and painful deconversion process, so I can empathize with them. I know that religious people struggle with doubt and are probably terrified by the prospect of losing their faith. I’ve had the chance to go for the throat (so to speak) several times, but never had the conviction to do so.
So I guess the question you have to ask, is, what are you offering them in return? Keeping in mind that they are probably more of a “normal” than you are, how is it going to effect their social and psychological well-being? Do you anticipate that changing that one belief will manifest itself in greater mastery of rationality, or even a glimpse of the path? Or are you just stealing a childs safety blanket and telling them to grow up?
The only other mitigating factor I can think of is “raising the sanity waterline”, specifically by decreasing the overall population of virulent religious memes. But aren’t there probably better and easier ways of doing so that don’t involve randoms going through bleak existential withdrawl?
That’s a serious question, I’m not settled on the issue at all either. Of course, there are some people who will just need a push, a friend to tell them it’s ok. If they seem like they can thrive as an athiest, due to humanist values, being contrarian, courageously facing the truth, or whatever, I don’t see why not.
I don’t see how this relates to the original post, this strikes me as a response to a claim of objective/intrinsic morality rather than the issue of resolving emotional basilisks vis-a-vis the litany of tarsky. Are you just saying “it really depends”?