Before I say anything, I'd like to say that convincing other people to become atheist is really hard. Really hard. I wish you the best of luck if you want to go through with it.
I think that if someone isn't already atheist, explaining to them why they should be will need to cover a lot of ground before its likely to work, and will probably need to be really long.
You never know until you correct a previously false belief. If you care about anything, you should try and hold only true beliefs, because one false belief can be enough to destroy what you hold dear.
This conclusion isn't obvious to non-LW readers, so you should try unpacking your thinking a little bit. I think you should stick a real life example in here to make it more tangible, ideas like this tend to be glossed over when read casually.
one false belief can be enough to destroy what you hold dear.
Many people hold beliefs dear.
If someone proposes you to adopt one, do not drink that cup, it's poisoned.
If you have any advice about how to detect flaws in reading, tell them how. Most people would that they shouldn't adopt obviously fallacious modes of thought, but most don't know that they have cognitive biases built-in.
Note that all three answers share a common structure.
Most people will not leap to probability from this.
Also, it might help to make it clearer that "I don't know" means that you spread out your probability.
There is hope however: if we are both reasonable, don't have flaws in our reasoning, have roughly equal access to evidence, and honestly attempt to reach the truth together, then we will eventually agree. At least one of us will radically change his mind.
Let's say that halfway through such a quest, you are still 99.999% confident the Earth is spherical, but I am only 60% confident. It means two things:
I changed my mind. We still disagree. This time, the disagreament is not as srong, but still significant: you estimate that flat Earth is barely worth considering. I on the other hand, think sailing West means 40% chances of falling at the edge of the world, which is just too risky.
This sweeps all of the math behind Aumann's Agreement Theorem under the carpet, and does so before people are convinced of the whole probability as belief point.
Also, there are very many visceral reasons that someone disagreeing with you feels like they're attacking you which you don't address.
Other notes:
I'd suggest that you talk about what constitutes proper evidence for a belief. Almost every religious person I know insists that something in their life shows them that God exists. I suggest mentioning (and explaining) belief in belief.
I hope that helps.
Before I say anything, I'd like to say that convincing other people to become atheist is really hard. Really hard.
I have to completely disagree, although in practice this will make no difference.
Convincing other people to become atheist is so easy that you don't even have to do it. They will do it all by themselves, given one condition. That one condition is that they value knowing what's real (which includes verification of "How do I know that what I know is true?") more than they value almost anything else - including fitting comfortably int...
I am trying to write a small essay about the issue. I intend to eventually submit it to reddit (both r/religion and r/atheism), and to show it to my family. This is basic stuff. I basically want to show that:
My hope is to be able to be able to have meaningful discussions about the topic without being called arrogant or disrespectful. The present draft still miss an introduction, but I think I'll just state what I told above. So, what do you think? Did I miss something? Did I underestimate inferential distances? Could I use other wording? Is this just pointless? Overall, how someone who've never read Less Wrong nor Dawkings might react to that?
Edits:
Missing Introduction
Truth is universal
We all live in the same world. Of course, each of us perceive it differently. We don't see the same things, we don't live in the same places, we don't meet the same people. Because of that and more, we don't hold the same beliefs. But there's only one reality. If a statement is true, it is so for everyone.
For instance, I happen to wear black socks at the time of this writing. Believe it or not, that's the reality, so "Loup was wearing blacks socks when he wrote this" is true for everyone, including you. Even if you believe I'm lying, I am wearing black socks. You can't be absolutely certain of this fact, but a fact it is.
Now imagine I believe the Earth is flat, and you believe the earth is (roughly) spherical. Those two beliefs are mutually contradictory. Clearly, one of us is mistaken.
We should avoid false beliefs
Holding false beliefs is dangerous. It has consequences, sometimes innocuous, sometimes tragic. You never know until you correct a previously false belief. If you care about anything, you should try and hold only true beliefs, because one false belief can be enough to destroy what you hold dear. Incidentally, that's basically why most of the time, lying is not nice.
Flaws in reasoning are even worse: they generate or sustain false beliefs. They are also more difficult to correct. Basically they're a reliable way to be wrong, which is potentially much more dangerous than any single wrong belief. If you find a flaw in your reasoning, eliminate it, then re-check your beliefs. If someone proposes you to adopt one, do not drink that cup, it's poisoned.
"I don't know" is a stance
Are my socks black? Think about it for 30 seconds, look at the evidence at your disposal, then answer honestly. There are 3 kinds of answers you might produce:
Note that all three answers share a common structure. They could all be phrased thus: "I estimate that the likelihood of your socks being black is X%". If X is close to 100%, you believe my socks are black. If it is close to 0%, you believe they're not. If X is, say, between 10% and 90%, then you're not sure. Anyway you're bound to choose a value for X, and that will be your stance. It is no less respectable than any other, provided you did your best to estimate the odds.
Disagreement is not intolerance
Say I'm 99.9% confident that the Earth is flat, and you are 99.999% confident it is spherical. If we also know of each other's opinion, then we automatically strongly believe the other is mistaken. This is not intolerance. This is the direct consequence of our respective beliefs. If you weren't so sure that I'm wrong, you wouldn't be so sure that the Earth is spherical either. This is a matter of consistency.
There is hope however: if we are both reasonable, don't have flaws in our reasoning, have roughly equal access to evidence, and honestly attempt to reach the truth together, then we will eventually agree. At least one of us will radically change his mind.
Let's say that halfway through such a quest, you are still 99.999% confident the Earth is spherical, but I am only 60% confident. It means two things:
This time, the disagreement is not as strong, but still significant: you estimate that flat Earth is barely worth considering. I on the other hand, think sailing West means 40% chances of falling at the edge of the world, which is just too risky.
No exception
These rules apply to any question. Even controversial, emotional questions. So. Is there a God?
Either there is a God, or there isn't. Either way this is a fact. Inevitably, of atheists and theists, one group is mistaken.
This is an important question. A wrong answer can for instance lead us to forsake our lives or our souls for naught.
Agnosticism is less comfortable than it sounds. First, agnostics disagree with both theists and atheists. Second, any significant evidence should mostly turn them into either theists or atheists. And the importance of the question suggest they should seek such evidence.
Many atheists are very sure there is no God, and many theists are very sure there is —even though they know of each other's opinions. Therefore, they both believe the other group is mistaken. This is not intolerance, this is consistency.
I'm worried however by the lack of consensus after all this time. "Is there a God" is an old and important question, and as far as I know, there is plenty of widely accessible evidence, and numerous debates. I suppose our thinking still have problems.
Now, is there a God? Your answer should be of the form "My estimate of the likelihood that there is a God is X%". Don't style yourself as an atheist, believer, or agnostic. Assess the evidence at your disposal (science, scriptures, what you where told…), then give your number. Just bear in mind these sanity checks:
Your estimate may be very close to either 0% or 100%, which means you are very confident. Just to be sure, could you live up to your confidence, and say to the face of someone of the opposite opinion "you are mistaken"?
On the other hand, your estimate may be close to 50%. Just to be sure, are you positive that the evidence at your disposal is that balanced? It is not stronger one way or another?
Like I said, these principles can apply to any question. Including the really scary ones, like "is there an afterlife?"