I'm not sure if this is precisely the correct forum for this, but if there is a better place, I don't know what it would be. At any rate...
I'm a student a Catholic university, and there are (as one might surmise) quite a lot of Catholics here, along with assorted other theists (yes, even some in the biology faculty). For this reason, I find myself acquiring more and more devoutly Catholic friends, and some of them I have grown quite close to. But the God issue keeps coming up for one reason or another, which is a source of tension. And yet as I grow closer to these people, it becomes clearer and clearer that each theist has a certain personal sequence of Dark Arts-ish levers in eir head, the flipping (or un-flipping) of which would snap em out of faith.
So the question is this: in what situations (if any) is it ethical to push such buttons? We often say, here, that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, but these are people who have built their lives around faith, people for whom the Church is their social support group. If it were possible to disillusion the whole world all at once, that'd be one thing - but in this case my options are limited to changing the minds of only the specific individuals I have spent time getting to know, and the direct result would be their alienation from the entire community in which they've been raised.
And yet it is the truth.
I'm conflicted. LessWrong, what is your opinion?
Exactly this. Let's do something better than just authority figures walking around, each one trying to convert people by Dark Arts. Try to find something that is above "my faith vs. your faith".
What I usually do is express that although I consider all religions elaborate fairy tales, in my opinion there is no big harm in believing anything, as far as the religion does not make one do crazy things, such as murdering people who disagree with them. Therefore I don't even try to convert people. (I just make it obvious that their attempts to convert me are futile. If necessary, I listen to their arguments, and they just say that they don't seem very impressive to me.)
For an average person, being religious is really not a big cost; there are probably other things in their life which harm them more. For example, the greatest cost in my opinion, wasting one's Sundays in church, is comparable by wasting time procrastinating online. Limitations in sexual life because of faith are comparable with limitations in sexual life because of lack of social skills. Belief in angels is not worse than belief in horoscopes of UFOs. Etc.
On the other way, expressing my tolerance to religion is not completely innocent. First, I indirectly remind people that religions make people do crazy things; that modern theists are culturally closer to modern atheists than to homicidal old-testament prophets, or medieval crusaders. According to religion, those homicidal guys were the cool guys, but most theists would accept that only in far mode. (A religious fanatic is one that accepts their religion also in near mode.) Second, instead of discussing "the Truth", I turn attention to the instrumental side of religion. This is subversive even if I claim than religion is instrumentally useful, because theists are expected to believe regardless of personal benefits; considering personal benefits as relevant is already a heresy. Third, Pascal's mugging actually works in my favor, because people don't like to be mugged. I can accept people being religious, but their priest probably would not accept them considering ateism; therefore I am the person they can speak with freely.
I think it is important to avoid mindkilling. Also I think that theism is based on mindkilling, so by avoiding mindkilling one is already making a silent statement against theism. An attempt to convert someone might provoke resistance, or warn other people in their social circle to increase their pressure and maybe even make them break contact with me. On the other hand, just knowing me personally is a silent everyday reminder that being an atheist is normal.