I'm currently in a communication class and the last type of speech we have to do is a persuasion speech. I was originally going to do the topic on why we need a separation of church and state in texas and what organizations to get involved with to help the cause. However, one student persuaded me with their speech to change my topic. He gave a speech on why he believed in a god and why everyone else should too. I took notes on his speech and will try and post it up in a different subforum more appropriate for that topic. After his speech, I was so angry at the inconsistencies and logical fallacies he gave to the class. He made special pleading, gave loaded questions without answers, misquoted atheist texts, brought up pascal while ignoring pascals wager, appealed to false authority, appealed to nature, etc. 

I now want to write a speech talking about how people should look into atheism. For theists, I would say it would be strengthening their faith to go out and talk with atheist communities. For those who are spiritual or questioning their religion, learning about atheism and finding the community would be a great way to broaden their understanding of the world around them and meet people of different world views. These are all college students. I feel that anyone that would reject the proposal is saying that they want to stay close minded. 

There's a big problem with my speech. I keep taking a biased approach and my points seem to attack others beliefs rather than showing them what other (lack of) beliefs hold. For example, I was going to use John Oliver's speech about religion in schools, seeding into the church, televangelists, etc. I thought about bringing up catholic priest pedophiles, and the hate messages preachers like John Hagee gives. 

I also need to use Monroe's motivational sequence. 

• Step One: Get Attention. Get the attention of your audience. ...
  
  
• Step Two: Establish the Need. Convince your audience there's a problem. ...
  
  
• Step Three: Satisfy the Need. Introduce your solution. ...
  
  
• Step Four: Visualize the Future. Describe what the situation will look like if the audience does nothing.
  

so... what points can be made that are not biased or attacking that are persuasive enough to persuade an audience to look into atheism?

(November 28, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Ambiguous Atheist Wrote: so... what points can be made that are not biased or attacking that are persuasive enough to persuade an audience to look into atheism?

None. If someone doesn't come to the conclusion themselves or isn't already in doubt over their believes, there's no point to be made.

Apart from preaching the atheist gospel being on the same lines as any wayward christian missionary. An uncalled intrusion into an individual's life.

Otherwise, give your speech as you see fit and see who's responding. These are the ones you can have a debate with.

There are some people who are too stupid to be persuaded.

Sorry, I don't help people with their homework. Good luck, though.

Boru

No matter what you say those of faith will feel attacked. That's why there is so much issue with petty things like saying happy holidays to a Christian. So many get mad cause 'it's an attack on their beliefs'. I agree with just say what you feel and let their feelings be damned. Give good, logical, reasons and you can't get in trouble.

I think the most important thing will be spelling out exactly what it means. There are so many misconceptions and bolt-ons going around. Click here for my article about it if you like.

I made these videos regarding scepticism, maybe there's something helpful in here for you.

You might also try and think of some aspect of reality which you find as directly contradictory to the concept of god or knowledge of it (e.g. metaphysical materialism, scientific positivism, empiricism, etc.), and persuade about that reality or concept (rather than persuading AGAINST the concept of god... offer an alternative vision of reality or how to know reality, and let them figure out the implications for god on their own).

Oh yeah. Bring up the elastic nature of the word. What can we assume it means, before a particular theist has given us their version of it? Nothing, in my opinion.

Maybe you could try with something like: Maybe it would be OK to believe in version of the world that Bible proclaims which is that world is flat, that heavens are firmament trough which holes water falls on the world created by wizard in 6 days if we were living in primitive agrarian society, but we're not.
We live in highly technical society with nuclear bombs and pressing ecological problems for which it would be highly irresponsible and deadly to cling to some anachronistic sciences of ancient Egypt. By believing in them you automatically exclude yourself from participating in this modern world and you are practically an invalid that has to rely on rational people that took on medicine, nuclear energy, engineering and all other sciences that make our life better and that can't rely of promise of magical beings that Bible assures us will do all that instead.
Also this clinging to explanation of the world from the Bible is by authority and not observation, which means that you are always under their authority, for better or worse, but most of the time for worse, because you always owe them something, you're always not good enough for all the failures that come from their faulty claims you yourself will be for the blame. Reliance on faith—belief, without evidence is a danger to both science and society. The danger to science is in how faith warps the public understanding of science: by arguing that science is based just as strongly on faith as is religion; by claiming that revelation or the guidance of ancient books is just as reliable a guide to truth about our universe as are the tools of science; by thinking that an adequate explanation can be based on what is personally appealing rather than on what stands the test of empirical study.

For step one, declaring yourself to be an atheist should get you a lot of attention... negative or otherwise.

For step two onwards, I suggest start religions other than christianity. Mention the oldest religions, how they affected society, and how they gave way to newer religions. Work your way up to islam, and establish how it shares concepts with those older-and-non-christianity religions. Once that is established, then move to christianity and show how it is basically the same concepts, same mythologies, and same stupidity just in a slightly different package.

As for step three, the solution to religion is education, so show how even religion has changed and evolved through the ages with rise in education, and how lack of religion leads to better society.

For step 4, well, I am in a bit of doubt about the future after trump, so you are on your own here. Just try to stay positive and not think about trump too much