Reductio ad Absurdum: How to most efficently communicate with theists

[_Velvet_]

Just a simple difference of opinion.  I guess I should be mor e precise, they are - to me- lost souls.  I have no ability to dissuade them, and no confidence that I will ever possess it.  

I can't really think like that, I understand your point ofc, but I really like seeking the truth through debate, so I usually ask " it matters if your book its really the truth? if it was false you would rather not knowing it?". If the person says it matters about if it is truth, then we have some ground already to work, we both want to seek the truth, and I'm not giving up this person... and as I said proving the Bible to not to be the word of his God its key.

I know -alot- of highly educated...abjectly ignorant, people.  Religious indoctrination -is- an education. 

It seems we would have to work some etymology so we'd come into a agreement, but I think you would agree that the enemy its not the believer, being a skeptic, thinking critically to investigate your beliefs its something you can learn, this knowledge its what I refered by "education" our weapon.

It is.  No one else is at fault or to blame for anyone else's misapprehensions, particularly so in some imagined war against the fairy kingdom.  

I know, I know, it's everyone else's fault, particularly atheists......those poor, suffering believers. Like I said, we have a difference of opinion...lol.

I paint landscapes -without- a god in them. That's all I do, all I can do. That's my total contribution, the grand sum of any effort I spend. Whether or not a person chooses to place themself in that landscape or villify me (or blame me.......for something...) for the very act of painting it is their own, damned, business

The concept I apply here its the fault for omission, the moment you realize that you can help but you choose to not get your hands dirty, its the moment when you acquire responsibility. I apply that to skepticism, the moment someone shows him/herself concerned about the truth, but deluded, you might be able to help, if you don't, because you are concerned about other things, like attacking his delusion, then yeah you are to blame for his condition.

In your case, as a painter, if you do fell that this is your way of doing it instead of teaching verbaly, then perhaps you are already risking yourself and dirtying your hands.

.  To illustrate, succinctly, what I mean.  It doesn't matter to me whether or not someone was indoctrinated into the cult of vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice.  I don't place the responsibility, for that, on them. -No one does- Many people are...but ultimately, each one of them decides whether or not they -agree- with it.  There, that, is their responsibility and no one else's.  Educating them wont change that agreement.  If it did, it would have.  They've been educated.  Whether or not it even happened...irrelevant, they agree with the principle.  Whether or not I disagree or can mount an argument against it..irrelevant, they already -have- their arguments, they do not feel compelled by my own.  This shit is -all- on them...there is no captain save-a-ho "we have to do this and that for these poor people" - to me.

Actually I think that most do.

Are you sure they do decide?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRIcbsRXQ0o
I'm not.

It did to some people I know of, being educated about why and how should them be skeptical can really save them, provided they are interested in seeking truth on the first place (thats why I ask if they care for if it is truth, learned that from Matt Dillahunty, I like the way he can (most of the times) explain how to think logically to very deluded and/or ignorant people, I took what I could from that and included in my theist-talk strategy)

I strongly disagree but I can't really know because I suppose it really depends on how persuasive you are, perhaps for you expressing your skepticism thought your painting its the best you can do to help them, but I'm certain that at least 1 person was turned skeptical or atheist by hearing Dawkins or Harris speaking, so why should we conclude we would not succeed?