In various forums you find arguments about religion, which religion is better, which is less evil, atheism is obviously superior to religion (and the correct way to believe), us vs. them.
It's always at best an approximation to assert binary sets, but there are two kinds of religion: false and true.
That doesn't help the discussion, at all, does it?
Okay, there are two kinds of religion, one which turns a blind eye to truth, and one which seeks truth. And it's always the other guy's religion that turns a blind eye to truth.
Does that help?
Arguing against the other guy's religion is not a good way to communicate. (And I find myself in a dilemma any time I'm talking with someone who claims a religion which includes as a precept the requirement of arguing against all other religions.)
And discussing religion with atheists is a particularly difficult job, because the atheist has often really convinced himself that believing in the non-existence of any God is somehow automatically superior to believing in the existence of any God.
Well, some people resolve the problem by refusing to discuss religion.
I prefer to resolve the problem by looking for points in common. Some people find it threatening to even consider points in common, but it's generally much easier to communicate when there are points you can agree on, and I think communication is generally a good thing.
Well, it's hard to find points in common when you don't know the other guy's assumptions and definitions, so I'll put down some of the definitions and assumptions I operate by, which I think I can sort of hope to find common ground with.
Maybe in another post.