JT, just let me know how to hack the sound system and I will introduce the debate to the mortal kombat intro. 

I remember the old Ben when he wasn't as respectful. I noticed the change after him and Bryan had a big debate where they threw a lot of insults at each other. I like the new more respectful Ben.  I hope Ben destroys you in the debate.  

I don't like evangelism in any form, even if it's (admittedly oxymoronic) "atheistic evangelism." Regardless of the dogma, lack of respect makes me want to return it in kind, and in droves. 

@jai_ko - I think it works best to have both ('nice' and diplomatic vs confrontational and mocking) working together rather than arguing over either/or.
Though it seems to be mostly the 'diplomats' arguing that we shouldn't have 'warriors' rather than the other way 'round.
The confrontationists have plenty of anecdotes supporting their approach while I can see plenty of failure of those being overly diplomatic.  The diplomatic approach often seems to let the idiots get away with their idiocies which often results in trampling on others.

@EricBeck - you got a point there.. I thought about it, and I'd be abhorred to see religious equivalent of Sarah Palin blabbering off on TV, without any opposition.

@jai_ko - First I'd like to note that using the term 'militant' regarding atheists is pretty irksome.  There isn't much in the way of anyone taking up arms in the name of atheism.  JT pointing and laughing at someone that believes in talking snakes and Jewish zombies is not equivalent to the Taliban pointing AK-47s and grenade launchers at you.  The 'warrior' thing is not literal.

Many of the confrontationalist sorts I've read (including JT, I think) have pointed out that when they're arguing they are generally not expecting or really attempting to convert the person they are speaking to.  Rather, they are pointing out how bad those ideas are to maybe get through those in the audience who are more on the fence for not having been as informed or thought it through or otherwise being misled as to the weight of evidence.  Like the recent discussion with Bakersdozen2...someone that doesn't know better might think she knows what she's talking about.

Also, they have at least anecdotes about how the mockery or otherwise directly pointing out that someone is wrong gets those people to think about it and possibly investigate more (perhaps in an attempt to prove the evil atheist wrong) until they eventually come around.  (I've met people who credit JT with exactly that.)

The argument has been made that one common way that kids grow out of believing in Santa is by other kids laughing at them for still believing such silly things.  So for those who didn't get to their current beliefs through logic, mockery does seem to be a good weapon.  Mockery is also a good weapon for keeping the idiots from spreading their bad ideas.  How many people will hang around and listen to, and take seriously, the town laughingstock?  And then if someone does want the logic and evidence to back up why you're making someone a laughingstock...it's really great we have people like JT that can clearly articulate it.

That said, I definitely think you should tailor your message to the situation and goal.  JT can certainly be diplomatic.  Understanding the psychology of understanding people and getting your message through is important.  I just don't see the 'nice' and diplomatic approach getting all that far...it mostly just seems to mean the believers need weaker defenses to continue muddling along.

I may just have to attend this one. 

This entire thread seems to be about what's been discussed a lot recently, much in thanks to Phil Plaits now (in)famous "Don't be a Dick" Speech at TAM. I've posted quite a bit about this at my blog (recent example), but I'll summarize my position here:

- Non-critical thinking isn't just silly, it's dangerous: Major diseases are on the rise thanks to anti-vaxxers. Rejection of evolution makes creation of new treatments impossible. Not understanding what we're doing to the planet dooms us..... These are potent examples of greatest harm, but even smaller things that are generally consider "safe" magical thinking, like fortune tellers have horrible effects when they whip up an angry mob by accusing someone of stealing and that person is savagely beaten without any credible evidence (to cite a recent case). Things that harm civilization should not be respected or tolerated. People should feel bad about employing them, just as people should feel bad about stealing or murder.

- A lot of people don't have the good sense to feel bad about these things: Many people refuse to accept that their position may be wrong and to look at the damage it causes. If careful explanation cannot reach them, perhaps a good verbal slap in the face will. It's not a first approach method, but some people need to be made to feel bad since they're doing bad things. Thus, an aggressive approach has it's place. Christians know the power of making people feel guilty to affect a response. They call this "convicting" people of their sins. I generally consider this an abusive strategy (essentially a guilt trip) because the action (sin) for which they're being convicted, cannot be demonstrated objectively. It's a false conviction, whereas the damages that pseudo-science is wreaking is very real.

- Worldviews that encourage such anti-critical thinking are a large part of the problem: Religion codifies anti-critical thinking and even promotes it as a virtue. While this may seem innocuous, the human mind tends to let things spill and this poor thinking becomes habit. This is demonstrated in that many scams tend to play off religious sympathies, such as Nigerian Email scams frequently claiming to be from Good Christians. Scammers know that eliciting sympathy based on poor thinking returns a better yield and religious sympathies are the easiest to exploit.

Taking these three things together, we should not be meek about confronting non-critical thinking. We should be strident and passionate. We don't need to beat people down, but humiliation is a proper and useful tool. It serves as an example for others (by modeling a situation they should avoid even if they don't [yet] understand the issues) and discourages continued action from the receiver. Additionally, religion should not be exempt from this criticism.

@TheSutraDude - If you visit my blog, I have a post tag for the "basics" and went through a good deal of the basic science in astronomy. Furthermore, Astronomy news sources can be a good start. I write for Universe Today and most of my writing is friendly to laymen with a familiarity with the terms.

@VoijaRisa - "This entire thread seems to be about what's been discussed a lot recently....."

@jai_ko