You are incorrect. Let's take away by "no one ever" for a second. You would struggle greatly against anyone with any level of aptitude for research if you tried to take the position you're taking in arguing that the bombastic approach is more effective historically. You guys conflate being assertive with being a douchebag and that's the point you guys keep missing. I go hard at people's heads at times because certain situations call for it, but it never involves calling them an idiot. The only way the stance you're taking can many any sort of sense or have any sort of current or historical bearing is if you assume what I'm saying is akin to the CNN habit of pretending everyone is making an equally reasonable point or that we should let people make arguments unabated.
If we really sat down, tossed out our collective anecdotes (and I've got more than most people) and did a historical analysis and a positive analysis, the weight of history and the present are both greatly on my side in educated societies. The only thing more effective is brutally imposing your belief upon others. As someone who watches government and how messages have to be communicated and how coalitions are built you know this.
No, I'm not remotely close to being off base (though the site lagged and cut of my message). But save yourself the trouble, on a serious note. You can find any outlier you want and try to string them all together, but the weight of evidence historically and in the present is on my side. But quite frankly if I actually do show you why you're wrong, it would be like writing an essay and I mean an ACTUAL essay. Needless to say the approach of, "But you're wrong because of XYZ and you're assuming TVU when in actuality it means XYS and I understand why you would believe ABC, but it is weakened by WXYZ" has always been more effective in garnering widespread support than bashing people over the head and calling them idiots. People do not like being attacked maliciously and in a demeaning manner. Just the idea that they're being attacked turns them off to what you may be saying.
You cannot use the approach used on children with adults outside of other circumstances (usually having a certain connection or affinity or identity within a group I.E. Malcolm X in certain speeches). That situation is not present when trying to convince a stranger of the irrationality of their religiosity. There is nothing general to what I am saying except that it is generally applicable. I also can find outliers to what I've said, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
There are more people like TrueEpic who cosigned me in this thread than there are people like you who would be persuaded the other way. Everything I said is relevant to this topic because it applies in every situation. It is understood by seasoned arbitrators and negotiators and judges. It is such an understood concept that--I won't lie--it's annoying me to debate it. I feel like anyone who has studied the art of persuasion should understand it. There are forums where the opposite is true, and we should know what those are.
But like I said, this thread was not going to be about me and so you can reply if you want but I have no intention of going back and forth. We all just have to agree to disagree, because this is a minute point and not worth swerving the thread. If you want to make a thread about the art of the argument and persuasion then you are obliged to do so. 
(my battery is about to die)
This is a truly baffling and bizarre duo of posts. So much so that they prompted me to go back and read my posts you responded to to make sure I didn't type something I didn't mean to type.
I did that, and now I'm left wondering are your reading comprehension skills truly this dismal, or do you have such a hard-on for confrontation that you're being purposefully obtuse.
You are stating that generally speaking, people prefer to be talked to in a non-abrasive, respectful tone and that is generally a better means to come to compromise and agreement on matters. Basically you just stated the old adage "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar" plus some pomposity and condescension.
Well no shyt. I don't disagree with that as general principle I never said I did. I will repeat what I did say and elaborate with specificity and detail as I stated I would earlier when I had some time.
I am saying that when it comes to conversion of young peoples are who susceptible to questioning and changing their beliefs from religious to nonreligious, a more strident, bombastic approach has greater production.
I'm not talking about getting people to like you, or coming together, or finding common ground, or compromising or building some interfaith coexist bumper sticker we-are-the-world coalition. I'm talking about inciting a sea change in belief, and I'm specifically talking about young people in their teens and 20's whose frontal lobes aren't fully developed yet.
I know this from experience, deep thought, and real world evidence. As I stated, I was one of those who was converted from fundamentalist Christianity to non-religiosity after being exposed to ideas of people online when I first got the internet, as well as reading up on philosophy upon entering college...the "Retreat of the Gods" essays, Neitzsche, Hume, etc. The more strident, forceful approach is what jars people out of their status quo.
But forget about me. Ask around to young people who left their religion, as I have, and you will find that the vast majority of the times, it was the message hitting them in the face like a shovel, with piercing logic, undeniable fact, and razor sharp dissections of the claims of religion, not some meek, tiptoeing "we must respect religions" type shyt.
That's why Dawkins, the most public face of strident atheism made such a splash with The God Delusion.
Converts' Corner - Page 1 - RichardDawkins.net
That's why you're seeing religion on such a rapid decline among the youth in the past 10 years. It's no coincidence that this is happening as more and more people are online and exposed to sharp critiques of religion that previous generations pre-information age were not.
I'm not sure why you're fixed on this straw man of "you guys" whoever "we" are calling people idiots. But for the record, no I don't think calling people idiots makes anyone warm up to your argument. You attack the flaws in the ideology and factual basis of the religion, not the person who believes it.
I'm not talking about congressmen trying to negotiate policy on Capitol Hill, or some bullshyt "open dialogue on race" at a college. I'm talking about the potentiality of discarding their religion of primarily young folks who are susceptible to it. And when it comes to that, yes, absofukkinglutely a bombastic sledgehammer to religion approach IS more successful without a doubt.
Quite frankly, you lack credibility and have no depth or understanding or real world experience whatsoever of this matter. You never even explored it in depth, or experienced some of the conditions and pressures that causes shifts in religiosity to arise, or dialogued with people who changed their views about it in depth.
It's hilarious that it took you all these years to finally realize that many of the posters here who show some hostility or resentment toward religion is because their experiences differ drastically from yours, up there in liberal secular ass Rhode Island or wherever.
I could've told you that shyt a long time ago. If it took you that long for that light bulb to go off, you probably should ask yourself what other blindspots you have. For some of us, religion wasn't just some shyt to think about when you're feeling introspective, it was daily life.
I don't care how many meetings you went to in Washington. If you have to brag about that in this conversation where it has no application or bearing at all, that should be a sign of the struggle in your argument.
You are right about one thing, though. You're not remotely off base. You're off base by miles.
