How to listen when you disagree

If I really want to convince someone of something, its the last thing I do. The first thing I do is befriend them. They could have wildly different opinion on a subject that I think is dangerous, and its the last thing I would talk about,if we even got that far.

I establish first the common ground,not even touching on hot button topics. I find anything we can agree upon "those are cool shoes" and start up a normal conversation void of any intent. If people have their guard up "convincing" is never gonna happen. Too many want to try and force their opinion on others through weight of logic and debate. I find that very lacking and unfruitful. I get to know them,make them laugh,listen to them,ask questions,actually care to get to know them. The little personality traits they display will help establish a raport and know your angle of approach. They will see I am funny and want to make them laugh and have things in common. No rush to convince them of anything. Its like you dont rush trying to get someone to sleep with you by pressuring them. You make the experience pleasant and make them want to engage while you pick up little things about them that will help you get your point across. Its easier to convince a friend to do something than an enemy.

Rush nothing and let things play out, if the correct opportunity doesnt arrive then let it pass. When or if you see them again they will remember you in a positive light and you can continue in that way. When the time is right start with the smallest of things to get them to agree with you. Something or anything you know they will like "those are cool shoes arent they?". Them agreeing with you on the smallest of things primes the pump for them to agree on larger. Their mind is already agreeing with you and sees you as friendly. Then ever so slowly start to build on that, all while being content to walk away having "proved" nothing yet always building towards it.

As some would say, be wise as a serpent.

I've been an atheist all my life, and as such have hung around on the fringes of the atheist movement. Over that time I've observed that the best way to get people to move away from faith is to let them question it themselves. I've seen so many flamewars where people just dig in and lob grenades at each other, and no-one moves. But the people who do rationally question their faith themselves - those are the people who move around. They don't change themselves because of an opponent's "perfect logical statement". It's also a slow process - most people moving away from faith take years to do it, at least, the ones I've seen.

I remember an episode of The Spirit Of Things, where they were talking to an atheist who used to be very christian, and was going to an adult Sunday School. She turned herself atheist by simply asking a lot of questions, like "wasn't it wrong of God to ask Isaac to slay his son in the first place". The more questions she had, the more she said the answers sounded more like evasion than solid moral grounding; that the priest was only able to excuse biblical actions rather than explain a real moral lesson from them. So she asked more questions and grew more and more dissatisfied with the lack of internal consistency.

Long story short, it means I see a point in asking people of their histories, and getting them to think about why they're where they are today; why they do the things they do today. I don't think that that means biography excuses bad actions, but that getting someone to give something deeper about themselves rather than just rote talking points... it brings something else to the table. It can also be interesting in and of itself.

TL;DR: You're more likely to win people over by inviting them than by opposing them. :)

I think it's sad that you think that "a lot of forgiveness, compassion, patience, and courage" is the hallmark of a hero, rather than the hallmark of a mature person. The article never said anything about heroism.

Likewise. The last time I properly tried to understand someone with whom I disagreed, it was a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked on my door. I was respectful, and gave them a solid chance to explain why they believed as they did, and the guy did open up a bit about the way that his existential fears during the Cuban missile crisis lead him back to the church for comfort, but it fairly rapidly came down to their dogma. They seemed very genuine, so maybe I just didn't ask the right questions at the right time.

it depends if one is set out to dominate; in this case the mode of discussion will probably be adversary.

maybe understanding the motives of your peer is one of the requirements for domination (you can't dominate someone who you don't understand at all), but understanding does not imply domination.

there is another problem: your peer will probably not be ready to share much of his background for fear of your motives; if you know that your words can be used against yourself, then you will not be ready to talk too much.