In the realm of thinkings we are posed with four different (legit) methods of knowledge. These are reasoning, memory, perception and introspection. What I shall deal with today is the area of reasoning. Reasoning is divided into two categories, inductive reasoning and deductive.
Deductive Reasoning: reasoning from general thought to the specific.
Example: All cows have four legs. That is a cow, therefor it has four legs.
Inductive Reasoning: Reasoning from particular facts to a general conclusion.
Example: Out of a survey of 10 members of Congress, 9 of them took in illegal soft money brides. Therefore, the majority of a Congress people accept bribes.
What I'd like to pose to you today is the idea that both Theists and Atheists are duely logical. The only difference is their method of logic.
A theist relies on inductive logic to reach a conclusion, whereas an atheist relies on deductive.
We'll start with the theist and I'll give some example. Remember that a theist deduces from specific to general.
Morality
We have morals. If there was a God he would have given us morals. Therefore, because we have morals God gave them to us.
Fairness
We believe in a concept called fairness. If there was a God he would have instilled us with fairness. Therefore, because we have an idea of fairness God gave it to us.
Goodness
We believe that we can be good. If there was a God he would be the idea of what is perfectly good. Therefore, God is an example to us of how to be good.
Existence
We are all here, thus we exist. If there was a God he would have created us. Thus, because we exist God created us.
As you can see, all of these arguements are inductively logical. They rest in the idea of a specific idea (goodness, morality, fairness, existence) leading to a general (God).
What we must remember is that logics does not depend on the truthfulness of the statement, that is more the realm of philosophy. Logics is just concerned with whether or from the given premises the conclusion is logically sound.
Lets move on to atheism.
Morality
There is no God. I have morals. Therefore God isn't needed for morality.
Fairness
There is no God. I know what I believe to be fair. Therefore, God is not needed for a concept of fairness.
Goodness
There is no God. I know what I believe to be good. Therefore, God is not required for me to be good or perform good actions.
Existence
There is no God. I exist. Therefore God is not needed for my existence.
Now, the Atheistic approuch to God is dissimilar from the Theist, as you can see. The Atheist starts with the general (God) and goes to the specific (I am without God).
Neither of these two methods are logically fallible, they are just different methods of logic.
My emminent point: If you wish to speak with a person who believes opposite of you, whether an Atheist or a Theist, try logically thinking differently so that you can understand where they are coming from.
If you can deductively show an Atheist how can exists he is more likely to believe you than if you show him by inductive measures.
As well, if you show a Theist how God can exist inductively he is more likely to believe you than if you show him deductively.
This is simply a matter of how are brains work.
With all this said though, it's important to note that just because someone doesn't believe the same as you doesn't mean they are any lesser of a person. Try to seperate the argument from the person, because everyone deserves the same respect that you do.