In life, it is often true that before you can build something new, you first have to tear down something old. It’s been observed that many atheists have quite strong “faith” in their outlook and world views. So before they can even become receptive to new ideas, their currently “full” cup must be emptied. Anyone attempting to help someone empty a cup they are grasping tightly should expect quite a bit of resistance. But resistance isn’t always a retreat, or abandonment of the engagement, quite the opposite. If they are resisting, but not retreating, and are willing to engage, is that enough to allay any concerns about “coercing” them against their will?

Here again, there are nuances and careful considerations with respect to the choices one makes in how to approach their would-be opponent in the discussion. If one does so desiring a position of advantage and moves in quickly for the kill by singling out the opposing view in its weakest link, that might be good debate strategy but may backfire as well by putting the person on the defensive at the very outset and more than likely triggering a hostile response and an appeal to something quite unpleasant, and slander would qualify in this regard as well. So one must be thinking about the big picture here, that in a discussion about the truth of the divine, to act in a non-divine way will be counterproductive and sets the wrong tone and provides the wrong example. So there is always the possibility of questioning the reasoning and logic of an argument solely on the basis of your differing perception in wanting a clarification that can help you to understand how it does not seem to fit with the reality you believe in. That is fair game and will force the other party to stop and think, and this is the first step needed if there is any possibility of persuasion to accept your point of view. You must first get them to listen and to understand your argument, its logical basis, and supporting evidence. They will not accept what you say at face value even though it might sound good to you. They will see it as being based on a fundamental lack of concrete reality and that is their strength, they believe, that they are shrouded in science and logic and you are simply promoting a fairy tale about which you inexplicably hold belief in its veracity with no real evidence. This is the challenge you face, so to be in divine alignment as you conduct yourself is the best overall strategy because it will help you avoid a misstep in overreaching, through triggering too great an emotional reaction that will derail the discussion and lower the tone. Whether that is only your opponent who becomes difficult does not matter, because a level discourse will become impossible and the cause you have in mind will not be served.