Developing an Atheist character's positions ...

Heya small axe, I can kinda see your predicament here. Its always difficult to write convincingly for a character that you can't really relate to. The best advice I can give you is to get in a (friendly) argument with an atheist and see how it pans out. Theres also a good chance that the argument might go somewhere surprising. After all, theres no idea quite as inspiring as someone else's.

That being said, I don't really feel that I got a good idea of exactly what your atheist character's stance was, aside from the fact that he doesn't believe in God (which I believe is an integral part of atheism). After all, he did only have 3 short lines. I think that this is because you yourself don't exactly know what the character believes.

The best way to remedy that (aside from the aforementioned argument) is to define him more specifically than just a nonbeliever. For example: is he a Strong Atheist or a Weak Atheist? A Strong Atheist would directly state that "God does not exist". A Weak Atheist is someone who says anything up to that point, and can be also classified as an Agnostic or a Nontheist. In some ways a Weak Atheist could no more say that "God does not exist" than a Buddhist could.

And here we get to the core of the problem. If your character is a scientist, then he knows that is scientifically unsound to try and prove that God has never influenced the universe. In order to definitively prove this he would have to examine every action since the beginning of time: an impossible task. Most strong atheists get around this by saying that the burden of proof falls on the one who proposes that God exists. As your Christian girl is the one who lays down the challenge, this is a valid loophole.

So I'd recommend that you look up strong atheism and weak atheism (also known as positive atheism and negative atheism) to get a good idea of exactly what the different kinds of atheists believe. I'd recommend this site for a pretty good overview. As for the meat of the argument itself, I do have one major problem: on several occasions the characters were allowed to complete their sentences uninterrupted. In a good, spirited fight this would never happen .

Anyways, I hope this helps, and keep in mind that these arguments can be an absolute blast if nobody takes offense too easily. My roommate and I (me being the Atheist) would have heated discussions often into the wee hours of the morning that left us feeling really invigorated despite the lack of sleep. Interestingly, we always arrived at the same conclusion that it was a null issue.

Looking at your dialogue snippets... I kinda expected your atheist character to tell the Christian character to just shut up. That would certainly be my position, I couldn't put up with this head-busting stuff for any length of time.

Which brings me to say, I hope they're doing something interesting every time they're having these conversations. One of the oft-repeated "rules" of screenwriting (as you probably know) is that a scene has to somehow advance the story, push things along, and/or reveal some internal character conflict that the audience wouldn't otherwise know about. How can you show their differing beliefs instead of just having them talk about it all the time? That's going to get very boring, very quickly. You need a strong story dynamic to offset the talking heads drag factor. If you've already thought about this, forget I spoke.

-Derek

the argument your Christian character is offering isn't convincing or insightful for most atheists---if only because it isn't anything new. It's the same argument over and over and over, and it never gets more convincing.

"Yes! Science demands that you look. But you're using Science as a reason not to look. You can't come to a final conclusion that God doesn't exist because there is no evidence that God doesn't exist. There's only your ignorance of evidence. You can't be an Atheist, it's irrational. You can only be an Agnostic: you "don't know" whether God exists or not! Anyone who claims to be an Atheist can't be a scientist--"

Click to expand...

This is particularly obnoxious. You can't come to a final conclusion that my pink elephant, Pinky, doesn't exist because there is no evidence that Pinky doesn't exist. There's only ignornace of evidence. You can't not believe in Pinky! It's irrational!

Sorry, you can't prove that something doesn't exist, and no scientist would try to prove a negative. Believe it or not, the assertion that God exists is the extra-ordinary claim that needs extra-ordinary evidence from the one making the claim.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to feed Pinky. He only eats between 1 am and 2 am, and he only eats purple marshmallows. It's a pain in the ass.

You really are having a hard time with this, aren't you !

Imagine that the guy in the next cubicle is trying to get you involved in his latest get-rick quick scheme.

Conversation:

Him: "Aren't you interested in making money?"
You: "Of course. I'm a serious investor"

Him: "Well, I have this great investment scheme, where you just have to send a few thousand dollars to this guy in Nigeria .."
You: "You've gotta be kidding. You think that's credible?"

Him: "Look at you, you're an investor - your whole existence is based on making rational decisions based on the evidence --"
You: "And I don't see any evidence of this being a good investment."

Him: "Fine. You don't 'see evidence' ... And for thousands of years no one 'saw evidence' that disease is caused by germs; no one 'saw evidence' that the Sun doesn't go around the Earth --"

... (rant for a while)

Him: You must be lying when you say you are a serious investor. A serious investor would SEARCH for evidence of this Nigerian millionaire.


Now the exact analogy isn't important here (so please don't reply pointing out why there IS evidence of Nigerian millionaires) ... just imagine your frustration when faced with this guy. You can't seem to make him understand that you ARE serious about investing .. yet you don't believe in his Nigerian millionaire.

How would you react? With frustration? With just ignoring him ? Actively avoiding him ?

This leads to another problem .. you are going to have to give the athiest a REAL motivation to stay around.

To avoid the 'talking heads' and 'why doesn't he ignore just ignore the get-rich-quick-guy' , you could concentrate on their friendship, and just have the 'debate' as snippets of conversation during much more interesting events

Compare:

The Christian girl is saying "Help me investigate" and the Atheist is "No, you're superstitious and crazy, God doesn't exist, I won't investigate."

And I'm asking people here: HOW DOES SHE JUSTIFY HER ATHEIST CLAIM in intelligent rebuttal?

I've heard the "unicorns and fairies" thing before. It doesn't justify anyone refusing to LOOK for evidence.

It's valid Science to INVESTIGATE, and draw no conclusions without evidence.

Click to expand...

With:

The friend is saying "Help me investigate" and the Investor is "No, you're naive, the Nigerian millionaire doesn't exist, I won't waste months of my life trying to investigate."

And I'm asking people here: HOW DOES SHE JUSTIFY HER CLAIM AS A SERIOUS INVESTOR in intelligent rebuttal?

It doesn't justify anyone refusing to LOOK for evidence.

It's valid investment advice to INVESTIGATE, and draw no conclusions without evidence.

Click to expand...

How much time have you personally spent investigating the claims in spam emails? How can you justify NOT investing your time in investigating every single claim? How many years have you personally spent investigating the existance of invisible unicorns? How can you justify NOT investigating their existance?

Just a comparison that may help you sympathise with 'the other side'

Mac
(PS: If you think the statement "Someone who CONCLUDES that invisible unicorns don't exist -- is as wrong as someone who CONCLUDES that germs couldn't cause disease because (before Science developed the necessary devices) "there is no evidence of microscopic life" sounds wrong, then you are on the way to understanding the point of view of the other character)

(PPS: From a purely fiction viewpoint, why does the atheist need to be convinced by a verbal argument?

If you need a motivation for her to join the quest, what about her desire to keep her hare-brained friend safe ?There are many reasons - and convincing the atheist at the beginning just removes a massive source of conflict through the rest of the journey.

Imagine if Mulder had convinced Scully in the first episode of 'X-files' ... what would have happened to the series?

As for the final convincing, you could leave it as something that was EXPERIENCED rather than VERBALLY ARGUED.

It might also be more satisfying to have the atheist just convinced that 'something' happened that couldn't be explained .. and leave the door open for sequels later.

"Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
--Isaac Asimov

It seems that you may be needing too much from your scientist character here, as she needs to firmly assert that God does not exist while at the same time making a perfectly sound argument. I can tell you already that you cannot reconcile these needs. However, if you are willing to have your character make arguments that are either not absolute (weak atheist position), or not absolutely watertight (the quote above), then you should be able to get away with it.

That being said, this discrepancy could also provide a way for the Christian friend to 'goad' the atheist into helping out. When the Atheist asserts that "God does not exist", rather than going straight for the jugular you could instead go something like this:

"You know the impossibility of proving a universal negative, right? So why do still say that?"

"I can confidently say that no neon pink potatoes exist anywhere, even though I haven't searched the entire galaxy looking for one. At some point you have to say 'enough is enough' and draw a conclusion. There has not been any proof of God anywhere that cannot be explained by natural means, so the only conclusion I can draw is that He/She does not exist."

"And if I showed you compelling evidence?"

"Then I couldn't make that conclusion."

"Great! Want to go investigate SPOOKY DIVINE FORCES with me?"


So, because you caught the character making an incomplete (though not entirely unsupported) assumption, you now have leverage on him/her.

You could consider using the faith vs. science argument, which goes something like this: faith is the foundation of religion, thus to attempt to prove the existence of God would negate the whole idea of faith, which relies on the acceptance of mysteries (God works in mysterious ways and only He knows the whole plan).

Science, on the other hand, is about gathering empirical data and coming up with explanations. It's diametrically opposed to the acceptance of mysteries. If God exists, He is by nature unprovable--and so outside the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

Honestly, though--I think Mac is right. Why does the friend need to be convinced?

small axe said:

Well, maybe I'll just have to settle for that, then ... not having the Atheist demand to make a water-tight case for Atheism, but have their character personality conflict drive the thing instead (obviously, the PLOT has to drive the thing)

I was just hoping for a definite, atheist-based "conversation is over" ... (Stronger character)

Not an agnostic-sounding "well, I guess you could change my mind, if ..." (weaker character)

Certainly, I was wanting to avoid anything that reeked of: "Yeah, she was a dyed-in-the-wool-Atheist" ... UNTIL she found the Lord! deus ex machina....

Click to expand...

OK - let's look at this from another perspective. Does a believer have proof that god exists?

No, of course not.

Neither does an athiest have proof that s/he doesn't. But it doesn't shake or alter that belief in any way.

I think you're letting the scientist thing distract you. Faith or absence of faith is about belief and nothing else. The only commonality between athiests is their belief that god does not exist.

You see, an athiest (scientist or otherwise) really doesn't expect to be proven wrong about the existance of god. So to an athiest, a lack of proof is good enough. "Prove it" is the scientific athiest's retort.

As an example:

I don't believe that shaking hands causes cancer. There's no way to prove positively that it doesn't, but I still hold that belief and will do so unless proven otherwise. To me, the claim is so ridiculous that I don't expect to be proven wrong.

Does that make sense?

It sounds like you need the patented 'see life through the eyes of an Atheist' glasses.

Part of the problem is that you (the writer) are seeing the statements made by one of the characters from YOUR point of view .. not that of the athiest character.

For example, here is a statement that you seem to agree with: A rational human cannot make a perfectly sound argument that God does not exist. (Yes, I paraphrased. It's just an example)

To you (the author) that argument may seem logical and sensible. And so your atheist character would be reacting as if that was a perfectly sensible statement - which might be true (that isn't the point of the exercise) but certainly not from the point of view OF THE CHARACTER.

You can't see how an atheist would find that totally absurd? That's when you need the magic 'see life through the eyes of an atheist' glasses.

Just substitute another belief system instead of yours, and re-read the sentence:
A rational human cannot make a perfectly sound argument that invisible unicorns do not exist.


See how that argument looks now? Does that statement seem even vaguely sensible? It is the same statement as before .. just seen through a different world view! (Yes, the world views differ a little more than that, but that will allow you to START seeing things from this character's viewpoint)

Are the two statements equivalent? It doesn't matter - we aren't arguing whether ghosts or unicorns exist - simply that it is a taste of how the Atheist character might view the world.

Start looking at the discussion you started with from the point of view of the atheist character. For good measure, imagine that YOU are the scientist who doesn't believe in invisible unicorns :

"Look at you, you're a scientist, your whole existence is based on making rational decisions based on the evidence --"

"And I don't see any evidence of the existence of invisible Unicorns."

"Fine. You don't 'see evidence' ... And for thousands of years no one 'saw evidence' that disease is caused by germs; no one 'saw evidence' that the Sun doesn't go around the Earth --"

"That's what Science is for. That's what Science discovered."

"Yes! Science demands that you look. But you're using Science as a reason not to look. You can't come to a final conclusion that invisible unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence that invisible unicorn don't exist. There's only your ignorance of evidence. You can't be a non-believer in invisible unicorns - it's irrational. You can only be an fence-sitter: you "don't know" whether invisible unicorns exist or not! Anyone who claims to not believe in the Unicorns can't be a scientist--"

"I'm a scientist, and I don't believe in invisible unicorns!"

"And so you've replaced science with faith. And that's exactly what you accused me of."

Click to expand...

See? Good luck !

Mac

Just be sure these spiritual debates are vital to the story before you try opening Pandora's Box.

KanShu said:

"Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
--Isaac Asimov

Click to expand...

My experience here is that on a day-to-day level, religious folks almost constantly have religion going on in their heads/lives like elevator musak. Atheists simple get on with life. Which is basically what the above quote says.

It's only around a flash-point that the atheist ever really expresses what they think. Now this flash-point many times comes from a religious person attempt a conversion (which will ALWAYS cause sparks), however, there are other things that can cause it (like the arrival of a baby where your parents-in-law expect a baptism and you and your wife have no intention of doing so).

If it's OK with the board, I'll "argue" the position with you, Small-A, and if not here, we can take it "outside" so to speak. I'm not talking about a fight, just giving you the perspective from the otherside.

wordmonkey said:

If it's OK with the board, I'll "argue" the position with you, Small-A, and if not here, we can take it "outside" so to speak. I'm not talking about a fight, just giving you the perspective from the otherside.

Click to expand...

TIO is really the place for arguing, but if you can offer another perspective without getting overheated, by all means go ahead.

Incidentally, I don't completely agree with what you say about athiests in the post above. I'm an athiest, always have been, but faith and belief interest me. I would like to understand why people believe what they believe, and I do try - which means I think about belief and religion even when not challenged. I just don't subscribe to it, nor do I ever expect to.

I honestly believe that the only thing athiests have in common is a lack of belief in a god (or gods).

Scientist

small axe said:

Hi!


In an early scene (the argument arises a few times, in different lights) the Christian girl challenges her Atheist friend/foe with some comment along the lines of:

"Look at you, you're a scientist, your whole existence is based on making rational decisions based on the evidence --" [end quote from small axe]

Would anyone talk to their friends like that? Would anyone whose friend was a scientist talk like that?

Not only that but if, the Christian's idea of rational argument is that God is like a "germ" (certainly not the modern scientific term for anything much), who is awaiting discovery by the few who have not yet been infected...

Maybe...if there needs to be some confrontation...the scientist could do something obviously irrational, the Christian could exhibit some kind of understanding of human irrationality and the two could talk about irrational impulses. After they have sex and the Christian is sure she is going to hell and the scientist is not so sure about that etc. etc....

Click to expand...

small axe, I'm going to make the assumption that you do not believe in the Greek god Zeus. I know a few people who do, actually, but their numbers seem small, comparatively.

So let's look at your quote from that POV, since Pinky the Pink Elephant does nothing for you.

"Yes! Science demands that you look. But you're using Science as a reason not to look. You can't come to a final conclusion that Zeus doesn't exist because there is no evidence that Zeus doesn't exist. There's only your ignorance of evidence. You can't be a Zusue Atheist, it's irrational. You can only be an Agnostic: you "don't know" whether Zeus exists or not! Anyone who claims to be an Zeus Atheist can't be a scientist--"

Click to expand...

If I said that to you in all seriousness, would you believe it? Would you be convinced that you need to throw it all in with the Greek pantheon of Gods? Why or why not? Further, what would it to take to either A)Convince you Zeus exists or B)Convince you to worship Zeus? Would you need evidence that He does exist outside of mythology? What sort of evidence? Would you need to see his works? Would you need witness testimony? Is there anything that could sway you on this? Why or why not?

Further, if I walk up to you and say "Zeus exists. Repent or be sorry" and you say, "No, sorry, I don't believe in Zeus" would it be reasonable for me to ask you to prove that Zeus doesn't exist? How would you do that? Would you say he doesn't exist because you can't see him? Can't see the Christian God or gravity either, but you probably believe in both. Or maybe he only comes out when you're asleep. Or maybe he's that feeling you get in your heart when you want waffles. I don't know, but I could say any of those things and you would have no grounds for refuting it. See how ridiculous it is to ask an atheist to prove that your god doesn't exist, when you are the one making the claim that he does?

Believe it or not, atheism is the default state of being, not belief. Belief requires a leap of faith, does it not? The very fact that believers acknowledge and even celebrate the fact that it requires a leap of faith means there's no evidence of gods or God's existence. If there was evidence, you wouldn't need faith, and without faith, most belief systems would entirely fall apart. Believers know there is no evidence. But they're willing to change their world view to accommodate that knowledge. Atheists are not. That's why no atheist who has specific, logical reasons to be an atheist would be swayed by the arguments you offer. Because the argument is a basic misunderstanding of how faith, evidence, and proof works.

But someone who CONCLUDES that God doesn't exist -- an ATHEIST (due to lack of evidence) ... is as wrong as someone who CONCLUDES that germs couldn't cause disease because (before Science developed the necessary devices) "there is no evidence of microscopic life"

That's not Science, nor rational thinking (in the reasoning definition, not the mere "can it be measured?" definition of rational)

Click to expand...

Somebody who lacks evidence or experience with microscopic life would be perfectly within their rights not to believe such a thing. I wouldn't. Just because we know something in hindsight doesn't mean the people who lacked evidence were wrong to believe what they did. When a scientist came a long and made a positive assertion, or hypothesis, then he had something to test. An example of that would be "Illness exists because of microbodies that cannot be seen with the naked eye, but can best tested for using A, B, and C." He then carefully conducts experiments to establish the veracity of his claim, tweaking his hypothesis as experiments succeed or fail. He does not start with "Illness does not exist because of evil spirits. I will prove there are no evil spirits." Do you see the difference? One can be tested for, one cannot.

When somebody presents me with that sort of argument, I reply with "So what?"

Mac H. said:

It sounds like you need the patented 'see life through the eyes of an Atheist' glasses.


Mac

Click to expand...

Mac is right. If you can't get inside this character's head and understand the logic of his arguement, he will always seem flat. Now please, I said understand, not agree with. We can understand people's ideas and still think they are wrong.

I am a strong atheist. I don't believe in a God, I don't believe in the existense of "a higher force", I don't believe in destiny or even that "everything is meant to be".

I have had many conversations, and arguments, with believers. They all try to convince me that there is a God. They can't.

Rather than trying to advise you in how to write, which I couldn't, I would like to give you my opinion on why I don't believe in a God. Maybe you could use an argument or two.
---

I believe that mankind has invented the concept of God. For comfort, to explain the world and for power.

I believe that we have but one life. There is no hereafter, no heaven and no hell.

I believe that the reason for living is to make the best of our lives through choices and be willing to live with the consequences.

I believe that the proof of "God's" non-extistence is the pettiness of it all. Because he/she is invented by man, the whole concept has become too small, especially the way priests and others present him/her, no matter which religion.

I believe that far too many people use the concept of religion to swear themselves free from responsibility from almost everything.

---

I offer this short version as a true strong atheist. You can ask me anything.

PS
I also believe in every person's right to believe whatever they want.

Perhaps I can help. I am a "hard atheist", and raised as such. Thus religion - though fascinating - has no place in my mental make up.

In my world view:

1 Things are real or not real in a physical sense only
Thus a lot of religious questions are meaningless to me.

For example, "Do you believe in God?" - This question is meaningless unless YOU can define "God" in such a manner that I can devise a physical test for his/her existence.

The parallel with germs is nice rhetoric, but from my POV false, since it was possible to devise tests for the existence of germs... which is why we believe in them today!

The best you could do would be to define tests to verify the existence of an immensely powerful non-corporeal being, since it is impossible to test relative moral worth. This leads me to...

2. Nothing has an objective moral value or meaning
If a bearded chap manifested with fire and thunder etc, and showed me "His" signature in my DNA, I would still deny that "His" moral code had any special validity. (Just as I respect my parents, but do not obey them.)

To people like me, God as described in the OT is a sociopathic bully with superpowers, no more.

3. Proof of paranormal phenomena does not validate any particular cosmology
For example, suppose you proved to me that traditional vampires exist, and that the cross repelled them. My response would be "Interesting. Perhaps that's why the cross was adopted as a religious symbol."

Similarly, a demon in my living room - nicely contained in a Solomanic triangle, I hope! - would prove only that demons existed and spouted Judeochristian rhetoric.

I hope this helps - I think you're brave and open-minded to approach this! Feel free to email me if you want to try out different argumentative approaches.

There have been quite a few discussions on this board on religion/creationism/atheism and if it would help I could post the links. Be warned though they are all very long.

Cath said:

TIO is really the place for arguing, but if you can offer another perspective without getting overheated, by all means go ahead.

Click to expand...

That was my intent. TIO would run the risk of devolving into said heated exchange, and I was thinking more along the lines of a "staged" argument. However, I bow to the Mods, twas but an idea.

Cath said:

Incidentally, I don't completely agree with what you say about athiests in the post above. I'm an athiest, always have been, but faith and belief interest me. I would like to understand why people believe what they believe, and I do try - which means I think about belief and religion even when not challenged. I just don't subscribe to it, nor do I ever expect to.

Click to expand...

Well, in fairness, so do I. But then I am just a sponge for information, ideas and POVs. I suspect most of the people here are like that. But I suspect even a great many "church goers" don't give it a great deal of thought. My father-in-law is VERY religious and it is clearly there, like the musak, ALL the time.

Though perhaps, and I offer this as just an observation/question, rather than a dig, it is the less secure religious people who try to convert, convince and denounce. I have met religious people who are complete content in their beliefs and they make absolutely NO attempt to persuade anyone that their ideology is right. They are content in themselves and believe that you will ultimately get what you deserve (and they generally make no judgement here either) when it's all over but the shouting.

Cath said:

I honestly believe that the only thing athiests have in common is a lack of belief in a god (or gods).

Click to expand...

Oh I doubt that. I'd be willing to bet that more than a few share a common dislike for the NY Yankees!

wordmonkey said:

Cath said:

I honestly believe that the only thing athiests have in common is a lack of belief in a god (or gods).

Click to expand...

Oh I doubt that. I'd be willing to bet that more than a few share a common dislike for the NY Yankees!

Click to expand...

Badly stated on my part. I meant it's the only thing you can safely assume atheists have in common. That and the Yankees...

I don't know if it'll help with the character's perspective, but as a 15+year atheist, I'm no longer interested in the type of religious argument outlined in the original post. I keep out of religious discussions entirely, partly to avoid the "but you can't prove God doesn't exist!" argument, partly just because it all bores me. When I was in college, though, and first started to question the religious beliefs I was brought up with, I was happy to engage in religious discussions with my friends.

You might decide whether your atheist character is new to atheism and isn't convinced, and therefore is willing to discuss other points of view, or whether he's just humoring an enthusiastic and sincere friend. As it stands, though, I warn you that it reads very much as though you, the author, are speaking through the Christian character. You really need to give your poor atheist more of substance to say--which, of course, is why you posted.

If you'd like to do some research into how your atheist character may have arrived at his conclusion, review some writings on the Secular Web.

Science and Religion: http://infidels.org/library/modern/science/
Nontheism: http://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/
Life After Death: http://infidels.org/library/modern/lifeafterdeath/

You can learn more about atheist self-identity here: http://atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php under the header "Who We Are."

Note that the number of atheists who make an assertion (that no gods exist) is smaller than the number of atheists who simply lack theism.

Also note that "theism" and "atheism" are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. Capitalizing the "a" in "atheist" is old-fashioned, not to mention grammatically incorrect. The average atheist does not capitalize the "a."

Mac H. said:

It sounds like you need the patented 'see life through the eyes of an Atheist' glasses.

...Snipped.

Click to expand...

Excellent point! I think that's one of the major problems many Theists make when we argue for our deities. We see the points we're trying to make with Atheists as making perfect sense, but Atheists see the same points as being completely imbecilic.

Like Mac has pointed out very eloquently, I think the problem could be best solved by changing a few words in our own arguments to fit the Atheist standpoint. This way we can see clearly where an Atheist would have their doubts and even pass off the Theistic arguments as illogical.

Like a couple people pointed out elsewhere on the forums, religion does seem to be more emotion-based, whereas Science is based more on evidence and logic. If logic dictates that a deity -- whichever one it might be -- cannot be proven to exist through scientific means, then the scientist would have to say at least through their knowledge in their own field, a deity is not provable and therefore not logical.

This, I think, is a roundabout way of saying, "Don't argue with me; prove scientifically, through physical evidence, your deity exists".

Of course, since the deity in question has no physical form, we must assume that it cannot be proven to exist through physical evidence. And since the Atheist probably would not accept emotional or spiritual evidence, there would be no way in their way of thinking, to prove such a deity does exist in the first place.

I also agree that the best way to convince the Atheist a deity exists, fiction-wise, is through experiences within the story. Like the old saying goes, 'Actions speak louder than words'. If you can show, through the experiences the characters go through within the story, an argument that will convince the Atheist character of the Theist character's ideas and their legitimacy, then you would have a more convincing story (again, speaking as a storyteller and not as a debater of religion versus atheism).

Also, I wanted to quickly state that I have found many of the opinions here, as well the comments, highly enlightening.