A question I have seen raised recently, concerning a possible "schism" among atheists, is explored in this NPR story. The question appears to hinge on whether it is more productive to promote atheism by directly discounting or even ridiculing religious belief, or is it more productive to form alliances where possible with religious groups or individuals on areas of common concern. The article cites critics of religion such as Christopher Hitchens, whose book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is one of several published in recent years presenting a forceful case for atheism. Paul Kurz is offered as representing a quieter approach, less in-your-face and more respectful toward religion. An example of his way of promoting atheism is expressed well in this post at scienceblogs.com. Several interrelated questions are interesting to me: How much of this discussion reflects basic personality dimensions, or preferences based on personality? And is one "persuasion" approach more effective for some people than for others? Would "conversions" to atheism through the two methods differ in terms of how long they last? The list could go on, but it would be fascinating to see more research on such questions.