A good heuristic (whatever else is going on) is to never argue when emotions are high, instead focusing on restoring the calm. Only talk seriously (i.e. present your abstract arguments or build up the requisite concepts for communicating future arguments) when emotions are in check.
If it’s a hopeless project to change someone’s mind (as it seems here from what you wrote in the comments) and you’re not in a position to enforce your own authority, work on developing tolerance and avoid brandishing the behaviors (statements) that trigger intolerance (while tolerance is not yet developed, which may be never). For example, when asked to justify “objectionable” beliefs like atheism, you may try invoking relativistic arguments or uncertainty to belittle your own position (moving it to a closed magisterium, revoking its pretensions of universality or objectivity) and to “accept” their position (or “point of view”, in more relativistic language), instead of defending your own position. In other words, present your “objectionable” beliefs as low-status, so that a higher-or-similar-status person doesn’t feel threatened (offended) by them and doesn’t hurt you (in some sense) as a result.
A good heuristic (whatever else is going on) is to never argue when emotions are high, instead focusing on restoring the calm. Only talk seriously (i.e. present your abstract arguments or build up the requisite concepts for communicating future arguments) when emotions are in check.
If it’s a hopeless project to change someone’s mind (as it seems here from what you wrote in the comments) and you’re not in a position to enforce your own authority, work on developing tolerance and avoid brandishing the behaviors (statements) that trigger intolerance (while tolerance is not yet developed, which may be never). For example, when asked to justify “objectionable” beliefs like atheism, you may try invoking relativistic arguments or uncertainty to belittle your own position (moving it to a closed magisterium, revoking its pretensions of universality or objectivity) and to “accept” their position (or “point of view”, in more relativistic language), instead of defending your own position. In other words, present your “objectionable” beliefs as low-status, so that a higher-or-similar-status person doesn’t feel threatened (offended) by them and doesn’t hurt you (in some sense) as a result.