Writing articles on religion and sending them out to the public, so that those who want to read them can do so, is certainly different from engaging a religious person in conversation about his or her religion. The latter is a personal, private matter, whereas the former is a public one.
I've written about an aesthetic view of life, according to which we're saturated in stories: even our concepts are simplifications that necessarily falsify and mislead, and our nonfictional accounts are only degrees away from being fictions. Not only may we want to be conned, then, but the vast majority (everyone but the most enlightened, virtually transhuman individuals) may have no alternative. Deceiving ourselves is the norm, and even our greatest truths should be understood in pragmatic terms.
Here are some links that follow up on this line of argument.
