Personally, I stopped believing purely because of the application of logic. I believe the discussion should start and end with that. Examining the emotional states of the people in the debate is a logical fallacy as well--at least when done as part of the logical debate. Once a proposition has been accepted or rejected and shown to deserve such acceptance or rejection, only then do the emotional states of those who refuse to accept logic become legitimate topics for discussion.
When a theist starts to attack you personally, or atheists in general, simply point out what they are doing:
"So, you admit you have neither proof nor logic and are just going to attack me now? If you have proof or logic, let's hear it."
They know they don't have it, but make them take their best, honest shot anyway, because it is bound to help you just by its sheer weakness and dishonesty, if nothing else.