How to successfully convert a true Atheist

A blog post by BGH at The Information Paradox dealt with the blogger's exasperation over former atheists:

"Well if you are a believer now, then you weren't an atheist for the right reasons, because the claims of theism still lack empirical evidence."

On the surface, this is a No True Scotsman fallacy, that they were never true Atheists to begin with (it is ironic of course that the originator of the No True Scotsman, Anthony Flew, himself is an ex-atheist). Being an Atheist doesn't in itself really require any thinking, so you can be an Atheist with a poor understanding of why you are an Atheist. Whether such an Atheist can be defined as true is difficult to asses, since the only requirement of being an Atheist is not to believe in God.
However, in most people's view it is quite true that being an Atheist without knowing why means that you are not an Atheist for the right reasons, and it is furthermore true that unless there is any evidence for god on the table, then your reasons for caving in to religion are quite poor(so I agree wholeheartedly with BGH). So, there's no reason to be smug about your conversion and "former atheism" when it just shows you were in it for the wrong reasons.

So anyway, I decided to make a flow chart to educate people on this issue:

The Exploitation of Antony Flew

"Have you heard the shocking news? The world's most notorious atheist has converted!
No, it's not Richard Dawkins.
Or Sam Harris.
Or Christopher Hitchens.
Or Dan Barker.
Or Michael Newdow.
Or Julia Sweeney.
No, this world-famous, notorious atheist convert is the philosopher Antony Flew.

[...]

Mark Oppenheimer of the Times went to Reading to interview Flew. Oppenheimer found that he was polite and agreeable, but suffering from serious memory gaps. Flew could not define terms like "abiogenesis" and was unfamiliar with the arguments advanced in the book. He freely admitted, and Varghese confirmed, that Varghese wrote all the original content of the book ["There is a God"]. Flew was simply persuaded to sign his name to it after it had been written for him."

Dayligth Atheism, Nov 6, 2007

Sickening.
I insert a small excerpt of a long piece by Richard Carrier:

"I'm well known for my correspondence with Flew on the matter of his conversion from weak atheism to strong Deism, and anyone who wants the full story about that can read my article on the subject (which has numerous subsequent updates appended to it): Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of (2004). Now, after reading "Flew's" new book, I was appalled at how badly argued it was, and how obviously it was not written in his style or idiom, but in that of contemporary Christian apologetics (like someone attempting a poor imitation of the style and approach of a Lee Strobel or Gary Habermas). Moreover, from crucial omissions (and distortions of history) it was clear the author could not have been Flew. Unless Flew had gone completely insane."