It's a waste of time. Religion is based on "faith", which means they believe without evidence or rational. That, and some emotional connection. Perhaps Atheists should come up with an emotional appeal to what is actually are rational perspective.

All I can say, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Bertrand Russel
[brainyquote.com]

I used to, not any more...what is the point?

Sometimes for shits and giggles. I don't want to convert them but just enjoy the argument.

I often engage with theists about the lack of merit for their faith (belief without evidence) based belief system. In so doing, after weeks of debates, I have brought a few (small percentage) theists to their knees, (literally, one assumed the fetal position and another bend down and cowered like a dog when he saw me) I also brought tears to they eyes of a priest who realized his work was not truthful and was departmental to civilization. I also managed to De-converted a few bystanders in the process.

I love to discuss ideas and logic, but if people get nasty or rude or loud - just point and laugh. Maybe start chanting 'religitard' or 'loony-bin' over and over.

That way I can have a conversation at whatever level they can intellectually manage. Lol

There's only one person that I occassionally have a chat with about faith. We got as far as her saying that god doesn't interfere, to which I said then doesn't that make him irrelevant? To which I got no answer!

I think you would be wasting your time confronting one of those zealots. I think ignoring them would be best. If religion comes up in casual conversation I may debate religion depending on the company. It often turns out that a religious person becomes angry with me. I am not sure why.

No, I don't. I see no point in it.

It depends: on the conditions, on my mood, on the person in front of me. If they’re someone who “thinks they know the bible,” well, I can’t help but engage. I’ve been studying that book for most of my life, so I know a thing or two about it, and I don’t mind correcting misinformation. If it’s an obnoxious person, then I’m more inclined to engage just because... well... obnoxious is MY thing.

But I know this: they don’t respond to reason, and I don’t try using reason. If they’re quoting the bible, I quote it back. When it comes to their beliefs, I gently mock them, or poke fun. I’m no Jon Stewart, but his is the best approach I’ve seen. After all, if this were a “reasonable” debate, we wouldn’t be having it.

You cannot reason with a zealot. Nothing you can say will convince them that you want to be left alone and Anything you say can and will be used against you. I have come to this conclusion, do not engage with anything than hidden mimicry. I am simply a parrot to what they say. I don't have to waste time engaging with them because obvioulsy I am doing the good work, in their eyes, and since I have no care what they think of me as I will probably never see them again, I lay it on thick. I never give them a chance to do anything but mumble amen, lol. They are so easily molded to your will simply because they do not think or see beyond the surface. I get a chuckle, they feel like they did something, win win.

Im vocal about my atheism. If they insult or berate me, I do it right back. I stopped "playing nice" a long time ago.

Sometimes, but I refuse to debate and most often do not go into any more detail with them than you see me do on this site. To believe or not to believe is not something that you "win."

No because I'm not clear on my views just yet. And to be honest I might not ever know the real truth, I'm finding out that a lot of the things I was taught throughout my schooling, are not true. With every new piece of Info I learn, it can change my beliefs. So I wouldn't sit there and argue about who's right or wrong. Cause then I could be the one who was wrong in the end. Who knows.

As a rule, no. It is more than typically a waste of my time and energy. However, I have had a few conversations with believers that had purpose and went well. Definitely not the typical route that goes however.

No not at all. Every one is entitled to there own opinion. It is ok if they won't to believe. It is ok if you won't to base your opinion on something else. As soon as you see hate, it is a bad sign. No good will come from this. If you can walk away. Stay away from hate.

I use to even had a atheist vs theist debate group on Facebook. I came to the conclusion it’s a waste of time. I now believe people have to come to the realization that religion is bullshit on their own. Or at the very start to realize it. Then you may be able to help then along.

Not a minute!

Not many nutters around here, or at the very least I don't run into them much. If they wanna go down that rabbit hole of debate then I'll try my best to maintain my cool and discuss with them so long as they aren't flat out stupid. Most of the time it isn't much worth it if you're in it to convince them, I just do my best to correct them on any factual errors and give as many logical reasons why I never drank the kool-ade.

Learning about street epistemology may be helpful.

No. There is no merit in it.

My Uncle Doc told me once "Don't ever play somebody else's game." I won't debate anyone about anything where they make the rules and they determine the forum. They've stacked it against you, and that's a bad spot to start from. I do like honest existential discussions in a friendly environment with people who are open to ideas. But this is territory where zealots rarely visit.

It's generally an exercise in futility, is it not? So, no, I won't waste my time, or theirs.

Not unless I’m provoked into it.
I also take liberties with the Jehova’s witnesses. They stand in strategic spots here in Edinburgh and, because THEY’RE the ones putting themselves in a position where they’re open to a debate by trying to shove their bible at our faces, I usually rise up to the challenge.

No, because I believe it's a waste of time. I'll only debate on any subject, when I believe it may make a difference. When someone is delusional they are impaired, and heavily influenced by illogical and/or personal justifications (subjective). Due to this impairment they are less inclined to digest and embrace factual or objective information. The only exception I make is when people try to indoctrinate children they are not the parents of. Though I don't support any form of religious indoctrination