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.

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.

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

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

No.Why? See no value-better things to do.

Never. What is the point in doing so?

All the time. Even in prison with Muslims.

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

I also never waste my time on the hate-spewers. Obviously, they somehow are getting off on the "persecution" we give them when we shout back... I think if they were completely ignored by everyone they would probably do it less(?). As to the "surveyors" who turn out to be recruiters, I'd also just brush them off quickly as they are obviously neck-deep into their religion to be doing such a thing. The only people I do debate/discuss with are friends/coworkers/colleagues/family... IF they bring it up. If this happens, I just try to focus on what beliefs we do have in common and how we can both be moral despite our differences. I think it's most important for them to see that we non-believers are human and moral; they've had a lifetime of propaganda from the pulpit telling them otherwise, so going in friendly and gentle is one of the few ways I've found that I'm heard.

They have an agenda (these people you're talking about) so they are not really interested in your opinion, or in a debate. I do not seek out religious people to debate and I'm not on a mission to deconvert anyone (but I'd be happy if they all just "saw the light" and stopped believing tomorrow). However, if someone engages me, I'm happy to offer my opinion, which is rather strong. =]

No, its a waste of time.

Rarely do I spend any time debating with the religious. However, on those rare occasions, it is a sight to behold. Even more rare than the debates is obtaining any form of positive result -- which is one of the major reasons for rarely engaging. Hate spinning my wheels.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Depends whether or not the person is willing to be reasonable, if not (more times than not) then I see no use.

I will only engage in those types of conversations if its amaong people I know and in a particular setting. We're far more apt to listen to our friends and family than we are a complete stranger when it comes to such topics. Ultimately the debate ends up being pointless so instead I've taken on the philosphy of explaining the process of figuring it out for themselves. Encouraging them to ask important questions about life and showing them ways they can research for themselves. When they ask me what I believe I simply shift the conversation, "More important than what I believe is whether or not you've asked yourself the right questions." It usually catches them off guard and they'll want you to elaborate. At which point I just peacefully start pointing out simple questions like have they ever stopped to consider what life would be like if they didn't exist. Stuff like that. If the conversation goes nowhere than I just politely excuse myself from the situation.

Soon I'll be in college and I'll be having to deal with that. Thank you for the heads up.

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.

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.