Why is it that Atheists and Theists argue all the time without convincing the other side they're right?

I'm probably wrong, but not nearly as demonstrably wrong as theists.

Are you agnostic about leprechauns and Santa Claus too? If not, why not?

Because we are to thick headed. That's right, call me a hypocrite, I'm an atheist who says both atheists and theists are too thick headed. The only reason I debate or argue is in the hope that someone will some how prove to me that there is a god. Hasn't happened, but I think its fun to try anyways. Call me a scientist, my hypothesis is that I can not be convinced. It's been correct so far, but if you are a good scientist, and a true scientist, then you keep going at it, in hope to find alternative results.

That's a great question that i've been wondering myself. I met an atheist last year and we became friends but he argued to EVERYBODY about EVERYTHING yet still being open-minded. It was very confusing... so to answer your question, I guess it's not because they think they're right but because they want to test how devoted you are to your religion. They're your friends and while they don't want to get involved with the confusing aspects of religion themselves, they want to do anything in their power to ensure they're friends are happy. As for theists... oh wow don't get me started...lol. Most -but certainly not all- theists are the same way in terms of your well being but they over worry to the point that only the path they follow is right. So it's a constant battle between "GOOD AND EVIL" where the two are constantly duking it out. This is what causes them to argue at first then after that they fight about everything without even knowing what they're fighting over all because of religion. They just know they are opposed to each other and subconsciously, that's enough. Like I said plenty of religious people do not argue with others on this subject at all. Some examples are hindus, wiccans, taoists, and shamans just to name a few. That was sort of over the point but at least I got my point across (I hope) lol. Hope that helped.

on the atheist ingredient, i'm not arguing to deconvert theists. i don't care if a individual is any style of religion, they'd have faith what they decide for. the reason I argue is by technique of how some theists decide for to contain clever layout in Biology instructions in colleges. it is my sole reason. a non secular theory should not be in a technological know-how type, because it is not scientific. it is in actuality it, besides the actuality that I additionally decide for theists to quit telling me i visit hell, through fact it is totally annoying.

Clearly both sides are firm in their convictions. The more "devout," if you will, on either side seem to be equally offended that there are so many who staunchly disagree with them. This seems to cause the desire to prove why their beliefs are correct and the others are fallacious but, as you have stated, this does not make any progress.

If the desire is to "recruit" or "convert," the ones they should *really* be focusing on are those who are on the fence, such as yourself. ;-) I'm only kidding, because I'm not sure that's really what the desired result is. I think it's mostly a matter of pride, and proving that those who directly oppose them are wrong.

I am an atheist

I was a Mormon

I left that chruch because I started to see information which was withheld from me.... not covered in any sunday school, institute or Priesthood lesson.

Information is power ... if you give a 'believer' enough of the *right* information - and if he actually allows himself to consider it - then you pretty soon have an ex-believer (agnostic or atheist).

Unfortunately you can never know what will be the *right* information to give someone to make them see sense...... so, my view is you should give people as much info as possible.

obviously, the 'true believer' will try and dispute that info, and thats where the arguments come in.

Because for a number of the issues, the only evidence either way is subjective...for theists, subjective evidence (ie, religious works) is sufficient; for atheists, it isn't. Since the argument is essentially over opinion rather than fact, it's difficult to come to a consensus other than 'agree to disagree'.

This generalization is actually incorrect. Since I've become an atheist, I have converted a total of 5 people. And, of course, there are people like C.S. Lewis, for whom the atheist lifestyle didn't fit, and he went back to being Christian. It goes both ways, sweetie.

You're an agnostic atheist, though.

Theists can't convince atheists because they have exactly zero evidence on their side.

Atheists can convince reasonable, rational theists, but there are few of those.

But the atheists ARE convincing people that it's okay to be skeptical -- why do you think the ranks of the religious are the smallest they've ever been?