I've tried it. He's absolutely right. There's no possible way to have a rational debate about religion with a person willing to accept "God did it" as a valid point.

I've argued with a number of people about religion and try to eschew that point altogether and instead talk about a God's supposed motives and actions, and show them to be contradictory, illogical and immoral.

The problem I find is everything reduces to some kind of variant of 'God works in mysterious ways' or 'I have to take that on faith' when inconsistencies crop up. Asking why a God would wish anyone to take anything on faith, on what basis they take faith to be a virtue, and suggesting a cult could be started with the same basis is usually about the time the conversation ends.

Digressing a bit though I think Dawkins, as much as I agree with his views, fails in his public relations role for science. Mocking someone in caricatured voices Olbermann style invites people to indignantly ignore your opinion rather than consider it. On top of that I think he misses the point that marketing your message or point of view is all about being concise.

Confronting people with the vast amount of injustice in the world is an easy start. Most counter-points are also easy to refute to this. In the same way, refuting the age old argument that there must have been a creator for the universe by asking how the creator came about also feels underused.

I just think that in the face of rigorously reinforced and simple talking points such as "Hitler/Stalin was an atheist" and "can't you just leave religious people alone" you sure as hell are not going to be doing anything other than preaching to the choir when you write a book rigorously outlining the evidence for evolution.

It's really a very simple answer.

It's only a "debate" if there are two (not one, two!) reasonable sides to the argument. There is no reasoned argument to religion and hence no "debate" can ensue.

They have different values ingrained into them, quite simply. But at the same time, if we are ever challenged especially in public about our ideas, we are inclined to defend them even if we believe on some level the evidence of the other side. It is a lot easier to give leeway for ideas that are already similar IE Creationists arguing with each other over biblical law, Atheists/Agnostics arguing whether evolution occurs gradually or in short bursts, but when two polarized ideas come together when would you want to give in to any, they are the "Arch Enemy" to each other.

But on another note, I have found a set of arguments to at least back down Christians I have been encountering who try to convert me. Mind you, the topic doesn't just change to conversion, it usually starts with a casual fear of uncertainty argument.

Their argument starts something like (Christian) : How do you know you will be alive tomorrow/next five minutes/a year/to see a loved one again? How do you know what will happen to you when you die?

Analysis: They are appealing to the need for certainty. Humanity generally wants to be certain in life about everything, uncertainty causes stress.

My response comes out something like (Im Agnostic BTW) : I don't know. How is one ever supposed to know. Why worry about it, there would be to many things to worry.

Their response (Christian) : With faith, you wouldn't have to worry. Faith is the answer. Faith allows us to be free from the burdens of worry.

(Usually theres additional talking points that they have but it comes down to that appeal to emotion for the need for certainty, anything said here would be considered their "evidence")

My general response (Agnostic) : There is always going to be uncertainty, to the degree that which it bothers people differs though. Some things you want to be more certain than others, I'm more inclined to worry about getting hit by a car crossing the street than a heart attack (I'm 20) but at the same time, I trust looking both ways to cross the street to be enough. I do have faith, just not the same faith you describe in a god, I have faith in myself that when I look both ways to cross a street and deem it to be safe, then it is safe. I have to trust that judgement.
Yes, it is true that not knowing can cause stress. But I do not need faith in a god in order to relieve it. I accept a degree of uncertainty in life as a part of life. But its not the answer for everyone, others need to have a faith in order to continue beyond the uncertainty, i'm just not one of them.

At this point only the most committed continue with arguments, others back down respectfully, I havn't had any emotional outbursts of "YOUR WRONG YOUR WRONG YOUR WRONG" but it could be because most of the encounters i've had were in public.