I think believing in God leads to ridiculous consequences, so I don't. The "there's no evidence against" argument does nothing for me, because we could apply that to lots of things that no one in their right mind would believe in.
Which is precisely the reason no one in their right mind believes in them.
This is certainly a fair argument. The reason I believe in God is because that does improve my life. If it doesn't improve your life, then I can definitely understand why you wouldn't have much use for any type of faith or religion.
If belief in dragons improves my life, I should believe that dragons exist right?
"Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain
“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson
There is no problem. I'm just pointing out they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive at all. One doesn't have to consider oneself absolutely certain of God's nonexistence to simply disbelieve in him. I disbelieve the idea that, say, social conservative policy is the best way to govern a democratic state, for instance...but I'm not absolutely certain. How could I be?
It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?
An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?
I agree. Religious debate is absolutely pointless.
Debates depend on logic and reason to get your point across, but religion is pretty much defined by the absence of logic. Either you believe in the logic or you believe in a faith, you can't have both.
For example, I could argue to someone that there is scientific proof of the big bang theory. Someone could just say "oh, well, God caused the big bang". It's a pointless argument.