Often when people talk about religion the discussion gets really boring because religious and anti-religious people have been arguing at each other in the West for four hundred years and everybody knows the moves and the counter-moves. I think it’s better (more interesting, more likely to lead to a fruitful, mutually respectful discussion) to ask religious people what they do about people who are too religious (or religious in the wrong sort of way), and skeptical people what they do about people who are too skeptical (or skeptical about the wrong sort of thing).
If somebody is a Breslover Hasid and says the modern world has too little faith and the like faith, ask “What do you say to a follower of Pure Land Buddhism?”
If somebody is a religious skeptic like Bertrand Russell ask “Is there any position that if someone you loved decided to deny its truth would cause you pain, even though you can’t prove that it’s true? If you love peace, how would you talk to your child if he said “Dad, I love and live for the thrill of war?”
Both the religious and the anti-religious have a sort of Maginot line in place pointed at the other side. It’s interesting to creep around the flank and see how the left-side guards against its left side and the right side against its right.
At the end of the day I think this investigation will show us that “religion” (and thus anti-religion) is a poorly defined concept and we will have to seek out sharper ways of delineating what sort of propositions people are willing to take big bets on — sometimes life-sized ones.