The question presumes that religious belief and participation is a purely intellectual matter, which is not the case. Religions provide a framework for social support, a sense of belonging, shared rituals with a strong emotional component, etc., which are taken to provide value in holding the corresponding doctrinal beliefs independent of their logical or rational support, if not independent of their truth value. Religious beliefs won't be eliminated unless they can be displaced by other systems that provide the same kinds of value--which most likely would just be other religions themselves, even if they began on a more evidentially-supported footing. Skepticism and science require work and critical thinking, but most people seem to just want something they can accept and use without having to question.

I think the expectation that all people would be skeptics is sort of like expecting all computer users to be programmers or all automobile users to be mechanics.

You shouldn't be trying to convince people, as we don't have "all the answers". We merely have unproven theories based on observation. I agree that these are far more convincing than theistic beliefs, which seem illogical, but they are still only theories, and may one day be proven inaccurate. A scientific theory, unlike a mathematical theorem, is an example of inductive reasoning. Therefore, while we can rule out particular theistic models, such as Christian belief, as illogical, it would be foolish to rule out theism entirely without proof. This would essentially just be removing the allegorical aspects of religious tradition, and is no more than an aesthetic change.

People are perfectly entitled to hold theistic beliefs, as while they are less convincing than scientific ones, they still haven't been conclusively disproven. They are merely beyond the reach of human logic.

It's a slow process of adjustment, and it is certainly not the first time in history that rational, critical thought has been under threat (or, rather, I would say a little neglected in this particular instance).

The difference now is that atheists have an awful lot more ammunition than at any other time. The trouble is how to fire the ammunition in the right places - I agree with Phil Rowe's assertion that Atheism is a belief, one that I hold myself, and I'm not uneasy with the label. I don't think that a belief in Atheism itself is as important as the critical, free-thinking process that is often required to arrive at such a belief, and the fact that it takes, in some people, an existential and even social crisis of some magnitude to arrive there ('there' being the furthest advancement of human critical thought and research into the origins and meaning of our own existence) is indicative of the neglect of critical thought.

The answers are satisfying, however, particularly regarding evolution versus creationism, seemingly the main battle ground on this matter. Think of Hamlet's famous soliloquy, and his despair at his own existence overwhelmed by the fear of an afterlife. Surely this was a reflection of the broad, free-thinking nature of London in the early 17th Century, of which William Shakespeare would most likely have been a prominent figure, but for all the freedom, there were few answers.

Now we have a good, solid body of evidence to reject theism, and it will take a long process of continued dissemination in, of course, science, but equally importantly in arts and media. It has happened before (how many believers in Zeus does anyone know?), and will happen again, and I would hope without the use of Lions or auto-da-fe, this time.

We most certainly do not have all the answers and part of the problem might be giving off the impression that we do - it seems arrogant, when actually it's the other way around!

There's no easy answer to how to promote the sort of critical thinking that would diminish theism but I think there needs to be more of a culture of being happily-doubtful, celebrating in the fact that we don't know everything, that the ability to not be sure is at the very core of science. The scientific method, for example, is poorly explained to the general population and there's no reason it should be.

I recently read (on Wikipedia, admittedly) that a large percentage of universities in some survey do not teach adequate critical thinking skills. This was worrying to me not because of the not-teaching-skills, but because there seemed to be an assumption that university was the right level to teach it at!

The basics of reason, critical thinking, and argument are not terribly difficult concepts to grasp, especially if they are introduced gradually from an early age. If more people are given the tools, earlier, then it would certainly be a clearer thinking world.

How to achieve this practically, and all the associated social issues and other reasons why people turn to religion is, then again, trickier and there are all sorts of moral questions about whether we are justified in 'converting' believers. Perhaps it is better to simply consider ourselves lucky to be living at a time where the exchange of ideas is freer and in greater volume than ever, and where there are fewer barriers to people discovering about things like scientific skepticism for themselves.

To completely dispense with any idea of a spiritual reality is as closed minded as creationism. Atheism itself is a belief, and requires its own kind of 'faith' to believe that one has - absolutely - proved the non-existence of any deity.

I agree with the other statements that conclude that the notion of 'needing to convince otherwise' regarding theism is erroneous, possibly arrogant and certainly not particularly related to skepticism?

Religion is alive and kicking—thank you very much—it has all sorts of lovely mechanisms to keep it running: baptism; evangelizing; seeping into politics. Scientology anyone? One of tenets to keep it working.

Or how about them delightful memes? Even losing faith is a good thing—it’s a test! And when sense and secularity pushes back, it’s ordained persecution of the righteous. Lovely.

Not to mention that religious beliefs are not dependent on reason or evidence in the first place: how many theologians are atheists or agnostics? When push really comes to shove, intellectually-speaking, there’s always the black hole of “spiritual reality” to fall into.

I would suggest long before puzzling over the persistence of theism, less-entrenched wrongheadedness i.e. paranormal/quackery should be thought about first.

Well i believe its because most people need something on which they can throw their troubles and wait for any help... need some meaning in life and i dont think its easy for anyone to image a life as if there is no purpose and we are just here to pass some time.

I have gone through this when i was converting from Islam to atheism/agnosticism, you go through many sleepless nights to just understand this one single point.

Why, when we have all the answers, are there so many unconvincable theists still out there

We don't have "all the answers", and science and skepticism is not about having all the answers. We do have a great deal of evidence contradicting many religious claims, and a clear trend of religious explanations as necessary to explain phenomena evaporating over time as science provides testable, logical alternatives. The primary reason for not believing should be the lack of reasons TO believe, and the primary reason for not saying "well I just don't know" is because then you have to say the same thing about every crackpot idea that you come across with no evidence to directly contradict it.

and/ What else should we be doing to convince them?

Encourage the educational systems to include critical thinking, science, and history in their curricula. Do what you can to help others learn these skills and fields. If people have the tools, they can make their own decisions - your goal (IMO) should be to have everyone make informed decisions, not those based on ignorance and peer-influence.

Join atheist and skeptic groups, especially face-to-face ones, but there are also web ones like Think Athiest. Get involved, and help out. Donate. Help others who may be uncertain about asserting their own lack of belief to feel comfortable about doing so and informed about communicating this to other people. Communicate, through blogging, Twitter, podcasting, whatever, so that you become a strengthening asset to the community.

Be a good atheist. Help your community. Be involved in politics at whatever level is appropriate. Volunteer to help the needy. Just generally be the best person you can be. It's an ideal I am far from achieving, but everyone needs a goal.

There is no one thing you can do to change someone's mind about religion, but many things you can do that will benefit the irreligious and may make the religious think a little more about the rationality of their position.

Sometimes I feel like I am a theist, but that probably has something to do with my raging God complex and seeing as I strongly believe in me, I therefore believe I am God.

I think I am God Therefore I am God If I wasn't a theist then this wouldn't work and I probably wouldn't feel so good about myself in the morning.

Anyway, I know other people believe in another God, but that is not strictly true. They need an answer for where there is no answer. Belief in something that has never been seen is not normal. If, instead of religion we just had a range of creative stories which essentially all said, "What about this? for an idea?" then that would be fine, but to actually decide there must be a God is a nonsense and is no more sensible than me saying I believe the world was created by me because: 1 - My learning has given me the ability to think 2 - I think all by myself 3 - I created God

That is why there are theists - they are the ones who do not realise they are living in a world that exists only within their own heads.

Why, if you have all the answers, are you still asking questions?