You ask why rational people try to engage theists into critical thinking, then go on to detail how you, like most atheists, began as a child being conditioned to believe the theist myths of your parents until you discovered the skills of critical thinking and objective reasoning.
So you prove that theists can break their conditioning but then question why we bother trying to free the minds of others who, like us once, were brainwashed.
+1, David Hume and Kant had similar views. Humans are rational beings, believing in a "god" without any objective reason(Evidence) to is irrational, and disregards the entire concept of having the ability to reason and think. Theists are quite possibly the dumbest people on the planet. It's almost as if they "want" to give away their ability to reason, like mindless zombies.
I think you missed some of what Hume stated, however. If Hume concluded that "believing in a 'god' without any [evidence]...is irrational," then he contradicted himself.
Hume rightfully pointed out that Empiricism, and therefore Science, have non-empirical, unscientific foundations. Specifically, the assumptions that give the Scientific Method validity are entirely philosophical, e.g. how the rules of sound inference and knowledge of the limitations of inductive reasoning give validity to the assumption that we live in a Positivistic Universe, an assumption that is absolutely required for Science to work at all, and for which there is both no evidence nor a means of empirical falsification.
With regards to religion, Hume would say that a lack of evidence is not a strong enough basis (actually, it carries no weight whatsoever) to reject theism specifically because one who does would also be forced to reject the epistemological underpinnings of science itself. Yes, it is true there is no physical evidence for God, but because there is also no physical evidence for the validity of the scientific method, then we must defer back to Philosophy to establish the validity/invalidity of both. In other words, if one can make a total scientific departure to validate scientific epistemology (note: Science is merely a philosophical subset), then why cannot one make the same departure for theism?
On a side note, it's my personal observation that the unbelievably-vast majority of religious debates are
a priori invalid for the aforementioned reasons. Atheists make bullshit claims that it is silly to believe in God due to a lack of evidence (claims which are often supported by equally-bullshit analogies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot which hold no weight whatsoever), and then theists, thinking that these invalid arguments are actually credible, entertain them and provide bullshit rebuttals by hopelessly trying to cite evidence that supports the existence of God.
When it comes down to it, religious debates set in an empirical context are invalid and a waste of time, and people just spew a bunch of hot air.
