You’re saying the discussion can’t happen without both sides considering the other. Once that consideration takes place, there are neither true believers nor true atheists. Zealots don’t consider opposing points of view. It also depends on how the discussion is famed. If someone asks me if I believe in a particular god and I say "yes" or "no," then I'm labeled a believer or an atheist. If I say "I don't know," I'm labeled an agnostic. It might be better to say "I don't care" or “okay, fine.”
How else would one discuss one's non-believer position with a believer without bringing up the inconsistencies of religion? Remember that to argue is not to discuss, which would make both participants agnostics. I'm talking about true discussion, when one is trying to understand the other's point of view. This is different than listening for the sole purpose of blowing up the other argument. When talking with an adamant believer, I tend to ask questions based on the inconsistencies rather than try to beat them into submission with my counter arguments. I'm never really looking for faith anyway, just understanding. Besides, you can't change a believer or non-believer, only provide a different reality for them to consider at some later point in his (or her) life.