[jaywunder]

> While this is an important skill to have, I've also learned over time that there are certain types of people where it's easier to let them "be right" and accommodate the consequences

Generally when that happens to me I've come across what I like to call a "fundamental argument." Where neither party is correct and neither party is wrong. A good example of this is "do you believe in religion" because nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a higher being or a religion. But some people will fundamentally be okay with believing in a higher power though. So whatever side of the debate I'm on, when the conversation comes down to a fundamental argument I let both parties be right.

[PakG1]

The type of people I am discussing don't have these "fundamental arguments" as you describe them. They have diametric arguments like: "the reason you chose the system you did is because you hate me" or "you're trying to sell me this product because you want to see me suffer", etc. I am the center of the world, the world revolves around me, and anyone who disagrees with me about anything is out to get me, and every situation in the world is designed to be a detriment to my personal and professional well-being; therefore, I must always be in attack mode to prevent the world's population from hurting me. That type of skewed perspective. I did not used to think that these types of people existed. I do now.

[pjc50]

When it's that strong it could be called narcissistic personality disorder. Sadly it tends to be prevalent in domestic abuse.

[Cogito]

I'm all for "fundamental arguments" as you call them, but they are probably the least interesting arguments imaginable. Their only claim to being interesting, from my point of view, is because they tend to arise as the last bastion of a belief system that has been whittled away by evidence.

Let's take your example a little further, starting with the perhaps more general: "Do you believe in a higher power?".

I agree that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher power, however I do think it is possible to prove (not that I think it will be proved, ever). Things that were previously taken as evidence of such a proof are now generally accepted as natural phenomena (lightning as a crude example).

The nature of what would prove the existence makes for a much more interesting argument than the mere possibility of existence.

"Do you believe that the higher power interacts with this universe?"

"Do you believe that we can measure that interaction?"

"What would that measurement look like?"

"Why haven't we actually measured that?" (perhaps a loaded question!)

If someone chooses to believe in a higher power that is unable to interact with us, and has no impact on anything we do, good for them! Potential issues arise when people believe that the higher powers does interact with the world, and so I find that discussion much more interesting than merely if such a thing could exist or not.

[Artoemius]

> nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a higher being or a religion.

You don't believe in something just because you cannot disprove it. You must have some evidence to believe it in the first place. Otherwise, you would believe in all kinds of celestial teapots.

[AstralStorm]

You're assuming that the need to be right overrides society and belonging - security. For most people it does not.