Religions aren't something to be argued about with the tools of empiricism. The mythologies of religions are non-provable, that's why they are also called faith. If someone religious tries to "prove" the statements of their religion to someone who doesn't believe in them not only are they misguided but also most likely not too sharp, since they can't recognize the utter futility of what they are doing. It's futile not only because they have no chance of convincing their talking partner, but also because there is no way to prove anything about religion.

That doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't have a religion by the way, it just means what I said, that there is no way to argue about religion empirically and so you shouldn't.

With that said I do also think this is a bit of a strawman. I'm sure there are people who despite the (in my opinion) immensely obvious stupidity of the aforementioned behavior do behave like that, but I mostly only hear about this type of people when hardcore atheists (to whom the same applies by the way, you also can't disprove faith and someone whose sole basis for reality isn't empirical observation can't be convinced by you trying to disprove it) parodize it.

In the end I think the problem with the conversation depicted is that on a logical level it's the same as two religions arguing with eachother. They have completely different ways in which they define reality, so there is no way to come to a common understanding of it by arguing. You won't convince someone about the existence of God who only believes in what can be proven by experiment and you won't convince someone of the non-existence of God who believes in God because they don't have that same way of defining reality. Doing so either way would very closely mirror for example a Buddhist being convinced to become a Christian.