Let me try it this way... see if it helps.
Discussion and debate is an evolutionary trait and generally speaking is worthwhile because it can advance most subjects, you just happened to pick a subject with historical implications and lessons that suggest anything but reconciliation.
The other thing is discussion and debate does not necessarily mean concluding with common ground or compromise. However, if compromise is achieved that does not mean consensus (in the general agreement sense) from all participants and points of view on whatever is being discussed. To that end, even if consensus on a subject is achieved that is not always synonymous with reconciliation (in the compatible sense of the term.)
For plenty of subjects we can simply agree to disagree on something, have a good discussion on the subject or issue, and remain within the same area, society, nation, what have you as compatible citizens that do not agree on everything. Not every issue has the same weight, not every issue has the same consequence of not agreeing.
However for plenty of other subjects that becomes more challenging usually based on the nature of the issue, how polarizing that issue might be, and ultimately who is appealed to in order to have that opinion marginalize the opposition in some regard.
Take these forums here... there is real reason that "beliefs and skepticism" is separate from Theology (and we have the added third area of Philosophy as well.) These forums did not always organize this area as they are today but it is easy to argue that blending Theology with "beliefs and skepticism" had some consequences. Those that believe need a place to discuss what they believe, those that are skeptical need a place to voice that, and Philosophy... well, that can be any number of things.
But right here in these forums is a more controlled microcosm of a greater world without such confines.
Your subject of reconciliation between atheism and theism immediately fails because of the indisputable reality that just between all the takes on theism you do not have reconciliation either. God or Gods across all of humanity in raw numbers is into the thousands and just within the more modern takes within all the branches of just the Abrahamic Religions you have very little room for reconciliation. If they were really all that compatible you would see far less division, far less appeal to authority to mainstream one over the other, far less marginalization of the minority belief, and ultimately far less reason for loss of life, destruction, and warfare. Ideologically speaking Christianity has no room to be compatible with Islam, same story with Islam and Judaism, and get them all together and we have historical proof of how little they all get along even if you can argue today that Judaism and Christianity can somewhat coexist without all these negative realities from human history.
You add in atheism (and even agnosticism) to the mix and ironically you amplify the problem as it all boils down to various ideologies that are descendant from what someone believes or does not.
All of human history is on my side of this debate, with few if any real exceptions to the rule on what competition in the space of systems of belief result in.
We can discuss and debate these topics and still find positive outcome, but that does not mean all of a sudden tomorrow nations and ideologies will no longer be in conflict. Last I checked the overwhelming majority of nations in the world are in some phase of conflict with someone else (if not themselves too.)
"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.' - Jiddu Krishnamurti
He was right then, still correct today, and even though we can have peaceful conversation here that does not mean he will become wrong tomorrow.
