Interesting that they can detect everybody else’s flaws but their own. Look at how much time they spend, coordinating and plotting, and participating with one another. Why are they soooo emotional about this if their is no connection??? Their behavior falsifies their arguments because you see they are obviously emotional about the topic. Look at how much time they spend obsessing over it. They aren’t interested in conversation, relationship, understanding, or participation. They are only interested in arguments that they can win. That is the form of their conquest that they require, that is what makes them feel good about themselves.
What stimulated their need recognition to need to feel superior to others, and to avoid conversations with people like me, a deist, that can actually explain the bridge between religiosity and science? They edit their consideration sets to exclude evidence and arguments that prove them wrong. They are only looking for arguments in which they can win, that is the form of their conquest. Just like Dawkins, who avoids debates that he can’t win, yeah, he refuses to debate people he knows he can’t beat.
Notice how they believe themselves to be good in their actions and justified in everything they do. No guilt, or shame reflex, no humility. They presuppose their own goodness and their moral authority to judge and harass others.