The debate is over

[Epimethean]

And that, I think, is what it really comes down to. Being ill-informed about living in fantasy? I think he sees it for the disease it is. It would have to be embarrassing to have to talk with any seriousness to the self-deluded regarding their love of an irreality the "truth" of which they have never yet substantiated with an iota of evidence.

There's nothing fantasy-like about the existence of various religious peoples, the history of their religions, and their practices. They all actually exist in reality and if you're planning to criticise them I think you ought to understand them first. Of course, if you're critcising general things, like the validity of belief without evidence that's fine. If you're criticising the Bible on some point, however, you'd better actually be familiar with the Bible.

Firstly, let me assert that my criticism of religion runs along the lines of scientific method and finds no response based on evidence. Secondly, I am reasonably familiar with religion, having been raised with it, compelled to go through catechism, and, further, having studied it through comparative religion courses. The existence of UFO nuts doesn't compel me to spend much time on their bullshit, either. Given a finite amount of time in a given day, I will spend mine on what is demonstrably real rather than the pursuit of the promise of life after death, which, when it comes down to it, is what monotheism is about and the main reason it attracts people like a bad infomercial. And, regarding your comment on there being nothing fantasy-like about the "practices" of religious peoples, you may want to restate that.