That's the spirit! Keep throwing everyone who disagrees with you into the same bag, call them names based on affinity, and insinuate they're all the same: fundamentally wrong for not sharing your dogmatic view of the metaphysical. Doesn't make you sound like an unreasonable, bigoted fundie in the slightest.

That didn't feel nice, hasn't it?

I suppose you're going to tell me that you tried civility for years and it didn't work. That said, I still remember that your literal first words uttered to me on IRC, even before I made an account here, weren't "hi", "welcome" or "hello", but "do you believe in god?" followed by some very disgruntled/loaded lines to my deliberately ambiguous "mostly-secular humanist" response. It took you months to change my first impression, and I still recall that introductory bit at times like this. Figured it's worthwhile to share it with you.

Changing other people's mind is more complex and time-intensive than whatever you're doing, especially on concepts as personal and rooted in tradition as faith. It applies to all sides of the argument. As it stands now, you wouldn't be able to convince me, a doubting deist physicist, to the lack of the importance of god or religion. Please, consider at least adding some variety to your usual approach.