I think this is one of those times where our words and our true intentions do not match.

Those in religion think, on the surface, that they are in the religion because they have faith, because they believe.

However, the reason we "believe in belief" falls to the points I mention, which is why pointing out that all this stuff is wacky and obviously not false brings out so much anger. It's true, and it discredits the religion the person follows, but it doesn't tear down that core reason. So here we have a person no longer at peace, their idea of themselves, that they are a believer is false, because they do not believe, but their core reason for liking religion is still there, leaving them on a precarious edge of being unable to pick a direction without causing a fundamental change in who they are.

Since religions teach us we should be involved in religion for a love of God, that situation is a nasty one, so we avoid it, we shun those who bring it up, and so on and so forth. For a long time I debated with that, and it took years of me slowly chipping away at religion, slowly changing my own identity from one based on "God is there and betray of him means you go to hell" to "Hey, this god guy, he might not exist". I, for a long time, jumped to so many theories, I remember praying happily one day having been "given" a theory by god, that God is a "great simulator", that proved to me that god was real. I called myself an agnostic for a while. Finally, I hit the tipping point.

I feel this happens with many of our group identities, and I feel this is why people so often think debates are fruitless when arguing these subjects. They aren't, not at all, you just lack the scope to see the change you are creating in people, because that change won't be visible for upwards of ten to fifty years.