Oh, I would agree that there have been some posts that have made no attempt to hide their lack of time for this kind of thing. I admit I personally have less tolerance and understanding than I could do with having for people who, for various reasons, cannot (yet?) see how daft certain things are in the face of the available evidence.
And I know that that is going to be interpreted as smug or condescending or superior by some people. Because disagreeing and knowing you're right, even with the benefit of actual evidence and knowledge behind you, is seen as a dreadful faux pas in this kind of discussion.
I'm just not sure why so many people have to go from viewing it as a dissenting voice, to interpreting it as a direct criticism of their opinion, to interpreting it as a direct criticism of them personally, to taking it as an excuse to lash out at others (without use of actual argument - just attempts to 'shame' people into leaving the thread and taking their 'logic' and 'rational explanations' with them).
I'd rather be a 'fun sponge' than steadfastly argue for believing in something in the face of all evidence, simply because I like believing in nonsense as a kind of hobby.
To anyone who believes in this kind of stuff because they honestly haven't ever seen logical explanations of any kind that would make them start thinking about these things far more critically: my irritation is not with you. And like a PP (or two), I recommend Derren Brown for a fascinating intro to how some of this stuff can work.