I did not say "all.." However, in order to be more clear, I should have said "we often see"

William Fleming posts: "To respect means to take a second look" I fear that you are shifting ground. Of course there will always be disagreement which one takes seriously and other which one does not. But to a rational atheist, a rigorous rebuttal constitutes strong evidence of a second look and more. But it might not bee deemed appreciative by those who do not value criticism as inherently friendly. And perhaps correctly so. And yet, the expectation of personal respect, fall far short of the demand of appreciation for that which does not merit appreciation or at any rate that quite honestly one does not appreciate. Moreover, is appreciation the true focus of debate?

@AaronAgassi Good point. For many people, to disrespect means to treat with contempt, and they might view honest criticism as contempt.

It’s hard not to feel contempt when someone says, “Because it’s in the Bible”. But I have a few friends who say that. They are great people—we just disagree about religion, that’s all.

I disagree though that religious people define respect as unquestioning deference to authority. Some of them defer to the authority of scriptures, but in other areas they might be defiant of authority. Baptists e.g. are a notoriously independent group and defiant of authority. What about Martin Luther? He defied the Church in his proclamations.

Closed minded authority here can be to scripture or to voices in ones head, etc. And yes, there is indeed a temptation to incivility in the face of contempt for reason and responsibility. But if we are so perverse as to debate with superstition and fantasy, then us own that vice with due equanimity.