religions (or, as in my case, a more foundational critique of the wilful suspension of disbelief that is necessary to believe in a god or gods at all, regardless of any particular religion) causes them to have to lash out and demand all critique/criticism be silenced and suppressed?
You are falsely equating logical critique of a belief system (and if that belief system is god or gods-based, a critique of the epistemological underpinnings necessary to believe in said supernatural beings/concepts) with somehow a priori attacking Democrats.
You brought up a fictional character, Tinker Bell. If you actually DID believe that Tinker Bell is real, then, to arrive at that stance, you would have to apply the exact same wilful suspension of disbelief that people use in order to believe in a god or gods. You have no problem (I assume) with people critiquing a person who claims Tinker Bell is real, yet you then pivot to a stance of condemnation and false equivalency when another person uses that exact same logic to critique religion and its often attendant god or gods.
A simpler way to put it: If you understand why you dismiss the possibility (again, assuming you do) that Tinker Bell, the Easter Bunny or other mythical/fictional beings are indeed real, then you will see why non believers dismiss the concepts of a god or gods as well.
They are all human-created inventions that require magical/supernatural thinking (ie the wilful suspension of disbelief) to claim they exist.
A declaration by a non god(s) believing person stating that they refuse to engage in a wilful suspension of disbelief, and then stating why they chose not to, is hardly an attack when it is not made directly personal, but is just merely stated as their stance on the matters at hand.
= new reply since forum marked as read