Few people are very good at recognising their own flaws. Oh, they'll say they do, but they really don't. I'm no exception, even this being an example I'm sure of pretending how aware of my mistakes I am when I only think I know what they are -- although you can go too far down a rabbit hole like that.
My own impression is that you haven't asked very many questions that "honestly", and so I tend to stay away from wasting any time answering them or engaging with them because I'm already fairly confident I know how much (read: how little) attention you'll pay to it. For example, in a topic you posted about "who or what created the Universe", anyway a not particularly original thought, your follow-up post included the not-at-all sardonic "Ah yes, the scientific explanation", as if such things are beneath your contempt.
It doesn't create a welcoming atmosphere to engage in very much. As it happens, I did take part in that thread, but mainly to engage in a side-argument. But if you wanted to debate the physics of how a Universe can come from nothing, then I'm happy to do so on the understanding that -- how shall I put this? -- you allow that I might have something useful to contribute to that discussion beyond what popular science books might have to offer.
It's the same with most of your threads, really. As a rule of thumb you can't claim to respect the opinions of people you then blast as having "a total lack of understanding", or of suffering from a "predominant delusion", or what have you. Also this bizarre reference to "high priests of atheism" is a bit odd. There are no such things. Or, in as much as there are, you can safely ignore them. There is a subset of atheists who are very aggressive and almost as devoted to preaching as the religious they profess to hate, but such people can be safely ignored and aren't representative of atheism as a whole.
I suspect that you may ignore this criticism as well. That is of course your prerogative but, all the same, maybe there's something in it you might want to take consideration of.
At the very least, in future, perhaps when asking a question you could delay rejecting the answers until after they've been given, rather than pre-emptively.