If someone X, before asking him to provide some solid evidence that X, you should stick your neck out and say that you yourself believe that non X.

Otherwise, people might expect that after they do all the legwork of coming up with evidence for X, you'll just say "well actually I believe X too I was just checking lol".

You can't expect people to make efforts for you if you show no signs of reciprocity - by either saying things they find insightful, or proving you did your research, or acknowledging their points, or making good faith attempts to identify and resolve disagreements, etc. If all you do is post rambling walls of texts with typos and dismissive comments and bone-headed defensiveness on every single point, then people just won't pay attention to you.

Respectfully, if you don't think post-modernism is an extraordinary claim, you need to spend more time studying the history of ideas. The length of time it took for post-modern thought to develop (even counting from the Renaissance or the Enlightenment) is strong evidence of how unintuitive it is. Even under a very generous definition of post-modernism and a very restrictive start of the intellectual clock, Nietzsche is almost a century after the French Revolution.

my claims are not extraordinary, they are contradictory to several core beliefs of this community.

If your goal is to help us have a more correct philosophy, then the burden is on you to avoid doing things that make it seem like you have other goals (like yanking our chain). I.e. turn the other cheek, don't nitpick, calm down, take on the "unfair" burden of proof. Consider the relevance of the tone argument.

"several people have told someone that they need there to be God because without God the universe would be immoral" is not sufficient enough evidence to make that claim.

There are many causes of belief in belief. In particular, religious belief has social causes and moral causes. In the pure case, I suspect that David Koresh believed things because he had moral reasons to want to believe them, and the social ostracism might have been seen as a feature, not a bug.

If one decides to deconvert someone else (perhaps to help the other achieve his goals), it seems like it would matter why there was belief in belief. And that's just an empirical question. I've personally met both kinds of people.

All they see is you/people like you calling a part of them "vulgar." I don't believe I've done this
It is harder and/or worse to get people to part with these beliefs than to adopt a bowdlerized version of them".

Don't use words if you do not know what they mean.

The two statements you quoted are not inconsistent because a bowdlerized theory is not calling the original theory vulgar, in current usage. Based on the change in meaning that I identified.