I wouldn't say that.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: the "you" and "I" there were so called just for convenience. I wouldn't say the things "I" say in that paragraph, either. (And, for the avoidance of doubt, I agree that both the answers you say you might give are better than a flat "No, you didn't". Of course.)

"Obligation" is an odd word to use here. [...] I don't want to quibble over terminology.

Well, the whole point of what you've been saying here seems to be that skeptics who argue against religious beliefs are (or at least many of them are) doing something wrong, that instead of arguing over religious beliefs they should be empathizing with religious experiences or something like that.

I agree that understanding things is better than not understanding them. But understanding any specific thing is not always a high priority.

If prayers to a particular god were answered more often than prayers to some other god, that would be pretty convincing evidence [...]

Of course. Perhaps I was unclear: I didn't mean "nothing that could possibly happen would constitute strong evidence", I meant "no purely internal religious experience would constitute strong evidence". (With the proviso I stated, of course.) In other words, the sort of "experience" that I thought this whole discussion was about.

fundamentalist wackos

Plenty of people who are not in any useful sense fundamentalist wackos believe that the world was created by a superbeing of vast power and goodness. And while wanting gay people stoned to death is probably in wacko-only territory, there are plenty of non-wackos who want gay people not to be allowed to marry one another for reasons that are ultimately pretty similar to the wackos' reasons.

some people who profess to believe in God are actually [...] allies in many other matters

Yup, absolutely true. I don't think this is as little understood as I think you think it is.

less inflammatory rhetoric

If all you're saying is that in many contexts it is better not to insist on talking about sky fairies and telling religious people they're crazy -- why, yes, I agree. And, again, my impression is that most people here do too.

Although LW is on the whole a pretty unreligious place, there are active members here who are religious believers, and I don't think they get abused for it. And from time to time someone comes along and says, more or less, "hi, I'm a believer but sympathetic to rationalism; can we talk?" and the responses mostly seem pretty respectful and polite to me. See, e.g., this post from a believer leaning towards agnosticism and wanting thoughts on miracles, though of course the "I might deconvert" framing may have made people nicer.