To be rational in the utmost is to consider one’s opponent’s best arguments rather than to attack either strawman or ‘weak man’ arguments. To attack with mockery, rather than argument, the prima facie absurdity of transsubstantiation is to evade serious rational discussion of the question of God’s existence. To attempt to persuade someone by mocking their beliefs rather than carefully refuting them is to attempt an end-run around rational debate and to try to bully someone into agreement by pressuring them that if they do not agree with you they will look silly and be thought a fool. To mock someone’s beliefs is an inherently demeaning thing to do to them.

There is no rational discussion to be had, if there were then as the article suggests the detractors would have been able to offer concrete arguments for this hocus pocus. Insisting that atheists resort to serious rational discussion to refute their insane beliefs is inviting of mockery. As Jefferson put it - 'An idea has to be properly formed before reason can act upon it."

If you believe this kind of batshit and stuff like Mohammed flying on Al Buraq and old women turning into cats and flying around on broom sticks then everything else is science.