How I lost my comment argument mojo

Just a few months ago, I was willing to get into arguments at ABC religion online in the comments.  It was the subject of a rather arrogant blog post.  What brought me undone was a discussion of a John Gray essay about the 'new' atheism, in which he tried to point out that 'modern' thought has a few unquestioned beliefs of its own.

I got myself into a discussion about this, in which I was trying to make the points:

• John Gray is not a theist - he could give a pretty thorough critique of religion if he thought it needed it, but, as a realist he wants to subvert a dominant ideology, not a hapless water buffalo that's just waiting for the hunter with the elephant gun...*  The new-atheist commenters where whaling on this obviously ignorant backwater religionist, oblivious to the fact that he has been Professor of European Thought at the LSE and not religious (although, in fairness, he has expressed some residual affection for religion).
• Modern rationality includes / assumes a lot that cannot be proved to the standard that atheism applies to religious belief.  For example, that democracy assumes 'all men are created equal' - which is obviously not true.  People are hardly even alike.  For another example, the critique of Hume's famous 'commit it to flames' rule, which should itself be committed to the flames.

But when I got the response 'No there isn't proof, but I don't think it's that kind of belief' I was stumped for anywhere to go.  Eh?  It's a special category that can't be questioned? You don't see a contradiction in privileging that?  If one can write that without embarrassment I have to admit, I'm wasting my time.  

And so my comment warring came to an end. There is a gap, and I'm not bridging it.

* Roy and HG reference