Your comments in blue, my responses in red.
That their idealogue is foolproof and that the only reasonable people must take their position. No one has to take my position. It would be silly to expect that.
The flying spaghetti monster argument. The FSM or Last Thursdayism is every bit as good as Genesis or any other Creation story.
The assumption that all God believers are religious or adhere to a particular religion. I think that most atheists have heard of Deism. There are other reasons people believe in a god, God, gods but do not follow a religion.
Everything is a logical fallacy from those they oppose. "Everything" is too strong of a word. More accurate would be "many religious beliefs are illogical".
If it does not logically follow for them, then it should not logically follow for anyone else. IOW, their intuition is superior to all other intuitions. Not sure why you would put intuition and logic into the same bucket. I rarely if ever rely on my intuition.
The attitude of ridicule. Some things deserve ridicule. Serious discussions deserve serious comments and responses. Citing Answers in Genesis as a reasonable source of scientific study deserves ridicule.
The priesthood of scientific authority over all people's lives. That is pretty much an unfounded assertion. Perhaps you would give some examples.
The idea that philosophy is useless, and only science reigns supreme. Again, that is an unfounded assertion. Philosophy has its place. But not in the realm of science. Injecting philosophy into science leads to woo and thence, ridicule.
Ultimate questions are all within the realm and grasp of science. Ultimate questions like how many universes exist are indeed within the realm of science. The grasp, probably not. Ultimate questions like how many gods exist are not within the realm of science. In my opinion, those are in the realm of fiction.
Are not author's like Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, and Sam Harris doing philosophy of science when they write their books, or when they need an interpretation, or an hypothesis?
Intuition is physically deceptive. If people did not develope their intuitions there would be nothing of the mind to work with. Intuition leads to asking why, and how questions.
Naturalism is an intuition. Physicalism is an intuition. They both are philosophies underpinning all of science. I respect the method for all it gets out of nature. But i believe other methodologies can develope besides methodological naturalism.
There are Scientist's who believe that science can answer moral questions and ultimate questions of existence. They probably do not speak for the entire population. But you can see there are some people who push this agenda quite forcefully.
Science might discover a whole range of multiverses but that says nothing about the scope of the entire existence, and whether or not their is an ultimate beginning to it all.
I in no way defend Answers in Genesis.
The logical fallacy card is used obsessively on this forum. That is fine for a debate. I do not think the rules of logic alone prove or disprove anything. I usually gravitate to discussion over the sport of debate. People need to realize that discussion is to expand understanding, and debate is about winning an argument with juicy cherry picked arguments. I would love to hear all sides of a topic but the bottom line is that the spiritual intuition is vastly different than the naturalist intuition. Thus the whole argument is going in circles without much substance conveyed. Its like aliens speaking to other aliens.