No, that's a perceptive observation. I like to be inspired when I write, so there's an emotional background to many of my writings. Often, what motivates me is annoyance or disdain. Something rubs me the wrong way, and I criticize it to attempt to right a wrong. The disdain isn't so much about my wounded ego, though. That's the postmodern gambit of normalizing ad hominem. It's more a matter of the disdain anyone would feel from the outsider's detached, existential perspective.
But it's true that there's a theme of elitism in my writings, as there is throughout the history of Western philosophy. The early Christians were elitists, too, which is why Jesus explained his parables only to his inner circle.
I've dabbled in naturalistic explanations or religion, but there's a danger in doing so, which is that we can lose sight of religious people's agency, and can dehumanize them. If religious beliefs were just "memes," for example, and religious "people' were only hosts for those mind viruses, why should the religious folks be treated with dignity at all?
I try to take a middle path in that respect. I'm an elitist, but I think all humans have the potential to become people in the elite sense. In practice, though, the enlightened are superior to the masses in existential terms.
If what you're saying, though, is just that it's futile arguing with theists, and foolish getting riled up because their religious beliefs are natural and not likely to change, I take the point. Indeed, I learned that over two decades ago when I started debating Christians on the Secular Web in the 1990s. I saw few minds were changed by those debates, but there are other reasons to write. My writings are public, so readers who are on the fence can see them too.
Christianity is certainly an anachronism in that the myths aren't compatible with modern philosophy and science. But if you're saying that religion is universal and inevitable, you'd be talking not about the contents of Christianity or of any religion, but about something more structural. We may all have ideologies and rituals of some kind, but some are more respectable than others if they grapple with reality as it's presently understood.
Even if specific theistic beliefs were natural and universal in a Kantian sense (if the beliefs followed from the mind's transcendental structure, for example), as long as we have some agency, we can at least adapt those beliefs to present circumstances instead of retreating to a fantasy that belongs in the distant past.
