Don't attack the messenger

I find it interesting, and at the same time alarming that way theists regard criticisms of their faith is to employ RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION to mount an 'attack' on the critic, at times per ad hominem and / or outright aggressively...

What is most disconcerting is that (at times) the critic allows themselves to be put on the defensive in response to such attacks. This defensive response is a complete submission to the attack.

I am hoping that (collectively) such attacks are answered with a method that points out that the critic did not create the problems or concepts that are being criticized, and further that if the attacker (of the critic) does not want criticisms to continue - The way to end the criticisms is not by attacking the critic(s) but by correcting the problems or concepts that are being criticized.

This approach should, at the very, least turn the tables in a way that puts the attacker on the defensive with the opportunity for the critic to then openly display the underlaying vulgarity that motivates the theist mindset. And it does so in a way which potentially flanks the theist / deist cognitive dissonance that prevents the rational / reasonable context that occupies and delineates most conversations.

By pointedly insisting that the theist / deist are responsible for cleaning their own house. And that attacking those who complain about the mess (that can be seen from the street,) will never contribute to that housekeeping process. 

Ergo: Don't attack the messenger...

This approach will help to divert said 'righteous indignation' so it is directed right back at the indignant individual.