Declaring a viewpoint is not "deserving" and dismissing it by declaring it unworthy of being addressed is also an egotistical need. A viewpoint that disagrees with yours cannot be simply dismissed, taunted and mocked as a method for demonstrating why your viewpoint is the correct one. Religion represents a plethora of views. Yes, many of them are in contradiction with science. But these views are still embraced by millions of people and thus cannot be just tossed aside as wrong simply by saying, "You're an idiot." This stance is no more effective than the opposing view stating "You must have faith."
Whenever opposing views exist, intelligent debate, where personal attacks, mocking, and egotistic passions are excluded, will always be of value.
Credibility is earned by presenting compelling and influential arguments. If your answer to a viewpoint is to abjectly refuse to refute it, because your view is so superior that all other viewpoints are so wrong that all they deserve is to be laughed at, your stance looks unsurprisingly familiar.
Science doesn't need your elitism or your contempt of other views as a champion, but rather people who present quantifiable alternatives to a viewpoint which are compelling to those who are interested.