Pride does not necessarily enter into it at all, Dear Bro.
One could say . . . constructions on reality which have little to no basis on concrete fact
One could say . . . constructions on reality which have no congruence amongst others observing from an objective Proty perspective.
One could say . . . constructions on reality which have no grounding in the reality most Proties connect with Scripture and the tangibles of daily life.
etc.
Fantasies is a reasonable short hand. It is ONE perspective.
RC perspectives accuse Proties of various things which are more or less offensive to Proties. Most Proties are reasonably non-plussed by such unless the tone is super shrill or the hypocrisy is super glaring. It goes with the territory.
RC’s however, tend to take things particularly personally as though every bit of dogma and doctrine unique to the RC’s and/or Orthy’s was a cinder block sized chip on their shoulders over which they were obligated to go ballistic over should any Proty dare to comment about it in less than glowing terms.
That phenomenon has been standard hereon for many years. It’s less so amongst the RC’s I meet face to face, interestingly, and thankfully.
Then why not present it as such. "It looks like ..." "It seems to me ..." "What I cannot help thinking are fantasies."
I think the net is a hot medium, and just impresses people as aggressive.
I got contentious on the religion forum when I logged onto a thread and read someone completely mischaracterizing in an aggressive, hostile, and mendacious way our teaching on the Eucharist. The kindest possible construction that could be places on this was uncaring ignorance and a presumption that Catholic teaching ought to be condemned not understood, and any condemnation would do. Sweeping and sweepingly untrue statements couched in the rhetoric of certainty seem to be the norm
Darn, gotta go.