I think this applies to people who are casual believers and casual unbelievers meaning people who have not really thought of why they believe or why they do not and just go on auto pilot with no real reflection.
I would say sadly this is the majority because human life is so crushing with physical necessity(food and sleep) and social economic necessity(rent out your brain and time in exchange for resources) that it is rare that an individual can spend a great deal of time and resources on searching and studying in a careful and reflective manner the big questions of human existence.
I am sure many of you have heard of the following no matter your ideological point of view - You only think or believe that because ____. Fill in the blank. You have religious parents. You had a bad experience. You had a good experience. You are negative. You are optimistic. All can play this game. C.S. Lewis in his essay ""On Obstinacy in Belief" argued that wish thinking does not necessarily negate whether his faith is valid or not. On the opposite spectrum negative thinking or "sinful" thinking does not negate whether unbelief is valid or not. These pursuits of deconstruction may be good to discount the other or in the best light understand the other but if you are a sincere truth seeker you should not rest on deconstructing other mortal primates alone.
Christian apologists should remember that one of the most formidable Christians ever, the Apostle Paul, did not convert because of a mathematical equation or a rational argument but because of an emotional and physical experience on the road to Damascus.
I can speak for myself and state that whether I was a believer or a skeptic I tried to challenge (within my knowledge capacity at the time) what others thought within my group and out of it.
All men can be deconstructed of course the believer and the unbeliever. You can say that one is religious because of their mate, their community, and so forth. You can also flip that and say the same thing for those that are not religious. The believer and the unbeliever are both human and prone to fragility and emotive responses. It was David Hume who stated that Reason is the slave of the passions. As one psychologist stated Man is not a rational animal but a rationalizing animal.
Either way we all can be deconstructed. What matters in the end is what is true. Emotive and personal experiences may trigger one to seek new or different ideas but that does not mean their pursuit of knowledge is necessarily going to be in error. We must find a way to separate the emotive and anecdotal experience and use methods and tools that are more reliable and consistent in pursuing an accurate view of the world.
The intention may be good to understand where "the other" is coming from but it also can be used as a way to negate the other. To simply define them and deconstruct them as a way to ignore the actual ideas themselves. As Kierkegaard stated once you label me you negate me.
In the end what is true? What concepts and ideas are closer to reality?
Despite the smugness, mud slinging, ad hominem attacks and so forth that work in the political battle for ideas... when it comes to pure philosophy one should love wisdom above all else and try to seek it in humility if possible.
I appreciate all those who take these ideas serious and care to take time to engage in them.
"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them."
-Hypatia of Alexandria