When fundamentalists disagree

I always find it funny when fundamentalists and skeptics are debating, and the fundies can't agree with each other. I've seen this happen a lot, and most recently I saw it on Hirhurim. One guy states that we can only justify our own beliefs b y admitting to some kind of epistemic pluralism. The next guy says chas vesholom, Judaism is the one true religion and everyone else is wrong, wrong, wrong. One guy says of course we need faith, the next guy says chas vesholom, Judaism is the one true religion that can actually prove its the one true religion, all the other religions admit they have no proof (wrong, but entertaining nonetheless). One guy says faith must be rational, and therefore faith in Jesus is no good because the concept of a man-god is not rational (bizzarre), the next guy says it is rational, we just don't believe in it. Even funnier, Rabbi Shafran on Cross-Currents posted an anti-evolution piece (stupid and wrong), whereas Rabbi Adlerstein posted a more pro-Evolution piece from the Chief Rabbi.

Meanwhile, the skeptics are pretty much all on the same page. Why is this? Why is there so much disagreement amongst the fundies, yet the skeptics all speak with one voice?

I guess the answer is that when you are duty bound to follow the facts, you arrive (most of the time) at the same conclusions, since the facts are the facts. However when you are not constrained by facts, and are driven instead by your personal biases and emotions, the only limits to your theories are your imagination and your existential angst.