It's amazing how similar people's feelings about skeptical debunkers' books are to their feelings about books about the stuff they're debunking:

From a review of Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries: Science And Pseudoscience In Archaeology: "I personally was reminded how easy it is to fool people who want to believe something and aren't moved to investigate or challenge the beliefs they are comfortable with. The gist of the book seems to be that people who rely mostly upon faith can end up believing just about anything, while those who are inclined to question and test new information via logic, scientific methods, and common sense are more likely to actually uncover the facts for themselves, doing away with faith altogether."

From a review of Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History Of The Human Race: "Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson have brought the facts, the hard evidence and the ideas based on them into the light, and one can not overvalue that. The book has rather had a double impact - first, the authors showed to the public the hidden truth that is striking, much impressing, but based on the facts; second, they inevitably make us realize how unbelievable the position of the modern science is - "don't trust your eyes, trust my theory" is what may best be a slogan of those "real" scientists. The second part of the "impact" is rather most important - one more time a reader has a chance to see how a modern science can be an obstacle on the way of the general scientific progress, how a widely accepted theory can prevail over the logical and really scientific approach, how an established scientific society can hide or destroy the evidence that opposes the official views only in the name of pure officially supported theory."

We all think we're rationally considering the evidence in an unprejudiced manner, while those who disagree are dogmatically clinging to a theory and only listening to the evidence that supports it.