Joined: May 2006
I actually think that "Ignore the nasty atheists" might be a #### fine tactic. Emphasis on the "nasty" - most atheists aren't. Y'all have your fair share of total jerks, just like every other group out there.
If someone I am trying to talk to or work with on anti-creationism/pro-science issues starts railing at me for being (dumb/stupid/irrational/whatever) solely because I'm religious, I think ignoring them would work well -- there just aren't that many "nasty atheists" out there. Ignoring them - even if I ignored every single one - won't damage me (or the pro-science movement as a whole) one #### bit.
Vocally abusive anti-religionists are, like religious extremists, a minority. Unless they, like the religious extremists, start demanding that the government advocate their POV, ignoring them is perfectly safe. I'd love to be able to ignore the religious fundies as well, but they just can't seem to be persuaded to keep their hands off the government, and I'm afraid they'll break it if left unsupervised.
Just to be clear - the great majority of atheists are *not* "nasty atheists". Even many vocal anti-religionists that I know are able to express their perspectives clearly and politely without resorting to personal attacks. I enjoy and appreciate knowing such people and being able to talk with them about what they believe, don't believe and why.
As for the nasties, I say ignore them. If they can't play well with others, then lets not bother to include them at all.
Edit: I just took a look at this post, and I cannot begin to describe how deeply it amuses me to see the word d__mn being auto-censored by this thorougly secular site.
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)