Sorry, I admit I misunderstood your intention. My reaction was probably harsher than was warranted because I have heard statements like that before (almost verbatim) from apologists and accommodationalists; some of whom claim to be atheists or skeptics as if it gives them some kind of street cred when dealing with us *see rg21 earlier in the thread*.
Surely, you must agree that a certain amount of the “righteous indignation and fury” you speak of (which I am guilty of in my posts) is sometimes appropriate. As you rightly mention, it is not the passion or vehemence with which an argument is delivered that really matters. It is the information being conveyed and whether it is fact or fiction.
The main problem I had with your statement is the implication that the more outspoken anti-religionists have somehow been rude, angry, or obnoxious on average. You make it sound like they’re simply screaming at theists without really saying anything. This is a common myth perpetuated by the religious and their sympathizers when they want to demean the character of a speaker rather than counter their arguments. With the exception of “less restrained” forum posters like myself, I have experienced the exact opposite of your inference. Anybody I have witnessed publicly speak out against religion has been incredibly restrained, polite, and patient considering what they are discussing and who they are discussing it with.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seemed a bit to me like you were propping yourself up as the “good cop”, while relegating the others to the role of “bad cop”, in order to ingratiate yourself with the religious. This kind of disingenuous opportunism is in very bad taste and I have seen it done many times before. If this was not your intention then I apologize.