Question Author
Naomi, as your last post clearly implied, such is an inevitable consequence in a debate over a non-existent being for heaven's sake. Where evidence is nowhere to be found what other recourse is there but to attack the one suggesting that perhaps the emperor wears no clothes.
Religionists have a remarkable ability to change the subject when delving into the issue at hand might expose an inherent fallacy. The crux of any debate about religion will always lie in the presumption of the existence of an undefined entity. God is the central issue, the culprit, the villain.
There is an even wider issue involved in these debates that derails objective analysis in secular as well as religious themes. The failure to grasp where the faculty of consciousness arises, between the ears of a living sentient physical being. Once one has made this distinction the existence of a purposeful and causal entity prior to the existence of a universe which provides the means for such an entity to evolve, such preexisting abilities fall clearly into the realm of the absurd.
It�s all and always has been a big mistake, a presumption predicated on ignorance, diverting our attention from the real and important issue we face as existentially condition beings . . . how best to live together in this life on this Earth, deriving the benefits available to us thru mutual understanding of the demands imposed and realising the potentials available to us with respect to our nature, and achieving and maintaining peace.