"Pete may hope to be rewarded in Heaven for his staunchness, but what do those atheists hope, who do not really strive to save anybody else either? It must amount to "onanism", as discussed earlier."

It isn't onanistic, it's a chance to really think about how, as scientists we can deal with blind faith and the blinkers it can put on people. As I said earlier, Pete is a good teacher as his stonewalling of any meaningful discussion is a typical creationist ploy to divert a discussion from the one thing that challenges their world view that they struggle to explain: facts.

Their cherry picking is immensely frustrating, but I for one hold out hope for their salvation from delusion and ignorance. There are plenty of people of faith in all walks of life that are not on board with a literal interpretation of the bible, and who are not afraid to ask awkward questions of their faith (as we should of science); it would be interesting to have these people in on these discussions, but the literalists scare them off I guess.

This is important because there now large numbers of people who take the bible literally, and they are now affecting how politicians legislate for education, climate change and science funding. These people despise blue sky research, are against progress or personal freedom and would impose their religious laws on all of us; how long before they call for stoning to be re-introduced for some crimes?

So discussing these matters is vital, before we are back in the dark ages.