Often the largest difficulty lies in properly defining the question. I will address this in regards to Zeality's post, but highlighting this difficulty is important for those comments. Thus, if you will indulge me, I will explain. If you will not, then I would urge you to skip down to the second part of my post.
Also, Rushingwind, if you do not mind, I would like to use something you said as an example of this:
As a geology student, I have fielded discussions from at least two people who were determined to prove to me that "flood geology" was real and true, and that "polystrate fossils" proved it. Introductory Geology 101 clearly explains why all of this is simply nonsense. But even then, explaining to them that "flood geology" was disproven by a Creationist geologist more than 100 years ago doesn't convince them. The mindbogglingly simple explanation of so-called polystrate fossils doesn't convince them. No, they come into the argument convinced they're right, and that I'm wrong, and there's nothing I can say or do to make them see the simple truth before their eyes. They cannot see the simple truth because they have "faith." They'd rather believe in a story (one that would have them believe their god has purposely tried to deceive them about the nature of the Earth and the universe) than pay attention to fact.
The problems you had arose primarily from the wrong question being addressed. I can say this with certainty because I've been on both sides of that same discussion. Although it might seem like the question was if "flood geology" v real geology was correct, or perhaps if creationism was a valid intellectual position, in reality the question that was being addressed was if Christianity is a viable world view or not. Many individuals, both Christians and Atheists, frame these as being the same when they are not.
The individuals in your example wouldn't listen to you because you were only addressing one small sliver of a problem. You were trying to prove that they were wrong in only one tiny regard, when if they admit that they were wrong there, they would also be forced (in their minds) to say that they were wrong in a host of other areas that you hadn't even touched upon. It is like trying to pick up a large piece of plywood and keep it horizontal by only lifting one tiny corner.
In short, both you and those you were talking to were not discussing the real issue, and thus no progress could be made. It would have been far more profitable to discuss how the real issue is a false dilemma and that accepting real geology need not cause a domino effect for their world view.
It doesn't really matter what your (here, I am switching to an abstract "you," rather than a "you, RW") perspective on religion is. The fact that the head of the NIH and one of the top scientists in the nation can be religious and fully support science reveals that the two need not be at odds. Thus, while your long-term goal might be to eliminate religion, a more pertinent and desirable short-term goal is properly identifying the problem between religion and science and correcting it. This will not result in the elimination of religion, but it will be a good step towards the eliminations of pseudoscience.
Now, how does this relate to Zeality? Alas, the defenses given thus far do not address the actual question.
To be clear, Zeality is perfectly justified in being angry at being discriminated against based on him being an atheist. The question, however, is if that in turn justifies how he expresses that anger.
Anger motivates one to action, but what sort of action is posting such a comment as he did? It doesn't better the situation. It is, however, mildly cathartic. But why is it so? It is not just because he is expressing his anger: if that was the case, then the profanity and (hopeful) hyperbole are utterly unnecessary. Any outlet for his anger would suffice, be it posting on a forum or going for a jog.
I propose that such a post does not come from anger but rather from frustration. He envisions a better world. He lives in one that is far less than he wishes it to be. He is faced with an injustice, is angered, and thus is motivated to action. He is unable to do anything useful. Regardless of his anger, he cannot correct the injustice. Here we can fully agree: fuck being unable to correct injustice.
However, here anger is morphed into frustration. He wishes to take meaningful action, he is unable to, he is impotent. Where is the remedy, where the cure?
Anger prompts action, frustration prompts violence. Frustration is released by seizing power in this imaginary way: he might not be able to correct injustice in the real world, but at least here, where he is safe, he can scream to the heavens and for a moment pretend that he does have the power to dominate the source of the injustice.
How does he assert this power? Through violence. Sure, they are just words, but they are damn violent ones.
The question isn't if Zeality is justified in being angry, or frustrated, but rather if he is justified in expressing it through violent means (the “where” this occurs is largely irrelevant). I do not hold that violence is inherently evil and undesirable, and so I have no simple answer in this regard. I am merely proposing that discussion should center on the real question.
We might broaden the discussion slightly by asking what the proper response to injustices is when one lacks the power to affect a change in one’s immediate state, instead of if violence is appropriate in this specific case. I am sure that Zeality would gladly choose a course of action that provided him with the same release but had the added benefit of improving the world at the same time.
Katie, in regards to if you should continue interacting in this part of the compendium, I would urge you to do so. If nothing else, Z does have the virtue of allowing others to call BS on him. And while you might not respect him, perhaps you might be able to tolerate the situation if there are those who you do respect who in turn respect him. Besides, there are plenty of good people here besides him to interact with.