My opinion is that people don't like the gospel and are both inspired by their dislike to write well against it/ or vote for those who write against it in cases where the writing is good and in cases where it isn't particularily.
"People don't like the gospel"? This is not specific. People for the most part don't like drowning but here we have a small subset. I'm not interested in reading through those threads but my impression from the little I've done is that it will be less than 20 people and they and Faith, Buzsaw and yourself are in frequent debate. Back a year or so ago it might have been Willowtree aka Herpeton, Lysamachus and his brother.
There is a core of evos and creos debating this forum's titled argument. The evo group could be following each others posts and noting those that strike them as particularly effective. How could this be demonstrated or falsified?
I'll also hazard a guess that it's the way the gospel is presented and defended including the insistence on YEC, Noah's Flood, etc that is what is being addressed rather than the gospel per se.
My own position on Christianity is ambivalent tolerance. European civilization is probably less violent than it would have been without it, though that is unverifiable. Thank God for the Greeks, the Renaissance, and science though.
Judeo Christianity probably helped the moral improvement of Europeans but the price it exacted for that aka the dark ages was high. As you can guess my preference is for Buddhism which over all has demonstrated far less potential for fanaticism and intolerance.
lfen