When I was a Christian I used to work out at a gym that was kind of small. It was small enough that the faces were familiar after a while. One guy drove a truck that had one of those Darwin fish on the back. The Darwin fish was a clever joke I thought. I had no problem with it. I was certainly not afraid to express my opinions and I had no problem with the skeptic being the same way.
On the other hand, if you want to flaunt your anti-Christian viewpoints, be prepared to get a reaction out of people. That's what you want anyway, right? You can't really make fun of an important Christian symbol publicly and cry foul when someone says something, can you? I didn't think so.
And the Jesus fish is a symbol that carries with it some important history (or so I thought at the time). This is that secret symbol that Christians would use to form some community at a time when being a Christian meant your life was at risk. It was the basis of an acronym that defined Christian beliefs. It's an important thing, and this guy wants to mock it. He can if he wants. It's a free country. On the other hand maybe he'd face a Christian or two that might make him justify his ridicule.
I tried to make him do that one day. "Are you the guy with the Darwin fish?" I asked one day in the locker room. He replied abruptly. "Yeah. We just want to be left alone regarding our beliefs."
OK. He didn't want to talk about it. Fine. But this is pretty pathetic, and hopefully he now knows it. You want to make fun, but you don't like anybody replying. You want to publisize criticism, but you don't want to deal with the rebuttal. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Now I'm a skeptic, but I still feel the same way. If you keep your opinions to yourself you make it clear you're not interested in discussing things. But if you broadcast your controversial opinions, shouldn't you be willing to deal with the rebuttals of those you attack?
Brian over at Apologetics315 doesn't think so. He has an entire blog dedicated to defending Christianity and rebutting the skeptic. Also (assuming 315 is a reference to 2 Pet 3:15) answering every man that asks questions of him regarding the faith. He wants to build the Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page. He's defending inerrancy and the historical reliability of the gospels against the skeptic.
But what happens when a skeptic wants to defend himself? What happens when a skeptic charges Brian with misrepresentation or any other criticism? "This blog is not a debate forum." He doesn't want to discuss it. I had said to Brian "You seem like a person that claims to like boxing, and you like the part where you hit people, but when they hit back suddenly you want no part of that aspect of the experience. If you can't tolerate getting hit back maybe boxing isn't for you."
Brian did not permit this comment of mine to be published. Brian, by dedicating a blog to rebutting skeptics and attacking their views you should expect skeptics to defend themselves. Don't be like the skeptic I once knew that was quick to taunt the Christian but unwilling to justify his position. Mocking Christians invites a response. Your attacks invite a response, but when that response comes you don't want to have anything to do with it. Stop attacking and you will get no response.