Online is a different venue. It's easy to ask a theist what sense it makes to participate in an organization that, for example, denies modern medical treatments for children in favor of faith healing, or denies science because their book of stories leads them to believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old and the final answer to every deep question is "Goddidit," which in turn makes it easier to deny vaccine science, global warming science, or sanctions discrimination against gender minorities, etc. All of that and more all because of some traditional old feel-good stories that have no evidential support for their main character: their god.
The internet creates a virtual space for discussions that wouldn't happen otherwise. As compared to online recruitment for terrorist organizations, a debate about vaccines is benign and potentially beneficial.
There's a difference between intolerance of a viewpoint and intolerance of a person. With social media, it may be that all you see of people is the views they present. Is that an obstacle to making that distinction?
Or maybe that's actually a feature of the real world just reflected in online discussions. I think one of the functions of religion, and one of the reasons it abides, is that it becomes the core of community and identity for some people. In some ways it's not unlike sports. People pour energy into football, baseball, and soccer. Is all that energy really about the movement of a ball to a certain location? Of course not. Look what they do once they get the ball across the goal. They move it back to the center of the field and start over. There's just something about screaming in unison with others.
I experienced the power of it at a KISS reunion tour a few years back. Everybody knew what the performers were about to do because they were repeating old performances. I thought: this is what religion really is: the power of 10,000 people screaming at a common object. It has little to do with the origin of the universe. That stuff is eclipsed by what's going on in the present. And where religion is about divinity, that's private, personal stuff, isn't it?
PZ Myers, the biologist I mentioned in the OP, gave a speech he called "Sacking the City of God." The reference is to Augustine's work and Myers proposed that Augustine's concept of a global community of Christians is something atheists should pay attention to. He suggested that atheist should work in that direction. He offered no scenario for how that might happen, but pointed out the ways the makings of such a global community are there in atheism. He mentioned that science is a common language for the people of the world.
Because of being able to discuss it in this thread, I've formulated some thoughts about that. I think that where there is a community/identity maker, there's a potential storm of bullshit, hype, and much ado about nothing. I don't see any benefit for anyone in drawing science into that. Atheism isn't a scientific topic. There is no consensus in the scientific community about what "divinity" means. In the day there is, I'll assume Western Civilization just bottomed out and I'll be moving to South America to hide from the social upheaval that just happened.