Do you know what "polemic" means? It means "controversial argument," not just fallacies and distractions like personal attacks. And indeed, there are substantive arguments and explanations in this article, as there are in everything I write. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're designed only to inflame. On the contrary, they're intended to show why the platitude in question is dumb, sappy nonsense. Yes, the subject matter is controversial, but that's not my fault. I didn't force most Western theists to be aesthetically grotesque.

My point about politics in this article is an alternative explanation of how the platitude arose, one that's consistent with atheism. No, this article doesn't prove atheism. I don't have to prove every part of my worldview in every article I write. There's a division of labour here, to make each article readable. I support atheism in hundreds of other places.