I was curious about this as well. It seems like every other thread in GD has a disparaging remark about DT, so I decided to check it out. No work on my desk right now 
Given DT’s posting volume, I only managed to go back about 30 pages of search results before I got some new work. However, I didn’t notice DT advocating anything other than his ironclad (and, to me, mostly spot-on) beliefs in topic-appropriate threads. Frankly, I’m amazed that he still does it given how much crap he gets from other posters. In several of the threads I visited for this little project, he asks reasonable questions of other posters only to be told that he “isn’t worth the time” because of his “extremism.”
That aside, I can see how some theists would be upset at the difference in discourse here compared to other times/places they may have had these discussions. Sometimes, I feel like this may be the first time some theists have come up against equally ardent practitioners of something very different from what they believe without the pleasant filter of personal interaction.
I mean, I can relate. I used to be a theist. There were plenty of interesting conversations I had with other theists, but none that I can recall with an atheist. Those conversations were great, but, to be honest, they were all couched around believing in certain basic “mysterious” principles regardless of their religion. And, what’s more, those conversations were probably as civil as they were because we were friends. We felt comfortable enough with each other to talk about religion. In real life, I don’t think most people talk about religion to people that they think will even be remotely critical unless they know for a fact that the person is a good friend, which often removes the threat anyway.
Plus, when you’re interacting in person, it’s not as common to be as point-blank as in online posts. If people stated things like we do here, there’d be a lot more fistfights in the world.
People don’t usually like their beliefs to be challenged. They want their beliefs to be validated and supported by other people. When a theist initiates a conversation about a theological point (not having to do with belief/disbelief in God), they’re undoubtedly looking for discussion that assumes the belief as a basis for conversation. People entering the conversation and discussing the theology while using that basis are affirmation of the belief. When an atheist enters that sphere his/her questions seem to address the basis, and so it appears off-topic and destructive. When the theist seemingly equivocates, it appears dishonest and dismissive.
That being said, I don’t think theists have much ground to stand on in the more recent arguments in GD. Few (if any) of the debates going on have to do with theological arguments within a belief. I don’t see any debate threads titled “Should Paul Be As Influential As the Twelve?” for example, but I see some theist-started threads specifically challenging atheists. If you’re going to ask those kinds of questions, then of course your first principle ideas are going to be put into the grinder. You should have done so yourself before engaging in the argument.
If you plan on arguing about two completely different views, then you’re going to have to abandon first principles and come into the argument on the middle ground. That means no assumption of God and no assumption of no God. Then, use logic, reason, evidence, etc. to determine the worthiness of either side. If that seemingly handicaps religion, then, well, what does that say? Maybe it just says something about what kinds of arguments religion ought to keep itself to.
