It seems to me that you are the one trying to have it both ways. Perhaps further explanation of what you consider "denigration" will help. I offered some examples in the previous comment; perhaps addressing them would help.

I expect my side to play by the rules even if the other side does not.

Please establish the rules then.

I keep getting the impression that the other side is allowed to go around saying "God exists" and "It is impossible to prove a negative" as much as they like but you want me to stop saying "God doesn't exist" and "it is possible to prove some negatives; why do you think it is impossible to prove this one?" (if you accept the plate business as proven) or "it sometimes doesn't matter that it is impossible to prove a negative; why does it matter this time?" (if you accept the plate business as impossible to prove.)

Please explain to me what "denigrating" someone else's belief is? Is it disagreeing with that belief? Directly contradicting it? Saying that holding the belief demonstrates the believer is stupid? Or immoral? Is it saying that the belief itself makes otherwise decent people stupid, or immoral? What?

I need to know exactly what it is you want me to stop doing before I can stop doing just that (provided I am even *willing* to stop just that; I make no guarantees until I know what it is). Leaving it vague leaves me feeling that you're pressuring me to stop expressing my views at all. I realize you probably don't mean it that way, so please explain.