Yes. It has to do with the idea of a hierarchical dependency and the belief that if one does not exist then neither does the other.

not a mystery at all - atheists don't believer either of those entities exist. "atheist" doesn't mean, "i'm mad at god, he's a meanie". it means, "there ain't no such thing" lol

Then the hierarchy is admitted. Deny the King and the rebel vanishes with Him. That is theology, not atheism.

💯

The Moby Dick crowd does not have a 100 year publishing industry dedicated to attacking the whale. Atheism does. The analogy proves the point. Non participation looks like silence. What we see is sustained prosecution. Of one character. Not the other.

It’s not “theology,” at least the way that I see it. Theology’s are mostly systematic in nature. Strings of “if this then that” types of structures that are designed to keep a position from falling apart. The system builds an intellectual building. Claiming there is no “king,” from the atheists POV is a philosophical position. It does not use a christian system of thinking (theology) to reject but one that is wider in scope which would be categorised as an intellectual/philosophical position.

It makes no sense for an atheist to make a philosophical argument that satan does not exist for the purpose of indirectly arguing against the existence of god.

Theology is systematic because reality is systematic. Philosophy is no different. Every position rests on an ultimate authority. Swap the King for autonomous human reason and the throne is still occupied. The question I keep coming back to is never whether a man does theology. It is which god he has seated.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

There's a book where an atheist puts both Heaven and Hell on trial. Its fiction, and the character is depicted as mad, but its the closest I've seen to the OP in real life:

A Practical Guide to Evil

Interlude: Suffer No Compromise In This

“Fifth of all Choirs, sternest Judgement They who cannot abide the repugnant; None more farsighted than the Tribunal, And none as even-handed or ...

right, fiction 😉

Um, that's simply not true. Atheists don't believe in the supernatural full stop. That criticism includes both god and satan by definition. It feels like god is attacked more because you get more upset by gods existence being challenged than satans. That leads atheist writers to say god more. The criticism lands on both because the proof applies to both. You are arguing the structure of thinking that leads to people writing he/she to be pointedly inclusive. We both know what you meant by he in English and if that still rubs you the wrong way they is the correct word to use. For a more literal and direct disproof of your point, Carl Sagan called his book "The Demon Haunted World."

The audience point concedes the observation. The asymmetry is real, and atheist energy tracks Christian theism specifically. Reactive to the God of Scripture, not neutral about the supernatural in general. Sagan used demons as metaphor. The book targets superstition and pseudoscience. God still gets the prosecutor. Demons get used as a category label for error. Energy goes where the perceived stakes are. I think hat is the tell.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

You are still missing the point. I don't go around thinking about god any more than I go around thinking about the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy isn't in my context or frame at all. Now if a middle aged man came up to me and wanted to tell me about how I should believe in the tooth fairy and that will make my life better, I'm going to attempt to break the bad news to him because I think a middle aged man should have a more accurate and less laughable world view. I didn't carry a chip on my shoulder about the tooth fairy around. I don't frame my world as anti tooth fairy. Tooth fairy fan came to me and brought that context with him and forced it onto me. If he had never mentioned his tooth fairy fandom I would never think to bring it up unless one of my kids just lost a tooth. Now if 80% of the middle aged dudes I met believed in the tooth fairy I might take the time to write a book to them so I don't need to repeat myself as often. That doesn't make the tooth fairy real. It doesn't mean I frame my world around the non existence of the tooth fairy. It just means that other people are coming and forcing that context into my life more frequently. Basically your entire argument is based on a lack of understanding that wherever you go there you are. When you aren't here, the rest of us aren't talking about the same things as when you are here bringing up your favorite subjects. If Christians were as rare as middle aged dudes who believed in the tooth fairy, there wouldn't be that pile of literature about god not being real the same way there aren't a bunch of books about the tooth fairy being made up. As a side note, Christian cruelty to people who want to leave the church knows no limits. Despite having parents and grandparents alive and with homes with available rooms leaving the church meant becoming homeless for me as a young man. That is so common I have 0 fear that sharing it will dox my identity. That means that many of us have unresolved emotional issues when the subject comes up. Still the same facts hold. They are stuck in that anti church state of being because of something the christians they have interacted with did to them. Still all about framing relative to earthly behavior by regular human beings.

The tooth fairy is one being among many. Deny her and you still have logic, induction, and the moral weight behind “more accurate worldview.” God is different in kind. He is the precondition for those tools. Not that atheists think about God all day. That no one can think about anything without standing on furniture He built. The energy tracks Him because He presses on the conscience in a way Zeus never did. That is worth sitting with. Now the harder part. What was done to you was sin. A young man losing his home for leaving a church is not Christ. That is professing Christians failing the gospel they claim to preach. The father in Luke 15 ran to the prodigal. He did not bar the door. The men who hurt you do not get to define who Christ is. He defined Himself at Calvary. The door home is open.

You can't simply declare I stand on gods furniture without proving god exists. This is the demon haunted world, a whole collection of invisible untested assumptions about the nature of being. By having them you create a barrier to questioning and learning about the world around you.

That's just an evidenceless assertion too. You can't possibly think that I as an atheist believe those things aren't true or you have no understanding of atheism. If you do understand that atheists do believe that, and knowing that I grew up in the church and have read the bible, and heard your arguments before, why would you assume I would change my mind now with no evidence presented other than a stranger on the internets word? I think that you show that there is no evidence for god by your arguments completely assuming that I should accept things without evidence.

Fair. You’ve heard it before. I’m not going to keep pressing. Let me say what I actually think. I don’t expect a comment thread to change your mind. Arguments rarely do that for anyone. They didn’t for me. What changed me was Christ Himself, and that was not the end of an argument. It was the end of running. You grew up in it. You read the Bible. You met the people. And some of those people cost you a home when you were young. I’m not going to pretend that didn’t matter. It mattered enormously. The God I know would not have shut that door on you. The men who did were not showing you Him. I’m not asking you to agree with me. I’m asking you to know that you are seen, that what happened to you was wrong, and that the door Christ opened was never the door those men slammed. You don’t owe me a response. I just wanted you to hear it from one of us who knows the difference.

I arrived here not by running or as a reaction to being treated poorly, the poor treatment was a result of my already being an atheist. I think the most uncomfortable thing for a lot of christians is that many atheists became that way by reading the Bible, that is what it was for me. If you are ever curious what the bible looks like to an atheist, I highly recommend the book God is Disappointed In You. I'm not going to hassle you either because all you had to say for your religion was calls to kindness. My biggest complaint about the christianity I usually encounter is that it is primarily about subservience and never passing along any of Jesus teachings about kindness or forgiveness or any other common human decency. I think you are honestly curious and you seem to have understood my point about how you see a tainted perspective of atheism because you are always bringing your Christianity into each conversation about atheism you are in. Being an atheist is different than being not a Christian or not religious. I'm not sure how to explain it from 0 but I'm happy to try to answer questions about atheism when Christians aren't around or being addressed. I'll even share my favorite meme on the subject.

I think so

Your position is based on a theology though, at least one that has a king and a throne as core or central. Your response about who is on the metaphorical throne fits perfectly with the system that you have adopted (which is congruent with your identity on the subject). The atheist on the other hand has adopted a position that has no throne or king. Advocates for each system (and therefore identity) will speak from their adopted positions with a sense of authority, expertise and confidence. Your conclusion is therefore 100% baked in because of your adopted system of belief. If the atheist dismisses the construct of a throne but the throne is fundamental to the christian position then a constructive and respectful dialogue is is in danger of breaking down. When the atheist and the christian are able to discuss their systems SEPERATE from judging each other then there is a good chance of a healthy ongoing conversation. I for one long for those types of conversations.

You guys are gonna wear me out. Lol.

I have a question for you about Christians if you don't mind. Years back I saw a poll. Only active Christians were polled. The question was, you have an emergency and need to leave your kid alone with a stranger for a bit. There are 2 possible choices. One is a convicted sex offender, the other is an atheist. You don't know anything else about them. Which do you pick? Most of them picked the convicted sex offender, I don't remember exactly but like 70/30. I can't understand why. Can you explain the reasoning to me? I remember what I told you about context so maybe imagine I'm one of the minority Christians asking.

I haven’t seen that poll and I’d want the source before defending or attacking the number. Forced choice polls usually don’t survive the retelling intact. The real research, Gervais at UBC, does show high distrust of atheists among American Christians. That part is documented. The underlying point is fair though. A lot of Christians treat atheism as a moral category instead of a metaphysical one. They assume no God means no restraint, which means no trust. That’s lazy and it’s not what Scripture teaches. Romans 2 says the law is written on every human heart. Atheists love their kids, keep their word, show up for their neighbors. The Christians in that poll were failing their own theology. I’d trust an atheist friend with my kids over a stranger from my church I didn’t know. Character is observable. Worldview without character is a label. If the poll is real, it’s an indictment of those Christians, not a defense of them.

That is a decent answer. I've run into no god equals no morals and all bets are off before. That's why I find that meme so funny. It is a big reason why I'm "out" as an atheist. The only way to combat those absurd strawmen is with exposure.