Scientific faith?

[Ragna]

Some days ago I claimed that critical thinking is usually foregone by religion among other things when discussing what atheism is and what atheism is not, and by these claims I got said that me, like many non-theists in the forum, usually engage in hate-speech against Christianity (most likely any religion).

I came across several striking claims about atheism, and not the most impressive of them was:

...the absence of evidence, usually called faith...

This is just another example of ignorant slander. You know nothing of which you speak, nor do you wish to know, since actual knowledge would jeopardize your own faith in scientism.

1. Is it ignorant to claim that faith is belief in the absence of evidence? What is faith then?

2. Does science involve some sort of religious-like faith that actual knowledge can jeopardize? What kind of actual knowledge, and obtained through which methods?

[EduChris]

...you seem to be equating scientism with hate speech. Certainly there can be scientismists that engage in hate speech, but unless you can provide a causal linkage between the two, it would be an unsupported opinion...

Just to clarify, "new atheism" involves regular use of hate speech, and "new atheism" derives its life from:

1) scientism
2) irrational fear and hatred
3) disregard for the standard scholarly practice of seeking to understand first, and criticize second

In other words, scientism alone need not entail hate speech, though scientism alone does involve or depend upon circular reasoning--i.e., it insists that all truth claims be based on empirical evidence, even though there is no empirical evidence that all truth claims must be based on empirical evidence. Certainly there can be no empirical evidence (even in principle) for axioms, or for claims for anything that transcends our observable material universe.

[Ragna]

Start with wikipedia on faith

Yes, a good place to begin. This is what it says among many other things, but that is most relevant to the discussion:

Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence. Thus, faith disqualifies reasoning in favor of "transcendent reality".

Even if, like you, Wikipedia seems to be a little reluctant to accept the definition by saying "some people", "often", it does never make its reasoning clear and doesn't rationally criticize the skeptic approach. When something is evident (meaning it's supported by evidence), it no longer requires faith, and so I still stand in my definition.

Science is a neutral tool; it does rely on a logically prior conceptual framework, but science itself is not a problem for theism.

Yes, science, like any realistic framework, needs to rely on the metaphysical assumptions that the real world is real and such. Theism is independent of science, and science has no bear of the basics of theism. No one I know has claimed that.

The absolutization of science and empiricism (AKA scientism) is a metaphysical framework which, since it demands assent to propositions which cannot even in principle be demonstrated or supported with evidence, becomes self-referentially incoherent.

Science describes the interacting world. Whether other realities do exist is a question that has to be addressed by logic and philosophy and not something that has any bearing in science. So there's no absolutization, science works in its field. An unevidenced assertion, of course, makes is unscientific. Whether unscientific propositions have any validity is a separate topic.

Scientism is the kool-aid that many if not most non-theists on this forum have drunk to the point of stupor.

I don't know who you are referring to, since most non-theists I've met here are pretty rational and humble guys. They don't claim to know that which they don't. A kool-aid for what exactly? No one uses science to disprove theism, but rather scientific facts about the world to disprove particular claims (e.g. a Young Earth, etc.).

Most non-theists are simply reluctant to believe in metaphysical untestable claims. Trying to equate the claims of theism with other non-empirical truths that we accept without evidence (e.g. the real world being real, our senses being real), is not correct, since we're in direct interaction with the second and the others are mere superfluous speculations. That is, in the best case, the theistic assumptions would be second-grade (depending on the first) and much weaker.

You have again claimed about hate-speech, new atheists, acolytes linked to state-sponsored violence and so-called by you atheist totalitarianisms. I suggest you apply your own

3) disregard for the standard scholarly practice of seeking to understand first, and criticize second

point. Have you bothered to know what these hate-speakers respond to claims like yours? I'll quote directly Sam Harris, now, for the first time:

Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza writes that "The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth."[14] He also contends:

And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.

In response to this line of criticism, Sam Harris wrote:

The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

It is also worth noting the similarity of your criticism and Dinesh D'Souza's, in almost every aspect. To use your own terminology, seemingly new atheism is not the only cult with acolytes!

[EduChris]

...Wikipedia...doesn't rationally criticize the skeptic approach...

Wikipedia is describing the ways in which people use the word. The snippet that you give simply acknowledges that some people (yourself included) insist on a particular spin--and one which is not accepted by most theists. There are some theists who pride themselves in their reliance on "faith" over reason, but such folks are rare on this forum (or if they come here, they don't stay) and they usually are not educated enough to evaluate their own positions to see that they do (unwittingly) rely on particular forms of reason.

...When something is evident (meaning it's supported by evidence), it no longer requires faith, and so I still stand in my definition...

You can try to pigeonhole a complex word into one, rather perjorative and reductionistic definition, but that will only guarantee that you will either continue to talk past your debate partner, or else demonstrate gross disrespect, or both.

...Theism is independent of science, and science has no bear of the basics of theism...

Theism and science each profit from dialogue and cross-pollenation of ideas. For example, one side might get off on the wrong track, and the constant attempt to balance competing views might help restore a more adequate theory.

...Science describes the interacting world...

Science describes what goes on within the streetlight available to each generation and each culture and each set of currently available plausibility structures.

...Whether other realities do exist is a question that has to be addressed by logic and philosophy...Whether unscientific propositions have any validity is a separate topic...

Science is steeped in philosophy and logic and cannot escape its dependence on such.

...most non-theists I've met here are pretty rational and humble guys...No one uses science to disprove theism, but rather scientific facts about the world to disprove particular claims (e.g. a Young Earth, etc.)...

No, you and others regularly use scientism to dismiss anything that cannot be empirically verifed, even though you are quite selective and quite uncritical of your own unfounded assumptions. And you do not limit yourself to disproving "young earth" types of claims, but rather to any and all theistic ideas.

...Trying to equate the claims of theism with other non-empirical truths that we accept without evidence (e.g. the real world being real, our senses being real), is not correct...

That depends on which claims of theism you're talking about. I have proposed a very minimalistic theism which contains no more unevidenced assumptions than scientism or any other non-theistic framework.

...You have again claimed about hate-speech, new atheists, acolytes linked to state-sponsored violence and so-called by you atheist totalitarianisms...

You have demonstrated amply your attachment to new atheism and the hatred it engenders. I, on the other hand, have never referenced or quoted from Dinesh D'Souza, nor have I read any of his books (except for one on education from 10 years ago or more). But anyway, Sam Harris again demonstrates his ignorance of human nature: we all have absolutizing tendencies, and fanaticism is the real problem, not religion. Harris simply attacks the wrong target, apparently unaware that he himself is a fanatic atheist.

[Ragna]

...Wikipedia...doesn't rationally criticize the skeptic approach...

Wikipedia is describing the ways in which people use the word. The snippet that you give simply acknowledges that some people (yourself included) insist on a particular spin--and one which is not accepted by most theists. There are some theists who pride themselves in their reliance on "faith" over reason, but such folks are rare on this forum (or if they come here, they don't stay) and they usually are not educated enough to evaluate their own positions to see that they do (unwittingly) rely on particular forms of reason.

Ok, but I'm interested in the rationalization of the rejection of "faith is belief in the absence of evidence". You don't seem to accept it. How, do you redefine evidence, or your rejection consists in a tu quoque fallacy? ("but atheists have faith too after all!")

...When something is evident (meaning it's supported by evidence), it no longer requires faith, and so I still stand in my definition...

You can try to pigeonhole a complex word into one, rather perjorative and reductionistic definition, but that will only guarantee that you will either continue to talk past your debate partner, or else demonstrate gross disrespect, or both.

Things clear. I propose a definition, you say it's ignorant slander and now you say that many theists are proud about it and that my reduction is a gross disrespect. That makes a lot of sense. Can you provide any actual criticism of the definition or it's just a logical tu quoque fallacy what you're aiming for?

...Theism is independent of science, and science has no bear of the basics of theism...

Theism and science each profit from dialogue and cross-pollenation of ideas. For example, one side might get off on the wrong track, and the constant attempt to balance competing views might help restore a more adequate theory.

Science explains things about the interacting world or universe, theism proposes other realities. They don't help each other; in fact, theism has no explanatory scope that would concern science (it hasn't any, it only explains what it presupposes to add).

...Science describes the interacting world...

Science describes what goes on within the streetlight available to each generation and each culture and each set of currently available plausibility structures.

With the slight nuance that it's accumulative. That's why it improves.

...Whether other realities do exist is a question that has to be addressed by logic and philosophy...Whether unscientific propositions have any validity is a separate topic...

Science is steeped in philosophy and logic and cannot escape its dependence on such.

Ok.

No, you and others regularly use scientism to dismiss anything that cannot be empirically verifed, even though you are quite selective and quite uncritical of your own unfounded assumptions. And you do not limit yourself to disproving "young earth" types of claims, but rather to any and all theistic ideas.

Selective, what are our own unfounded assumptions? And we don't have to limit ourselves to that. We can criticize other things, but not with science. In the case of raw theism/deism vs non-theism, logic is the key.

...Trying to equate the claims of theism with other non-empirical truths that we accept without evidence (e.g. the real world being real, our senses being real), is not correct...

That depends on which claims of theism you're talking about. I have proposed a very minimalistic theism which contains no more unevidenced assumptions than scientism or any other non-theistic framework.

Or so you say. When you say that non-theism assumes, what non-theism does is not go beyond the line of pure speculation. For your comparison to be true, the task to provide a meaningful definition of the nature of existence beyond the universe remains and has to be fulfilled in order to proceed to theism, though this step has obviously been skipped by all theists.

...You have again claimed about hate-speech, new atheists, acolytes linked to state-sponsored violence and so-called by you atheist totalitarianisms...

You have demonstrated amply your attachment to new atheism and the hatred it engenders. I, on the other hand, have never referenced or quoted from Dinesh D'Souza, nor have I read any of his books (except for one on education from 10 years ago or more).

No I have not! You seem so eager to want to place me in the bag so you can apply the same blind criticism.

When you first claimed my attachment to the new atheists, I didn't quote Sam Harris, and I made it clear afterwards. Then you responded by saying "ok, you referenced him, I can't remember if you quoted him or not." Nor I referenced nor I quoted, I happened to say what you had heard him say. So our attachments to both parties are identical (I read this quote I just put some days ago in Wikipedia). And also that I use him to respond to a point doesn't mean I share his ideology in nothing else other than that specific point. Please, do stop with generalizing so you can be coherent with what you criticize.

Also it's very revealing that you have again reiterated the same claims about non-theism when explicitly ignoring the response I gave through Sam Harris; analyze the words not the speaker. If you still keep defending atheism to violence path, mere repetition won't help, and it's a very strong claim.

Also, for clarity's sake, personally, I do not hate anything. I'm, personally, up for religious freedom, but I find the claims made about atheism unjust. That I expose what faith is and what religion does doesn't mean I consider it bad or horrible under all circumstances, though of course not something a critical mind would do. You might want to check again if you have generalized too much about me, since you're basically repeating the same unfounded assumptions and accusations and dismissing my replies.

But anyway, Sam Harris again demonstrates his ignorance of human nature: we all have absolutizing tendencies, and fanaticism is the real problem, not religion. Harris simply attacks the wrong target, apparently unaware that he himself is a fanatic atheist.

Strawman and ad hominem to Sam Harris. How, in the concerning topic, does any of what you said apply?

[Irregardless]

Scientism is the absolutization of the observable, material world, and the insistence on using nothing other than empirical evidence for acquiring truth. But there is no evidence for the notion that observable material world is all there is, and in fact much evidence against it (not to mention the fact that no one can actually live their daily lives in a world where everything must be demonstrated by empirical evidence). Since scientism fails to live up to its own standards for empirical evidence, it is incoherent.

That is not to say that all non-theists subscribe to scientism. It is possible for non-theists to engage in more sophisticated lines of thought--but there are only a few such individuals here on this forum. The most prolific non-theist posters are pretty much lock-and-barrel acolytes of "new atheism" and the scientism on which it relies. Yes, in many cases it is better to simply ignore such babble, but on the other hand that sort of hate speech has caused millions of Christians and other theists to be harrassed, imprisoned, tortured, and killed by the state-sponsored violence of atheist totalitarianisms. Sometimes, you have to speak against hate speech.

One could make the argument you are engaging in hate-speech here yourself. I do not know why exactly, but you seem very vitriolic in your responses to atheists. I have seen plenty of debates on this forum and in other places between atheists and theists where the theists does not seem to suffer from persecutory delusions. You, as far as I have seen, are the only one that is dismissing every point made against you as 'propaganda' or a 'slur' or 'hate-speech'. When you think the problem lies with everyone else it should tell you something.

Scientism is the absolutization of the observable, material world, and the insistence on using nothing other than empirical evidence for acquiring truth. But there is no evidence for the notion that observable material world is all there is,

Argument from Ignorance. Just because we cannot disprove a specific belief you hold in high regard, does not mean you automatically are justified in believing it. It definitely does not justify the view that people who choose not to believe any or some of the stories you bought into are hating on you.

and in fact much evidence against it

Can you point me to one single piece of this evidence? I have often heard people claim this but no one so far cares to provide it.

Sometimes, you have to speak against hate speech.

I agree entirely and this is why I choose to speak against your attempt to overgeneralise atheists as causing hate-speech while in the same foul breath desperately trying to link them to dictatorial regimes that are responsible for horrible atrocities.

[EduChris]

...but I'm interested in the rationalization of the rejection of "faith is belief in the absence of evidence"...

From the wikipedia article, "Faith is in general: the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true, belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness."

We all must rely on faith in our daily lives and our work and study; none of us have the time and the resources and the ability to validate even a tiny fraction of the ideas we accept. Singling out "religion" as unique in this regard simply demonstrates uncritical thinking.

...How, do you redefine evidence, or your rejection consists in a tu quoque? ("but atheists also have faith too after all!")...

Evidence arises from sources other than empiricism. Logic, intuition, creative genius, trusted authority, an so on. All of these are as important to science as they are to religion.

...I propose a definition, you say it's ignorant slander and now you say that many theists are proud about it and that my reduction is a gross disrespect. That makes a lot of sense. Can you provide any actual criticism of the definition or it's just a logical tu quoque fallacy what you're aiming for?...

I didn't say "many theists are proud about it," I said that some theists use the word in that way--but here is the important part: those theists who use the word that way are not common or long-lived on thus forum. Why did you twist and distort my words? Anyway, your entire approach is as if you want to insist on a particular definition of raspberry, even when you're talking to raspberry farmers who use a completely different definition.

[bernee51]

...but I'm interested in the rationalization of the rejection of "faith is belief in the absence of evidence"...

From the wikipedia article, "Faith is in general: the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true, belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness."

We all must rely on faith in our daily lives and our work and study; none of us have the time and the resources and the ability to validate even a tiny fraction of the ideas we accept. Singling out "religion" as unique in this regard simply demonstrates uncritical thinking.

And my 'critical thinking' tells me that you are equivocating over the word 'faith' to try to level the playing field to a point where you hold that religious faith is the same as faith in the brekes of your car working.

In all my discussions with christians , faith is guided by what Paul described in Hebrews 11.1..."Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Claiming christian religious faith is belief without evidence is not a slander, it is scriptural.

[EduChris]

...Claiming christian religious faith is belief without evidence is not a slander, it is scriptural.

Now we can add the fallacy of acontextual "proof-texting" to the non-theist (or anti-Christian) debate team. The word "faith" can have many different meanings in different contexts, and for the vast majority of Christians (including Paul, who BTW did not write Hebrews) faith is not a simple decision to check their brains at the door and believe just any old thing from just anyone. Rather, faith involves a commitment to the trustworthiness of persons (or ideas) on the basis of many factors, including: past reliability, soundness of character, intrinsic plausibility, the absence of viable alternatives, and many other reasons.

Let's get back to the topic of this thread. Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism? In the absence of sound arguments, non-theism seems to be just a matter of non-theists adopting one set of unprovable axioms over another.

[EduChris]

...One could make the argument you are engaging in hate-speech here yourself...

No doubt Hitler accused the Jews of hate-speech against Nazism...

...You, as far as I have seen, are the only one that is dismissing every point made against you as 'propaganda' or a 'slur' or 'hate-speech'...

You engage in hyperbole here. What is my specific objection with Ragna? It is that he insists on using a perjorative, reductionistic definition for "faith" in order to dismiss all rational grounds for theism. In denying rationality to theists, he engages in the very sort of dehumanizing propaganda used by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al during their anti-religious pogroms.

...Just because we cannot disprove a specific belief you hold in high regard, does not mean you automatically are justified in believing it. It definitely does not justify the view that people who choose not to believe any or some of the stories you bought into are hating on you...

The point is not that you cannot disprove an idea; rather the point is that you have no alternative view which can support any equal burden of proof or rationality. And yet you (and others) all insist that you are somehow rational whereas theists are not. Come up with one sound, non-fallacious argument for non-theism, why don't you? But if you can't, then stop with all the jibes against theists. What's wrong with all of us simply expressing our own views and trying to learn from others? Why do you keep insisting on seizing a high ground which doesn't exist?

...Can you point me to one single piece of this evidence? I have often heard people claim this but no one so far cares to provide it...

One bit of evidence against the notion that "the observable material universe is all there is" is the fact that virtually all scientists believe there is something beyond or prior or transcending our observable universe--whether that "something" is a "quantum nothing" (which is greater than we can imagine) or a multiverse or whatever the latest scientific theories propose. The belief that our observable universe does not constitute the sum total of all reality is not controversial even though we cannot in principle observe anything beyond our observable universe.

...desperately trying to link them to dictatorial regimes that are responsible for horrible atrocities.

I do not link all non-theists to atrocities. Some non-theists can be quite civil. The objectionable ones are those who engage in dehumanizing hate speech similar to that employed by the atheist dictators in their anti-religious pogroms, and who refuse to stop engaging in such hate speech even after theists have voiced their objections.

[Irregardless]

No doubt Hitler accused the Jews of hate-speech against Nazism...

I indeed have no doubt that Hitler attempted to vilify his opponents in an attempt to label them as the evil, bad guys. This is what you are doing here yourself, though. Unless you made that point as a compliment to yourself, which I doubt. You try to caricature and vilify an entire population for causing hate-speech, being ignorant and having Nazi ties. It is immoral, intellectually dishonest and above all the very thing you are pretending to speak out against: Hate-speech. Pot kettle black and all that.

You engage in hyperbole here. What is my specific objection with Ragna?

That he is an atheist.

It is that he insists on using a perjorative, reductionistic definition for "faith" in order to dismiss all rational grounds for theism.

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Romans 10:17 (KJV) Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, the Bible.
Colossians 1:23 (KJV) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
2 Corinthians 5:7 (KJV) For we walk by faith, not by sight

This 'pejorative' way of using faith is what theist choose to use. Theists see having faith as a virtue. You will have no argument from me, or Ragna I assume, when you say that the Christian 'faith' is a bad thing and something one should not use as a positive way to describe ones beliefs. Don't blame us for the definitions your own religion uses though. Just to get your opinion on it since you vehemently disagree with the usage: When a Christian says "Well you just gotta have faith", what do you think he or she means with faith?

In denying rationality to theists, he engages in the very sort of dehumanizing propaganda used by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al during their anti-religious pogroms

He did no such thing. Even if he did 'deny rationality', or even if he said "all theists are idiots" it would in no way give credence to your comparison with dehumanizing propaganda used by regimes of which you seem to know either little about or choose to twist. Most of the dictators you listed here used religion as a way to ensure their power. They were not anti-religious, they were anti-people-who-disagree-with-me. The communistic dictators you mention were pretty much all against the theory of evolution. They were against scientific and medical research that did not benefit them. Many of them used their ties with the churches in their country, that often supported them, as a tool to gain their power and control it. I understand why you have a hatred for Sam Harris though. He after all beautifully ripped your one argument apart when he said:

"The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. "

The point is not that you cannot disprove an idea; rather the point is that you have no alternative view which can support any equal burden of proof or rationality.

Sure I have. If I tell you that there is a red invisible dinosaur in your room right now and you are sceptical of my claim you are saying we are both equally rational? You are saying it is as rational to believe in any proposition without evidence as it is to reject them?

Come up with one sound, non-fallacious argument for non-theism, why don't you?

Sure. The religious claims have not met their burden of proof. This argument in and of itself is enough to refute any and all religious propositions. If you cannot even provide a single bit of evidence for any of the wild assertions a religion makes it is rational to disregard them until shown otherwise. This is why you "read the entire Qur'an" but did not buy into it (I'm assuming, as you're a Christian). This is why when I come up to you and tell you I was abducted by aliens you do not immediately hide in your basement in preparation for an alien assault. This is why you will not start salvaging your house and run away from it when I tell you your house is going to blow up in 10 minutes until I show you evidence that it will happen.

One bit of evidence against the notion that "the observable material universe is all there is" is the fact that virtually all scientists believe there is something beyond or prior or transcending our observable universe--whether that "something" is a "quantum nothing" (which is greater than we can imagine) or a multiverse or whatever the latest scientific theories propose.

Even if every scientist in the world would believe in a personal God it would in no way be evidence for the actual existence of such a being. If a scientist believing in God is evidence for the existence thereof, then what is an atheistic scientist evidence of? That there is none? By the way even if direct evidence would show us that there is a multi-verse or that there is something that transcends our observable universe this would not prove your hypothesis of "goddidit". A multiverse as well as something that transcends this universe can all be natural phenomenons. So I will repeat it again: Please present this evidence, of which you claim there is a lot, that works against the notion that the observable material world is all there is.

The belief that our observable universe does not constitute the sum total of all reality is not controversial even though we cannot in principle observe anything beyond our observable universe.

The idea that ghosts exist is not controversial. The idea that magnetic wristbands can cure you is not controversial. The idea that women are property is not controversial in the Middle-east. Not controversial does not equate to rational or true. Of course one could also make the argument that in the last decades the believe that there is more out there than just our observable universe is starting to get quite controversial. A new debate on religion each day, hundreds of new articles where religion is questioned every week (day, hour?), progress in neuroscience that gets theists riled up, leading scientists showing how our current understanding of the universe does not fit well with the preconceived notions of theism, creationists getting kicked for trying to sneak their religion into schoolboards, books that (attempt to) refute religion turn into best-sellers, the pope getting scared of losing followers, comedians more and more criticize religion in their acts, popular shows cover the subject of religion and atheism. I would say it is very controversial.

I do not link all non-theists to atrocities. Some non-theists can be quite civil. The objectionable ones are those who engage in dehumanizing hate speech similar to that employed by the atheist dictators in their anti-religious pogroms, and who refuse to stop engaging in such hate speech even after theists have voiced their objections.

Yes you stated that there are a few exceptions here and there, but that the majority are propaganda spewing, hate-speech using dictators. Good to see that you 'only' link most of the non-theists to atrocities.

The objectionable ones are those who engage in dehumanizing hate speech similar to that employed by the atheist dictators in their anti-religious pogroms, and who refuse to stop engaging in such hate speech even after theists have voiced their objections.

I agree with you that engaging in hate-speech is objectionable. I disagree with you that people who disagree with you engage in hate-speech. I disagree with your claim that most atheists, or at least most here, should be compared to dictators. Pretending to be prosecuted by those evil civil rational atheists does not further your cause.