Can Faith be a Reason for Agnosticism or Atheism?

[Devilry]

Here's an interesting idea.

As an Agnostic, I constantly maintain that I am hardly at a loss in not subscribing to any one religion, even after death. Of course, I do have multiple reasons for believing so.

I believe that, firstly, because we cannot know anything about God, no religion that describes a God to such specific detail without proper evidence is likely to be wrong by the sheer concept of probability. Therefore, if a certain religion deemed that I would go to hell after I died for being an Agnostic, there is a low chance that I would actually go to hell because I strongly believe that it is likely that the religion is wrong about God.

Secondly, even if religious revelation had some sort of worth in helping religion to be accurate, there are still so many religions to choose from. Even if I were to commit myself to one, there is still a low chance that the religion I were to commit myself to would be the right one, and I might still end up in hell anyway.

Thirdly, if God would truly make non-believers go to hell, then I believe that in all his benevolence, he would give us some way of believing in him. Because when all of my reasoning points to Agnosticism, then nothing is wrong with believing in it, because it's not as though I'm ignoring a God who might be there. Yet, if God did exist, he is then technically the one who created reason, and the one who made it so impossible to reason about his existence. I firmly believe that a benevolent God would not punish a person for not believing in him when there is so little logical reason to.

Yet, even so, my arguments do not dispute the fact that, for example, God could possibly exist and it is Christianity that is correct about God, therefore I am going to hell even though I could have avoided it by going to Christianity.

In fact, amidst all the uncertainty, the final step that allows me to become Agnostic is quite possibly faith. It might just be faith that if a God were to exist, he would not send me to hell for being an Agnostic. Reasoning helps to assure me 90% of the way, but the device that eradicates the last 10% of my fears is quite possibly faith.

It's just like how Christians can have reasons such as upbringing and the Bible to believe in God 50% of the way, and the last 50% is covered by faith.

So, do you think faith can be a reason to believe in Agnosticism, or maybe even Atheism?

[McCulloch]

I don't believe in any gods, if by god we mean some kind of personal spiritual being. If I have any gods, such as truth, it is only in the metaphoric sense. Saying that my god is truth, would be like saying that someone else's god it money or success. A metaphor. I do not attribute to truth those attributes, such as will, love, hate and so on usually ascribed to deity.

Again you invoke obscurist language to try to make palatable what is inherently unpalatable about your position. "Personal being" does not denote God, because it implicitly denotes something that you can relate to, whereas all along I have said that God is outside your conception. You are simply stating that you cannot conceive of a god withing your conception. Neither can I.

I do not feel that I am the one using obscure language. I do not use the word god to label that which I do not understand. Everyone I know of who speaks of any kind of god speaks as if this god is a personal being. By that, I mean, god makes decisions, god can communicate and receive communications, god has emotions, he loves, he hates. So when I say that I do not believe in any gods, I mean that I don't believe in the kind of thing that most people mean when they use the word god. That is the opposite of being obscure.

That there are beings beyond my comprehension, I will not deny. I feel no reason to call such beings god.

Spiritual values are not metaphors. They are real and objective values. Something is true or false, love or hate. People can perceive these values. They are not metaphors.

I still do not know what you mean by spiritual values, except that they are not metaphors. Truth and falsity are not spiritual, they are logical. Love and hate. These are emotions. Psychological.

The saying below is profound indeed:

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

You may think it is profound yet many Christians are embarrassed by this passage. I think it is merely sexist.

You mean it conflicts with your god. Someone with no god would have no reason to attack it in the way that you do, apart from by reference to purely scientific evidence, which must include not only the physical but also the psychological.

Sexism offends me. Not because I have any gods in the sense that the word god is commonly understood. My gods, metaphorically are truth, compassion and fairness. Sexism offends me because it is not true, it is not compassionate and it is not fair.

True Christianity is an extremely rare occurrence these days.

Are there any true Christians? How can you tell?

It takes one to know one.

So then, how do you know that you are a true Christian? If you were not, you could not tell, right?

By the way, sexism is a meaningless term - just a vain atheist god used to justify prostitution.

Sexism makes a deliberate confusion between value and order. Just because Christ is below God, does not infer that Christ is not inherently valuable. Just because woman is below man, does not infer that woman is not valuable. The very word aims to subvert the distinction between order and value. Therefore it is meaningless - in fact a doctrine of the theology of your god.

Look at the justification used by Paul for his sexism.

man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

. He appeals to the creation myth.

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

This is not merely order. It implies that women are more easily deceived and certainly not worthy of spiritual leadership.

What is particularly wrong with prostitution?

Even to ask that question is to show that the morals of atheists have not evolved since the days of the Canaanite atheists. Whereas in days of yore, the Canaanites set up their man-made gods in the form of idols, the atheists of today simply pretend that they don't exist at all. Well I suppose in one sense it is an advancement, in that atheists are no longer making stupid idols, but in another way it's not, as they're still worshipping the same licentious god.

Thank you for evading and not answering the question.

What is right with it? Do you really think that senusal pleasure is the be all and end all of M-F relatiions?

If you do not mind, I would like to take the whole prostitution issue into its own debate. Here is the link.

Of course they [the frenzied crowd in the Sodom story] were atheists as they recognized no divine impediment to the fulfillment of their desires.

Or maybe it was their gods that provoked their activities.

[Wood-Man]

Baron, you've made your distaste for atheists pretty clear. Primarily, your criticism of atheists has been in regard to what you see as their hypocrisy. Would you be less critical of someone who said they didn't accept the existence of a God as you've described (one that is omnipotent, omniscient, interventional, planning, or judging) but actually agreed with you, that they do nevertheless have their own "god"? What if they said, "Yes, I have a god. I worship compassion. It would be hypocritical of me to say I don't have my own god." Would they be less infuriating to you?

[Baron von Gailhard]

I do not feel that I am the one using obscure language. I do not use the word god to label that which I do not understand. Everyone I know of who speaks of any kind of god speaks as if this god is a personal being. By that, I mean, god makes decisions, god can communicate and receive communications, god has emotions, he loves, he hates. So when I say that I do not believe in any gods, I mean that I don't believe in the kind of thing that most people mean when they use the word god. That is the opposite of being obscure.

"God" or "god" primarily denotes power. Thus whenever you appeal to some principle, argument, matter or thing, you implicitly invoke your god. Whenever you justify your conduct or beahvio(u)r you invoke your god, even if only implicitly. Your god is deduced from what you say and do. Mere atoms cannot have any god, they can only exist. But life especially human life that has the power of reason, necessarily invokes God or gods, quite irrespective of whether he concedes the fact or not.

Having established your god/gods or God as the power behind your reasoning and self-justification, it is then a straightforward matter to identify whom one's god or God is.

The issue about personal being or impersonal being or thoughtful being, is subservient to the matter that god/God denotes power and normative reason for action. For god/God does not exist in the material realm. He is spirit being.

Now it may be that you own personal god is a dead god. He may be lifeless, but nevertheless you dutifully obey him. For those whose gods are demons, that is true. It is not possible to conceive of a demon god as a living, caring, thoughtful person. So when you say you cannot conceive of your god as a living entity, what it really amounts to is that your god/gods are dead entities, which means it's time to change your god. One thing is for sure, that no dead god could possibly have created the universe, or planetary life, which is the primary evidence for a living intelligent God.

I still do not know what you mean by spiritual values, except that they are not metaphors. Truth and falsity are not spiritual, they are logical. Love and hate. These are emotions. Psychological.

They are objectively ascertainable values separate from the material assets to which they relate. Primarily they relate to life forms and interactions between them. It denotes cognitive awareness and sense, particularly of the existence of the Creator and His revelation. A spirtually dead persons acts as though he was only made of atoms. He imparts only movement and necessary bodily functions. A spiritually alive person can make other alive too. Literally, spirit breeds spirit, and gives life itself.

The saying below is profound indeed:

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

You may think it is profound yet many Christians are embarrassed by this passage. I think it is merely sexist.

You mean it conflicts with your god. Someone with no god would have no reason to attack it in the way that you do, apart from by reference to purely scientific evidence, which must include not only the physical but also the psychological.

Sexism offends me. Not because I have any gods in the sense that the word god is commonly understood. My gods, metaphorically are truth, compassion and fairness. Sexism offends me because it is not true, it is not compassionate and it is not fair.

It is perfectly fair to discriminate between men and women provided the discrimination is not senseless and arbitrary. Men and women do not have the same bodies and therefore discrimination may be justified and right.

True Christianity is an extremely rare occurrence these days.

Are there any true Christians? How can you tell?

It takes one to know one.

So then, how do you know that you are a true Christian? If you were not, you could not tell, right?

One objective test is whether or not you can accept the doctrine of the NT without gainsaying it. Unfortunately there many who whilst owning themselves Christians, cannot even accept the basic principles of Christianity. One such basic principle is God's order of creation.

By the way, sexism is a meaningless term - just a vain atheist god used to justify prostitution.

Sexism makes a deliberate confusion between value and order. Just because Christ is below God, does not infer that Christ is not inherently valuable. Just because woman is below man, does not infer that woman is not valuable. The very word aims to subvert the distinction between order and value. Therefore it is meaningless - in fact a doctrine of the theology of your god.

Look at the justification used by Paul for his sexism.

man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

. He appeals to the creation myth.

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

This is not merely order. It implies that women are more easily deceived and certainly not worthy of spiritual leadership.

That is certainly the doctrine of Paul and it is not arbitrary discrimination either. The truth of the doctrine is born out by the poor experience of women that purport to dominate men. It is born out by experience. The role of women is to support men, not dominate or judge them. I have yet to come across a women "spiritual" leader who was not guilty of heinous failings including presumptuous judgment of men. Every woman who divorces her husband is playing the role of spiritual judge to an extent. For the most part such women are enslaved to false doctrines. Those churches that allow women elders are amongst the most ignorant and heretical churches. Yet the converse does not hold. It does not imply that all men are fit to lead.

Of course they [the frenzied crowd in the Sodom story] were atheists as they recognized no divine impediment to the fulfillment of their desires.

Or maybe it was their gods that provoked their activities.

The cravings of their lifeless flesh devoid of spiritual power.

[Baron von Gailhard]

Baron, you've made your distaste for atheists pretty clear. Primarily, your criticism of atheists has been in regard to what you see as their hypocrisy. Would you be less critical of someone who said they didn't accept the existence of a God as you've described (one that is omnipotent, omniscient, interventional, planning, or judging) but actually agreed with you, that they do nevertheless have their own "god"? What if they said, "Yes, I have a god. I worship compassion. It would be hypocritical of me to say I don't have my own god." Would they be less infuriating to you?

The gods of atheists are demons. That does not prevent them appreciating spiritual values. Sometimes genuine ignorance is the reason why demons are obeyed in place of the real God, rather than any innate love for wickedness. The failure to think through the logical consequences of the statement that there is no god is common to all atheists, but the motives vary. Atheists however are at the sharp edge of unbelief. They make a point of rising above genuine doubt to try to proselytize others.

The atheist position is one of total self-contradiction: on the one the hand they purport to be the most moral of people, but on the other they say that they are devoid of God given life so that they are inherently worthless as humans beings. Atheists could have no right to live if they were as they maintain no more than an assemblage of atoms.

The denial of existence of a god is inherently bound up with the denial of the validity of one's god. The atheist does not like to admit that he has gods, because he knows that they are worthless, and absurd, and preposterous. Contradictorily the atheist will often insinuate that his god is the true God, even though he denies Him outwardly.

It does not really matter whether the atheist says he worships demons, or whether he just denies that he does. It amounts to the same thing. However saying that spiritual goodness is intrinsically good is a repudiation of the notion that spiritual values don't exist as concrete entities given by a real life force. So to aver the latter statement would merely be to contradict one's own profession of atheism.

It would of course be more truthful for the atheist to concede that his gods are demons, but that is not going to win him any friends or the sort of reputation that he craves from his profession of atheism. So the short answer is that it makes little or no difference for the atheist to misrepresent his gods, or simply deny their existence: the self-appellation of "atheist" says everything about a person that one could want to know.

[McCulloch]

The gods of atheists are demons.

My gods are truth, empathy and fairness. These are demons?

[Board]

The failure to think through the logical consequences of the statement that there is no god is common to all atheists, but the motives vary.

What are the "logical consequences" of thinking through the statement "there is no God"? (big G)

The atheist position is one of total self-contradiction: on the one the hand they purport to be the most moral of people, but on the other they say that they are devoid of God given life so that they are inherently worthless as humans beings. Atheists could have no right to live if they were as they maintain no more than an assemblage of atoms.

Do we really need to stoop to this level of hostility? No human being is "inherently worthless".

The denial of existence of a god is inherently bound up with the denial of the validity of one's god. The atheist does not like to admit that he has gods, because he knows that they are worthless, and absurd, and preposterous. Contradictorily the atheist will often insinuate that his god is the true God, even though he denies Him outwardly.

The continued miss use of the word god is clouding your arguments.

It would of course be more truthful for the atheist to concede that his gods are demons, but that is not going to win him any friends or the sort of reputation that he craves from his profession of atheism. So the short answer is that it makes little or no difference for the atheist to misrepresent his gods, or simply deny their existence: the self-appellation of "atheist" says everything about a person that one could want to know.

Generalizing all people who claim to be atheists as demon worshipers, illogical, and worthless human beings is not a very civil approach to an argument.

[Wood-Man]

The gods of atheists are demons.

For some reason, you did not directly answer my question, but in light of your response overall I think you are saying that my hypothetical person is in fact an atheist and is hypocritical because he derides belief in a supernatural power but yet worships demons himself, which are in fact supernatural powers. Please correct me if I got that wrong. I don't see any other way to satisfy the definition of hypocrisy. If "demon" just means a perception of God that differs from yours, then you have not provided an argument as to why they are hypocritical.

So, do you really believe that all atheists worship supernatural creatures? What a strange assertion.

The failure to think through the logical consequences of the statement that there is no god is common to all atheists, but the motives vary.

First, you are just wrong in your blanket statement about atheists not thinking through the logical consequences of atheism. Many have thought long and hard about that. However, before addressing conclusions, I would like to point out a couple of things about logic. Logic uses syllogisms, starting with premises and ending with conclusions. Whatever your premises, you can still be logical in reaching conclusions. Atheists generally have adopted, as a premise, a modified form of Ocam's rule of parsimony (Ocam's Razor), asserting that one should choose the simplest solution that postulates the fewest entities. Some theists will argue that they are also following this rule, but many have chosen not to adopt this rule as a premise. Of course, your choice of premises will impact the conclusions! If you don't like the conclusions, you could change your most basic premises. You are arguing that atheists would do that if they really thought about the conclusions they are reaching. Maybe for some, but let's consider the conclusions we'd reach if we accept the Biblical picture of God in a literal fashion. Here it is in a nutshell:

There exists an all-powerful force that sometimes communicates to people in one language or another, can behave in ways that seem to us to be wrathful, appears to be inclined to "test" us by throwing horrible tragedies into our lives, and demands that we follow a host of rules (many which seem rather arbitrary to our limited minds), and often condemns people to eternal punishment worse than anything we can imagine for failing to follow those rules or for questioning his existence.

Not very attractive as a conclusion, it seems to me.

Atheists however are at the sharp edge of unbelief. They make a point of rising above genuine doubt to try to proselytize others.

You are defining atheists this way. What about all those who are quiet, just don't care much about religious matters, but don't really believe in God. You never hear from them, so you apparently don't know they exist.

The atheist position is one of total self-contradiction: on the one the hand they purport to be the most moral of people, but on the other they say that they are devoid of God given life so that they are inherently worthless as humans beings. Atheists could have no right to live if they were as they maintain no more than an assemblage of atoms.

Again, you are making your own definition of "atheist." They don't all claim to be the most moral of people. As to worth or having a right to live, you are getting lost in language. Stop for a moment and consider what "worth" means. If something has worth, that means (by definition) that they have worth to some entity. The word, as defined in the dictionary, does not require that this entity be God. If someone has worth to me, they have worth. As for having a "right" to live, again this requires that someone exists who recognizes that right. If they exist, then the right exists. You have a right to life because we all recognize you as having such a right. The moment we don't recognize that, you get the death penalty.

Now, you'll say that worth and rights arising from humans are of no value compared to worth and rights arising from God. Let me point out, though, that this is a premise. You choose it, just as the atheist chooses Ocam's Razor.

The denial of existence of a god is inherently bound up with the denial of the validity of one's god. The atheist does not like to admit that he has gods, because he knows that they are worthless, and absurd, and preposterous. Contradictorily the atheist will often insinuate that his god is the true God, even though he denies Him outwardly.

By "one's god" I assume you mean "one's own god." Again, you are making logical errors. You have a very broad definition of god, one that differs from the common usage among atheists and theists. If we use this broad definition, then many atheists are not denying the existence of god - just your god. They consider your god absurd, but they don't view their god absurd. Clearly, from your own position laid out above, it is possible to view one god as absurd but not another.

However saying that spiritual goodness is intrinsically good is a repudiation of the notion that spiritual values don't exist as concrete entities given by a real life force. So to aver the latter statement would merely be to contradict one's own profession of atheism.

With the broad definition of god you are using, I agree. But then, I don't accept the notion of "intrinsic good."

the self-appellation of "atheist" says everything about a person that one could want to know.

In my experience, appellations (self or otherwise) never give a full picture of a person. Humans are very complex and diverse. This assertion fails to appreciate that fact.

[cnorman18]

Baron, you've made your distaste for atheists pretty clear. Primarily, your criticism of atheists has been in regard to what you see as their hypocrisy. Would you be less critical of someone who said they didn't accept the existence of a God as you've described (one that is omnipotent, omniscient, interventional, planning, or judging) but actually agreed with you, that they do nevertheless have their own "god"? What if they said, "Yes, I have a god. I worship compassion. It would be hypocritical of me to say I don't have my own god." Would they be less infuriating to you?

The gods of atheists are demons. That does not prevent them appreciating spiritual values. Sometimes genuine ignorance is the reason why demons are obeyed in place of the real God, rather than any innate love for wickedness. The failure to think through the logical consequences of the statement that there is no god is common to all atheists, but the motives vary. Atheists however are at the sharp edge of unbelief. They make a point of rising above genuine doubt to try to proselytize others.

The atheist position is one of total self-contradiction: on the one the hand they purport to be the most moral of people, but on the other they say that they are devoid of God given life so that they are inherently worthless as humans beings. Atheists could have no right to live if they were as they maintain no more than an assemblage of atoms.

The denial of existence of a god is inherently bound up with the denial of the validity of one's god. The atheist does not like to admit that he has gods, because he knows that they are worthless, and absurd, and preposterous. Contradictorily the atheist will often insinuate that his god is the true God, even though he denies Him outwardly.

It does not really matter whether the atheist says he worships demons, or whether he just denies that he does. It amounts to the same thing. However saying that spiritual goodness is intrinsically good is a repudiation of the notion that spiritual values don't exist as concrete entities given by a real life force. So to aver the latter statement would merely be to contradict one's own profession of atheism.

It would of course be more truthful for the atheist to concede that his gods are demons, but that is not going to win him any friends or the sort of reputation that he craves from his profession of atheism. So the short answer is that it makes little or no difference for the atheist to misrepresent his gods, or simply deny their existence: the self-appellation of "atheist" says everything about a person that one could want to know.

Good thing I'm not an atheist; I might have choked from the astonishing number of word being stuffed into my mouth, or driven mad by the Baron's amazing ability to invade and read my mind. Or at least, to CLAIM to without anything within a furlong of evidence or actual reasoning.

Once again, I see no evidence of any intent to debate here, civilly or otherwise, but only to stereotype, preach, and display a really shocking capacity for arrogance and disdain for anyone who doesn't agree.

[Lux]

The gods of atheists are demons.

This is nonsensical. If someone worships any being as a god then they can not call themselves an atheist, which means without god.

That does not prevent them appreciating spiritual values.

Very true. Some atheists are religious, the most common example are Buddhists.

Sometimes genuine ignorance is the reason why demons are obeyed in place of the real God, rather than any innate love for wickedness. The failure to think through the logical consequences of the statement that there is no god is common to all atheists, but the motives vary.

Please show the logical consequences of the statement that there is no god.

Also, note that the majority of atheists make no such statement.

Atheists however are at the sharp edge of unbelief. They make a point of rising above genuine doubt to try to proselytize others.

In what ways do you propose atheists proselytize others? You seem to be under the impression that most atheists claim that there is no god, and try to convince people of that. This is a mistake. While atheists that make an active claim that there are no gods (strong atheism) exist, they are a small minority. The most common form atheism takes is known as negative atheism, or sometimes as agnostic atheism. These atheists, such as myself, don't claim to believe that there is no god. I don't believe in gods, that's not to say I believe they don't exist.

The atheist position is one of total self-contradiction: on the one the hand they purport to be the most moral of people

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement that atheists claim to be more moral than everyone else? I don't claim to be any more or less moral than the average person, religious or not, and I don't know a single atheist that would make such a claim.

but on the other they say that they are devoid of God given life so that they are inherently worthless as humans beings. Atheists could have no right to live if they were as they maintain no more than an assemblage of atoms.

What makes a human being worthless, and what gives you the right to judge who has worth and who doesn't?

The denial of existence of a god is inherently bound up with the denial of the validity of one's god. The atheist does not like to admit that he has gods, because he knows that they are worthless, and absurd, and preposterous. Contradictorily the atheist will often insinuate that his god is the true God, even though he denies Him outwardly.

Show me an atheist claiming that his god is the true god. Just one. How can an atheist, and again, that means without god, claim that his god is the true god?

It does not really matter whether the atheist says he worships demons, or whether he just denies that he does. It amounts to the same thing. However saying that spiritual goodness is intrinsically good is a repudiation of the notion that spiritual values don't exist as concrete entities given by a real life force. So to aver the latter statement would merely be to contradict one's own profession of atheism.

I've addressed the "demon worshiping" issue above, and I will now refer you to Wikipedia's article on Atheism, in case you are interested in learning a little bit of what atheism is actually about.

A few spoilers:

We don't worship demons... in fact I doubt many atheists even believe in demons.

We have morals. Personally, my morality comes from empathy and society.

We don't "know that god exists deep down, but refuse to admit it".

It would of course be more truthful for the atheist to concede that his gods are demons, but that is not going to win him any friends or the sort of reputation that he craves from his profession of atheism. So the short answer is that it makes little or no difference for the atheist to misrepresent his gods, or simply deny their existence: the self-appellation of "atheist" says everything about a person that one could want to know.

It would of course be more humble of you not to profess to read other people's minds, or claim to know what others believe better than they know it themselves.

[LiamOS]

Baron, regardless of whether or not you think I'm interested in debate, the fact is that you've made continuous assertions about the beliefs of atheists without substantiating them with either reason or example.

Now, here comes the part of my post where I respond to those assertions you've made in a manner which would be considered debate.
Don't worry, though; I don't expect you to answer, as you're not interested in debate, it would seem.

The failure to think through the logical consequences of the statement that there is no god is common to all atheists, but the motives vary.

Can you point out the logical inconsistencies for me?
Here, you've simply stated that such inconsistencies exist without actually showing any. This is in violation of Rule 5 of the forum.

The atheist position is one of total self-contradiction: on the one the hand they purport to be the most moral of people, but on the other they say that they are devoid of God given life so that they are inherently worthless as humans beings.

As an Atheist, I and many others don't purport to be morally superior, as we do not believe that morality is objectively measurable.
I also do not believe that we are either worthless or of any worth, as worth is a subjective concept.
As you may have noticed, that leaves your statement that the Atheistic position is self-contradictory dead in the water, unless you can show that these two apparently subjective concepts have objective standards.

Atheists could have no right to live if they were as they maintain no more than an assemblage of atoms.

Why not? How'd you reason that out?

I have a right to life as water has the right to be wet.

The atheist does not like to admit that he has gods, because he knows that they are worthless, and absurd, and preposterous.

Can you show this to be true?

Contradictorily the atheist will often insinuate that his god is the true God, even though he denies Him outwardly.

Can you show this to be true?
Can you provide examples?

It does not really matter whether the atheist says he worships demons, or whether he just denies that he does. It amounts to the same thing.

Because you're simply right?

It would of course be more truthful for the atheist to concede that his gods are demons

It is often considered rude to tell people what they believe.
If you're unable to prove that I believe this, I suggest you avoid saying it.

So the short answer is that it makes little or no difference for the atheist to misrepresent his gods, or simply deny their existence: the self-appellation of "atheist" says everything about a person that one could want to know.

"Atheists are liars; I'm right."

Good thing I'm not an atheist; I might have choked from the astonishing number of word being stuffed into my mouth, or driven mad by the Baron's amazing ability to invade and read my mind. Or at least, to CLAIM to without anything within a furlong of evidence or actual reasoning.

Once again, I see no evidence of any intent to debate here, civilly or otherwise, but only to stereotype, preach, and display a really shocking capacity for arrogance and disdain for anyone who doesn't agree.

It's beginning to worry me how often I agree with you, Charles.