Bad atheist takes

 

Is Satanism atheism?
After all, it lacks a belief in God...

 "Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God or gods"

No, it isn´t. It´s a positive statement about the (purported) evidence for the existence of God or gods. Hence, a belief. It quite literally can´t be otherwise.  

"Atheism is not a worldview".

True, but it´s an important part of any worldview that holds it, since it cannot fail to have consequences whether or not you believe in God. And since the atheist bad take tries to deny this, in context "atheism is not a worldview" is wrong. 

"You can stop believing in God, and nothing will change about the rest of your worldview".

If you´re inconsistent, yes. Or if the god you believed in was a deus absconditus or deus otiosus. Otherwise, probably not. It´s surely not a co-incidence that most American atheists are liberals! Others are Social Darwinists...

"The burden of proof is on the theist to prove God, I don´t have to prove anything cuz lack of belief blah blah".

And the City should give you free soup, right?

"Atheism and non-religious are two different things".

If this means that atheists can be religious, the statement is absurd - at least if you define "religion" in the sense most people in the modern West do. If it means that a non-religious person doesn´t have to be an atheist, the statement is true - you can leave organized religion (say a Church) and still believe in God, gods or supramundane spiritual forces. Note, however, that most people will probably still consider you to be somewhat religious! 

"There is a differece between not believing God exists and believing God doesn´t exist"

Whatever whenever.

"Atheism and anti-religious are two different things"

No, they are literally the same. I mean, come on. An atheist is *by definition* anti-religious, since he doesn´t believe in God or gods, and hence doesn´t sincerely partake in religious worship of the same. 

That being said, sure, atheists could promote and/or tolerate religion for reasons of prudence or politic, as when elite intellectual atheists argue that the plebs need religion to stay well-behaved and that atheism should therefore remain esoteric. That´s hardly the majority position of atheists today, though. 

"Buddhism is atheism"

LOL. Yeah, maybe in California. In Asia? Not so much. But nice try, punk! 

"Pantheism is theism"

I actually saw this argument once, but maybe it was just a troll? 

"Atheism and science are two different things"

True, they are. However, the way science is defined today (and has been since at least Charles Darwin), it´s virtually impossible to avoid "scientism" if you´re consistently doing science. "But Huston, science *is* scientism". And scientism is atheist.

"Methodological" naturalism doesn´t make much sense, unless it´s *really* based on ontological naturalism. And naturalism is just a fancier word for materialism. 

So really existing atheism and ditto science will be closely allied, a bit like the United States and the United Kingdom!

"You can believe in levitating purple unicorns with magic powers and still be an atheist"

No, you can´t. Really. In the vernacular, such a creature would be a god!

"You can believe in reincarnation, an immortal soul or magic, and still be an atheist"

No, you can´t. Outside your Smart Boy dark circle, nobody uses the term "atheist" that way. Sorry! You have adopted a religious or spiritual worldview. 

Besides, how many atheists see the California New Age as their allies or brothers? Exactly.

"You can be both a dualist and an atheist"

(Pun intended). You can (like Karl Popper), but if the dualism is really consistent, how is the mind-realm (from which objective morality comes) relevantly different from God? At least Deist God.

"Simulation theory is atheist"

In a sense, yes. You could call it an attempt not to believe in God, while believing in God! Everyone else knows *exactly* where that idea comes from.

Of course it´s theism. Theism with its serial number filed off... 

"Morality based on God is subjective, since God is a person, and all personal perspectives are subjective"

Blah-blah-blah. But sure, *some* theologies could perhaps be criticized for de facto taking this position. However, if a person is an eternal being, the transcendent creator of the universe, and his creation reflects his nature, in what relevant way is his perspective "subjective" or a "perspective" at all? 

Exactly. Of course it´s objective. 

You can argue that the idea of such a person is grossly incoherent, but that´s a different argument...    

"There is a distinction between a Gnostic Atheist and a Agnostic Atheist"

Theoretically, yes. In reality? Not so much. YouTubers who are "Agnostic Atheists" attack religion just as much as the "Gnostic Atheist" ones. Besides, the term "Gnostic Atheist" sounds weird. Any relation to Gnostic Egyptians? Or no?

"The theodicy problem isn´t meant to disprove God. It´s only meant to show the contradictions of a very concrete God-concept"

In other words: it´s meant to disprove God.

"Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution".

Smart Boy (TM), much? Of course abiogenesis has everything to do with evolution. 

"Humans aren´t descended from apes. We are descended from other primates"

And who are these other primates, then?

"Actually, humans are apes"

No, we´re not. Cladistically, apes are monkeys, but you don´t call apes monkeys, do you? Cladistically, humans are fish, but you don´t call humans fish, do you now? 

So why do you insist on calling all hominoids "apes", the word "ape" having no scientific standing anyway?

Let me guess. You like chimps, right? I´d say YOU LACK THE GORILLA MINDSET! :P