I’ve noticed that there is little in the way of respect in the contentious sphere of atheism versus theism. Each side appears to need to prove that their position is the right position.
Why not just accept and stop. In no way do I wish to convert someone, it seems too much time, effort and control which I can divert to better needs. Perhaps the prosletyzers on both sides of the boundary don’t have much better to do that fill their otherwise empty time, trotting out homilies and spinning argument and counter argument.
The theists are by and far the worst, their scripture, doctrines and dogma encourage respectful understanding, yet the people who provide literal or metaphoric interpretation encourage their flocks to try to save me by making me become part of their gang. No thanks.
As an atheist, I respect my partners desire to have a spiritual bond with her concept of g-d, I disagree with it as her lifestyle makes a mockery of the very concept she clings to of atonement and salvation. If I transgress a moral boundary, then no-one is there to remove that “sin” other than myself. Although, having said that I do like the concept of autotheism, but I’d never be able to follow through with the general tenants of that idea.
I think the arguing between theists and atheists just shows that there is little difference between the two groups and they should admit their similarities in the fact that because they argue, they wish to persuade the other and thus instead of their conceptual boundaries they want the same thing, which is to convert someone to their particular ideology.