Many Atheists use the loophole argument that Atheism is a category and nothing else. As a category it is not broad enough of a subject to be rational or irrational, but it is preemptive to reason as it’s mind has already been made up on a subject about which not enough is known for that position to be held. We still know very little about the universe, we can only see a tiny portion of the visible spectrum, we only recently discovered dark matter and dark energy of which the majority of the universe is made. As such, Atheism is an irrational position, but that isn’t the only problem.
The only thing that atheists have in common with each other is the lack of belief in god. This isn’t a positive assertion, this is a negation. The problem arises in the application of a negative position. Every belief system creates a meritocracy of some sort. If you say that your god is Reason, it creates a meritocracy of reason and results. The emergent properties that arise from atheist are unsustainable and irrational. If you look at what Richard Dawkins did, he created a meritocracy of god hate.
Atheism isn’t science, it isn’t correctness, it isn’t a philosophy, it isn’t morality, all of those things have been conflated with Atheism as a form of propaganda to sell atheism to people, to indoctrinate them into the authority of manipulative and evil people like Richard Dawkins. Atheists also claim that atheism isn’t an organization even though the Out Campaign is a campaign, and there are now atheist churches. What manner of Campaign is the Out Campaign? A military campaign? An advertising campaign? or a political campaign? What is the charter or morality of an Atheist church? Where is it written? Where can I read it? What authority do Atheists have to judge the behavior of other atheists as being moral or not? Richard Dawkins claims that the bible isn’t a reliable source of morality, but then argues that who is to say that Hitler was immoral. The problem is that Atheists and Richard Dawkins himself are not making positive assertions on what is morality or what morality is? They are concealing the nature of their morality and their beliefs on what morality is and what their personal morality allows them to do. How is that sustainable? How are you going to build a society on that? What will your constitution be? What will your laws be?
My personal experiences with Atheists and their meritocracy of being an Atheist shows how hypocritical and essentially evil it is. Any stupid and incorrect Atheist is considered superior to any person professing any kind of spirituality. I am a deist, and that is enough to make me the object of ridicule by people much stupider than myself, and they have authority over me. It is much like the application of Islam where any Muslim no matter how violent and stupid can treat any other person who is not Muslim however they want, treating them as an animal, raping, torturing, beheading, persecuting, etc. My reasoned and supported arguments are subject to their un-reasoned and incorrect mocking and ridiculing. Other Atheists will not come to my defense against an atheist even when they know that I am correct and the other atheist is wrong.
Richard Dawkins brand of Atheism is an insidious, and stupid evil. It is a moral imperative that Dawinites never get into positions of authority in the real world. They are biased, bigotted, and evil. Atheists use the logical loophole of atheism so that they don’t have to scrutinize themselves or reveal their feelings or thoughts in an honest manner while judging and criticizing others.