As you may have noticed, in the recent years, atheist people has been claiming that all religion is bad for the world and that only science will save humanity and while this atheist group is a minority (rejected by most atheist themselves) its undeniable how annoying they are.

What I'm going to write here is a simple thing: That group isn't atheist, they're anti-theist.

Explanation:

Atheism, is the idea of believing in no religion and, like the agnostic (who, while doesn't believes in a specific religion, still believes in the idea of a great being) some of them admits that some of the religious values can help to society (like the search of a greater good that will benefit us overtime).

Anti-Theism is the idea that no religion is of value and that nothing in it can be useful to society as a whole (leaving a vacuum of what is good or should be followed as a moral standard for society to follow).

The Main difference between atheism and anti-theism is that, while both doesn't believes in any religion and have a very scientific mindset, Anti-theism acts as if atheism is a religion (which is why you'll see the contradiction from some atheist that acts as if their way of acting is a way for enlightening and a new religion, even if they deny such a thing, more than anything) and try to hunt down any theist on the internet (because they're a minority on the real world).

Example through Analogy:

In Venezuela, during the late 80's and 90's, due to the corruption of political parties. A lot of Venezuelan started to blame the political parties of all their problems and, as a result, said that none of them could be trusted. This lead them to call for help to the military (which resulted in Hugo Chávez making 2 military coup attempts to take over the country, which they failed) and, subsequently, search for an "outsider" that could fix their problems (a messianic figure) that was placed on Hugo Chávez. This anti-politics way of thinking lead to Hugo Chávez winning the 1998 elections and destroying the country in his quest to destroy the political parties (although he failed).

Now, the current wave is presented with these anti-theist that are now trying to get rid of religion and the values they can get (due to the composition of this group, we'll focus on Christianity) and try to fill the void with science (ignoring that science have no moral value to compass society and, thus, destroying what society holds as civil values) as if it were the salvation of humanity (also ignoring that scientific progress with no value is more dangerous than anything).

Why the terminology:

The best way to fix a problem is through understanding it, the best way to understand it (after analyzing it, of course) is to give it a name. Once you give the problem a name, you can start to figure out how to fix the problem (although we still need to understand when and how this wave started) and once you figure out the way, you can then apply the solution to the problem while waiting for the next one to come. Also, this way atheist can start to separate themselves from this groups that are creating a bad name to what atheism is.

Why "The Bastard Son":

Is no denying that this is related to atheism (for the anti-theist will call themselves atheist) but they're the bastard son because atheism itself rejects this (as they are dangerous to society as a whole) and their contradictory way of acting.

What to do:

Now it's time to make the analysis and understand when, how and why this wave of thought came to be.

Thank you for reading, if you have something to correct or would like to explain something I got wrong feel free to do so, and have a nice day.

5709137 To be honest, I never even knew there was an Atheist group who thought all religion was bad.

5709137 Anti-theism and atheism are distinctions we ought to recognize.

5709137 Anyone who has read "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" has crossed paths with an anti-theist. They're proposed alternative is basically Christian morality with a few caveats to make it "more consistent." They have close ties to rationalism and transhumanism, although I doubt the overlap is total.

The centerpiece is the Sanctity of Life. Death is evil and wrong in all its forms, including disease and old age, and must be wiped out. If there is no afterlife, then death is only the void, and the fear of death is logical and sensible.

As for what to do about them, I believe the most effective path would be to prevent them from gaining ground. As you said, right now they are a minority, and as long as they stay a minority they are not a threat. If you run over their list of problems with religion, pick out the complaints that have merit (such as priests breaking their vows), and fix them, it will rob them of much of their persuasive power.

5709137
Personally I would actually consider both atheism and anti-theism to be religions as both of those are technically based in faith in something that cannot be proven. A common argument from atheists is that there is no solid proof for God, well by that argument there is also no solid proof that God does not exist so they still base their belief in blind faith.

Also I find it interesting that you say that anti-theism and atheism are different. While I know this is true, I had trouble differentiating the two ideologies for many years as I had found no atheists who did not also think that religion is an outdated relic from scared ancestors that deserves to sputter and die in the name of science. To this day I find very few atheists who would not also easily fit under the title of anti-theist.

Now for my controversial opinion: I consider atheism to be the "religion of laziness". Why go to church every Sunday or pray five times a day when you could just not do that and justify it with a simple "religion is for stupid people"? Religious scholars for millennia have spent their entire lives studying their faith, and the Catholic Church itself has spent the entirety of its 2000 year history trying to understand God with a clear answer remaining ever elusive. Why put effort into cultivating a relationship that you will inevitably not entirely understand when you can just ignore it and chalk it up to said relationship not existing? Atheists see these questions and answer them incorrectly, opting for the easy and completely unrewarding answer.

5709192
You have no idea how lucky you are

I agree there should be a distinction made, being an atheist is simply not believing in any kind of god or higher power while an anti theist takes this belief or rather lack thereof much further with open hostility toward religion and religious people. An atheist may say that they don't believe in god because of a lack of evidence for the existence of god but may show respect for those who do believe in some higher power, while an anti theist will often accuse religious people of being delusional idiots. The best example of an anti theist is Richard Dawkins who wrote a book years back called The God Delusion.

In regard to agnostics though I believe you are confusing them with deists. Agnostics are actually a middle ground between theists and atheists, they simply don't know or aren't sure whether or not there is a god and many seem open to the idea of one or the other being true. Deists on the other hand do in fact believe in god, but are often critical of organized religion though do seem to have a high degree of respect for religious pluralism and toleration. Many deists also believe in what is called the Eternal Watchmaker Theory which is that god set the rules of physics, nature science ect... into place but then sat back and let them take their course. In other words according to deists god has not been actively involved in the affairs of mankind since creation due to issues involving free will and most of them believe in things like evolution and many place a high degree of value on scientific and logic based reasoning. Many of the key figures in the Enlightenment Era including many of Americas founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson were deists.

5709137

agnostic (who, while doesn't believes in a specific religion, still believes in the idea of a great being)

As a agnostic I have to point out that's not the real diffraction, Agnostic are consider the middle ground between Athiesm and Theistism we are unsure of either, "their might be a god or gods and their might not be" is a simple summary though it's simplistic in it's explanation of us.

5709192
5709228
5709285
5709406
5709895
5709952

Thank you all for your answers, it helps to have a broader understanding of this (like the difference between Deists and agnostics).

5709137

This mirrors my experience online when talking with these people. By and large, most self-proclaimed atheists I meet are likely anti-theists. They say that they merely "have no belief". But in practice, they are vehemently opposed to any sort of spiritual faith, religious or otherwise. They are strictly materialistic, meaning they only believe in the physical realm of our space/time continuum. And they will only receive materialistic evidence for immaterial things (which is impossible, and shields them from critique). As a side note, I find this somewhat ironic, since fringe-science also talks about the possibility of several other dimensions. Even the idea of a "multiverse" is entertained. But not the dimensions of heaven and hell?

So yes, this has been a big contradiction I've observed for many years. The outright disdain and contempt for others who hold to spiritual beliefs of various kinds is more than evident in the internet's population of "atheists". They most certainly "believe" that there is no God. But if you press them on it, they will immediately switch to the standard "No! I don't have a belief. That's what an atheist is." And this is bullshit. They don't just have a lack of belief. A lack of belief would not organize itself and attack those with belief. The absence of a thing does not invade the presence of a thing. These people have beliefs. But admitting it is a vulnerability to them because it puts them on the same playing field as what they are criticizing.

Examples are things like belief in evolution or belief in the big bang, etc. Belief in the secular time scale. These are all "things they believe" rather than merely "lack of belief". And when the biblical worldview comes along and threatens their beliefs, they will get hostile.

This also raises up the topic of how it is impossible to be an intellectually honest atheist. In truth, a classic atheist (nonbelief in anything) is actually an agnostic because they are supposedly open to being wrong. Agnostic means "lack of knowledge". And that is exactly what nonbelief is. It's a negative position. So technically speaking, there is no real distinction between the terms atheist and agnostic. Practically, the difference is that the atheist talks as if he is firm in this position. But that's crossing the line into "belief" rather than non-belief. Non-belief cannot be firm. So they are agnostic.

Here's some light reading on the subject of atheism.