On one hand they say they are all loving and all good, the other hand it is all judgement and condemnation... And they flip between the two depending on what's convenient.
But it's okay they will "pray for you".

They don't realize that Prayer is just a religious invention... And is more often used as a tool to be condescending, just to give themselves a sense of power and entitlement.

“I’ll pray for you” is basically Evangelical for “fuck you.” 

I find it strange that the religious folks here clutch their pearls so tightly when atheists said "I don't think there's any good reason to believe in your religion, and I think it is likely harmful to the world" but didn't bat an eye at people saying "I think you will be tortured forever for your beliefs, and that you deserve it". It's almost like they don't give a fuck about discrimination or negativity, just don't like their ideas being challenged.

Once you start throwing their own religion against them, they tend to run and hide.

One of the grooming strategies employed by churches is to send young missionaries out to “spread the word.” The hostility they get from some members the general public serves the purpose of showing them that the only “safe place” for them is within the church, despite the fact that they’re getting that pushback from acting like annoying pests. 

If God existed. What a fucking cunt. Also, why does an omnipotent being need a gender or a singular form? Religion is a poison full of dumbass holes in logic. Religion was created by unbathed, dirty old men thousands of years ago when they didn't even know why the sun rises in the morning, so they made up stories to explain to their simple minds. 

A coke bottle to a tribe of people unfamiliar with the modern world would thing it's a gift from the gods.

And don’t forget that God’s apparent favorite spot in the entire universe is the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean.  Even on Earth, God somehow missed the two civilizations which cumulatively made up 40-50% of the entire sum total of humanity throughout the history of human civilization. 

"Everyone is born an atheist" is a bullshit statement!
Truth: everyone is born a Satanist: naked... screaming! And covered in placental blood.

So you're saying everyone is born METAL!

FUCK YEAH! 

The topic that interests me right now is the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. While I think most people here (if not everyone) understands there's a difference, a great number of people do not; or at least respect the difference.

So, I understand the theist who can't distinguish between atheist and agnostic, sometimes not even between atheist, agnostics, and deists, or even people of differing religions.
But then there are people from the New Atheist movement who also take stances - Christopher Hitchens: agnosticism is a compromise, and that if people get to the position of agnosticism, why not go the rest of the way? Richard Dawkins: agnosticism is a midway position, like an egg on a barn-roof, it will eventually roll one way.

To respond to theists: think of it as academic vs vocational education - both can get you jobs, but one is focused on academic subjects while the other is focused on specific skills and processes for working a job - Academic examples include attending a university to learn Arts or Sciences - with subjects like Philosophy, Chemistry, and Literature; Vocational studies include attending a college to learn a program such as: Nursing, Plumbing, and Electrician school.

So, to respond to Dawkins, my above explanation, which is based on TH Huxley:
Ask the question, "What is the answer to the question of existence?" Instead of using just the "probability" analysis, look also at the "possibility" analysis.
So, lets look at the term X and Y as the probability terms (or you can do X for all, I just use different letters to avoid confusion.
Atheism: no god=X, gods=Y. So, in this analysis, X>50%, Y<50%
Agnosticism: sees no god=X or gods=Y as unknowable or unknown terms. Or even as a binary, "X=100% Possible" and Y=100% Possible". And I personally take it further, considering other possibilities, and specific god definitions, some as 100% possible, but others "man in the sky god" or "god on mount Olympus" as being less than 1%, if not 0%.
Theism: no god=X, gods=Y. So, in this analysis, X<50%, Y>50%

To address Hitchens. Even using the explanation above for Dawkins, it's not a compromise, just a position. Yes, you can come to the position the same way. A Christian presents their evidence for their God, and you find that's incoherent with what we know about reality, and both an agnostic and atheist may come to this same conclusion for every religion. But that doesn't get us to atheism, merely to irreligion. Because the question of existence is still unknown, and the idea of a maker, a prime mover, or some kind of force we don't quite understand isn't going to lead all rational people to the same conclusions. An agnostic mainly entertains options much more seriously than an atheist. An atheist like Hitchens might ask "why entertain any of these options when you can't produce any evidence for them?", and to him the answer would be "Just conclude there probably is no forces that can be called godlike, and when you get there, you might as well go the rest of the way and say no gods exist." - but, in order to reach that position, you have to not entertain philosophical hypotheticals with seriousness. Agnostics merely cross the bridge into considering the different hypotheticals → this happens in science all the time, it's not irrational, it's part of the process in how we explore phenomena.

So, for me (switching this to a more personal discussion), when it comes to the question of existence, I see no evidence of an answer, so I entertain the possible options which include gods (or things I might define as gods) and no-gods. On religion, I think I could share some of Christopher Hitchens's anti-theistic positions because the idea of eternal damnation sounds evil to me.

That said, I don't have anything against atheists or theists/deists on their own. It's the application of dogmatic principles and "cult" approach that I dislike. And by cult, I mean the modern definition rather than the ancient ones. More or less, if people try to coerce their worldview on others, that's where I take a stand. I also think that judgment on others is asking for a fight :D Even Jesus hated judgment, a lesson many Christians can repeat thousands of times without ever learning or following it. But I'm getting off topic now.

(OK, weird, came back to this post and noticed most of it wasn't displaying. However, when I hit edit, the rest of it was there)