Originally posted by divegeester
Am I being harsh if said that reading anti-theism material is like arguing with a theist from another doctrine?
Not the same.
Say Wooga-Booga, who has a bone in his nose and wears a coconut-husk thong, is saying that a volcanic eruption is best explained by a supernatural (i.e. not subject to known natural laws) god who is invisible, omniscient, and omnipotent. Wooga-Booga believes that the god, by dint of its omniscience, knows that its people have been lately insufficiently worshipful and thinking unholy thoughts (the god requires absolute obeisance, lots of attention, and can read minds), and concludes that the volcano is erupting because the god, in its infinite mercy, wishes to shepherd its wayward people back toward righteousness. Wooga-Booga understands that the most efficacious way an omnipotent being can accomplish the reestablishment of moral rectitude is to loose a lava flow indiscriminately through the villages, killing the good and sinful in equal measure.
Suppose next that an atheist comes to Wooga-Booga's island, points out that a volcanic eruption could also be explained as a simple release of pressure from deep within the Earth that has no correlation with the moral disposition of the island's inhabitants, and then walks away to leave Wooga-Booga to his thoughts.
The atheist was not proselytizing. He was pointing out an alternate explanation that is by every measure simpler and more plausible. The best "anti-theism arguments," as you call them, do not lay down any laws, save for natural laws known to exist; and they don't ask for faith in anything, but instead provide simpler or more plausible explanations to phenomena that do not require invocation of a cheat (i.e. God) that essentially short-circuits scientific inquiry and causal chains.