How sure are you that atheists don't "get" religion?
After all, many atheists (myself among them) weren't always atheists.
Apparently the scientific viewpoint that many atheists adopt just doesn't "translate" into religion, doesn't properly apply to religion. Didn't I, however, once speak that strange other "language" of religious thought myself? Wouldn't I know its nuances and see the translational difficulties?
Would you propose that I've forgotten the language of my youth? Or must it be the case that any atheist who abandons religion simply must not have be that good at the religious thing in the first place, otherwise they would have stuck with it?
Would you entertain the possibility that many atheists don't much care for religion because they understand it too well?
= new reply since forum marked as read
You see it all starts when a man loves a women............................................
There are too many things that I personally have seen to make me totally deny the possibility of something that may exist but that has yet to be explained. Or is simply inexplicable by any known logic.
But I certainly understand your point. To my mind, there is no one "religion" on earth, especially anything that is institutionalized, that provides a satisfactory explanation.
As to your point, there is at least one poll that shows that agnostics and atheists are actually the best informed about religion. This link is from two years back. http://news.discovery.com/human/atheists-best-informed-about-religion.html
Even Dawkins is willing to say there is a extremely small mathematical possibility. An atheist (generally) is simply somebody who doesn't believe such a deity exists, and will continue to believe as such until such time evidence is provided that convincingly points in a different direction (but I'm not holding my breath). 
There is such a fine line between the two terms that it's virtually a distinction without a difference.
I also come from a fairly extensive religious background, but found that even when I was very young and much more naive and susceptible I hated the arbitrary and theological distinctions that religions made among themselves in deciding who is "worthy" and who isn't. Also, as a female, I simply could not believe that I am the lesser being, which is what the majority of established religions teach, or that those who are not practitioners of the religion in which I was raised are forever damned. And what the heck does "damned" mean anyway? When I see the extremely wretched lives that too many here on earth live, including watching their loved ones starve, die or be tortured, I simply cannot imagine that a Hell after death could be worse. Many of those who are suffering are firm believers. If it helps them endure, fine. But I wonder what kind of sadistic Supreme Being would put them through it or why. To "test their faith" is a too-easy cop-out answer, IMO.
My hesitation to cross the line is based more on a "gut" feeling than on any logic. For me, the idea of God has always been more like the allegory of the blind men and the elephant, where each blind man describes the part of the elephant that he personally experiences and insists that is what the elephant is. In fact, the elephant is none of those, nor is it even the sum of those, it is something entirely outside the blind men's experience.
But the point about being atheists being well-informed is an excellent one. In my experience, non-Christians often have a better understanding about what Christianity should be than many Christians do and they are certainly better informed about Christianity's beliefs and tenets than most Christians are about Christianity, let alone any non-Christian religion.
And I think we are in general agreement. I can also appreciate your hesitation to "cross the line," as you put it. It was much the same for me for years, and to be honest I'm not exactly sure when I actually crossed the line, it just sort of happened. Maybe the same will happen to you, and maybe it won't, but either way you seem to be an eminently self-aware person, and I have a great deal of respect for that.
Thank you for your thoughts. 
Most of the times I've self-deleted a post it was simply because it was in the wrong thread, or written as a reply to the wrong post.
I guess you worry a bit, as do I, that someone will see your self-delete and assume that you posted something awful and then changed your mind about posting it.
Never can get enough.
Well done!
But let's try to examine the geometric shape of "imperialistic" positivism rationally and qualitatively.
Assuming that consciousness refers to relation of self-reference, and that science is a dynamic process of self-correction in dialogue between systems and their environment, then it seems obvious that self-correction is not possible without introspective methodologies of self-referentiality. Thus in terms of ability to self-correct, positivist rejection of introspection and intuition becomes in fact anti-scientific ideological attitude not unlike religious dogmatism. Rejection of consciouss self-reference and self-correction and dogmatical attitude towards propositional claims leads to "imperialistic" projection of dogmatic belief systems and mechanistically repetitive behavior to environment instead of evolutionally sound self-corrective adaptation to constantly changing environment and dynamical interaction.
The positivist attitude that rejects introspection and practicis only extrospective projection considering nature and environment nothing but objects is in deed 'supernatural' positioning of the positivist subject over nature instead of participatory relation, as the self-corrective and adaptive consciouss relation of dynamic interactive participation in and with environment is forgotten and denied.
has any basis criticizing it? How about the man who keeps telling us here on this board that we have "no idea" what Christianity is really about? He is one rather egregious example of someone telling atheists on this board that we just don't get it.
And I'm pretty sure you know him. 
But I do see your point.
The word "atheist" is a bit the same way, now that I think about it. Perhaps a new language is in order.
...it would work out better?
For me, I'm no longer going to refer to myself as an atheist. Instead, I will be a Snarliff! I find this word better represents my opinions and beliefs... (sorry, thought a little levity was in order)
cause that's just how I roll.
