Correct. Logical statements such as "there does not exist ABC" are enormously difficult to prove in the positive sense, so it is the height of hubris to say that e.g. a time-traveler or alien or superpowered individual etc. (or The Matrix, or The Force, I mean the list really can go on for awhile) could never have caused what was said to have happened. Hollywood shows are even full of such events so it's not even the tiniest bit difficult to contemplate something similar. I can only guess that what is meant is more that "it seems unlikely", or that "the belief does not look substantiated by current evidence".

But unlike e.g. Apatheism - "the attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence of God(s)" - militant Atheism ultimately comes down a belief, even if not quite a full "religion" due to lack of an organized belief system e.g. common religious rituals (then again, many people do not go to church their entire lives, yet still profess to be a Christian/Muslim/whatever so still somewhat similar), more so than most seem willing to admit.

I found this funny quote somewhere:

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Which makes me think that despite calling themselves "atheists", they are really apatheists wrt all gods everywhere, and only atheist towards the Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Mormon/whatever god that they do not personally like. Except that is most vehemently not what many claim themselves, so how can I reject the very words that come from their own mouths as to what they believe - do I think that they themselves do not even know what they believe, or that they are hypocritical in claiming that they know that which is currently unknowable? Or worst of all, do they in fact know, yet go ahead and redefine that word however they please anyway - b/c apparently words have no meaning except whatever we like, at any given moment in time?

A highly relevant point is that Carl Sagan in particular claimed that he should not be properly called an atheist, for precisely this reason - he earns much respect from me for such a goal towards precision. Therefore, a lot of what "people say about atheists" is not matching what some people commonly thought of as the founders of the modern era of atheists themselves have said - in much the same manner as what "people say about Christ" does not match what He Himself said. People just tend to be sloppy, period, in many matters.

In compassion, most atheists I know were personally harmed by some denomination or another of an organized religion, and so it looks to me like they became militant out of a hatred towards what harmed them. I get that... it doesn't make them logically correct, but it is understandable. Religious people are still people, and people are fucked up - at least, Jesus says so in Romans 3:10: “There is no one righteous, not even one" (emphasis added).

Might be superficially pro human but anybody who uses such a horrific book for the basis of their religion can't actually be pro human. They can make their impact less by being decent but they are still a net negative by believing such horrific shit.

And do you think he has that stance because he wants control, or because he believes it to be wrong? He also has directed bishops to stay out of politics, and removed one of them when they didn't stop

I didn't say he doesn't have bad takes, but his beliefs and actions are consistent. He's repeatedly denounced capitalism, raised the alarm on climate change, told the church to accept LGBT people (including directing priests to bless LGBT couples), and generally has told people to not use religion as an excuse for hate

You can criticize him over the abortion issue, but if you can't see the difference between him and Pope Benedict I don't know what to tell you