Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Thanks for the background. I can't help but notice you have confused your fundamentalist background to be all of Christianity, and likewise confused your rejection of fundamentalism with your rejection of Christianity.

I had much the same background, but I was able to recognize that the existence of bad science doesn't discredit all of science, just like bad religion doesn't discredit all of religion.

As someone who took a step away from religion, analyzed it rationally, found it rational and decided to follow the evidence back to theism and Christianity, I'm skeptical that your study of theology was substantive. But that's a topic we can explore elsewhere.

That being said, you've raised some questions about my approach. Apparently I only believe atheists become atheists because they don't understand Christianity or because they are angry at God. And that's a problem.

I want to humbly suggest that the evidence based on posts I've seen suggest just that. Very few of the posts I've seen here so far contain a rational basis for rejecting religion. Where they do, they are inept or incomplete. 

You can verify this yourself, by scrolling through this very thread. Please look at the individual responses to my OP, and score them on two measures: Substantive rational content on one hand, and emotional rhetoric/ad hominem or content suggesting anger/hate/contempt/uncharitable attacks on the other.

Based on your findings, tell me what you would conclude.

You noticed no such thing because it isn't there. Far from confusing fundamentalism with the rest of Christianity, my first step on leaving my fundamentalist church was not to leave Christianity, but to start touring other churches and having discussions with their clergy and experts about the different denominations and their beliefs/theology. I certainly agree that every single person to whom I spoke could be wrong/confused about Christianity and theology in general, and yet the overall concept of Christianity yet remain true despite that fact. However, my experience taught me that the actual differences in doctrine between the churches went much deeper than any cared to admit, and left me with the clear conclusion that these people were equally "certain" of mutually-exclusive things to the point that it was safe to doubt the honesty with which they had come to their conclusions about religion. At that point I started studying other faiths on a level NOT designed to disprove them (as I had when training in apologetics as a bright teen within my church), and found that I could not distinguish on the deepest level between the root claims of all the religions... a concept we have all come to label "woo-woo", or just "woo", here on the internet. Wildly difference concepts of woo, but woo nevertheless. I even took an elective course on The History of the Bible, during which it felt like I read the whole damned thing a third time through! From my family, especially my professor-at-a-Christian-university mother, I was deluged with books on apologetics too numerous to count... it only stopped when I started annotating and footnoting the errors contained within, and sending them back. (And was called "angry" by several of my aunts and by my own mother for it, despite never saying one cross word, unless you count "incorrect".) Finally, by a five-year process of deconversion, by the end of my college years I finally felt comfortable with the realization that I was effectively an agnostic atheist.

I think your "inept or incomplete" argument has more to do with the nature of an internet discussion forum than lack of argumentation capacity. We have a few true experts in Biblical History and apologetics, if you really want to get into even more nitty-gritty than I can provide; my primary expertise is in biological sciences and military history (technology and tactics) of the ancient world.