I advocate for an atheistic ideology that aims to make a better world

[Belacqua]

Atheism is not a belief. But a lack of belief. Calling people "real" atheists makes it no better than the religious. Look how many people say that certain people are not "real" Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, and other beliefs.

I understand that we define atheism as a lack of belief. 

But people can lie about this. Suppose some religious person wanted to stir up trouble on the Internet, he could pretend to lack belief, when in fact he does believe in God. That person would not be a real atheist. Such a liar would not make atheism "no better than the religious." It just means he's lying. 

There is no direct, observable, or testable evidence that proves the existence of a god or creator.

Despite centuries of searching, we have not found verifiable signs of divine intervention or supernatural activity that cannot be explained by natural phenomena.

Naturalistic explanations have been successful in explaining the origins and workings of the universe, life, and consciousness.

Evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life without invoking a designer. Cosmology offers models of universe formation without requiring a creator.

God of the Gaps. Invoking God to explain the unknown has historically been replaced by natural explanations as knowledge progresses.

Some theists calling the universe "God" is unnecessary and risks mystification. We should embrace the clarity that the universe is awe-inspiring enough without inventing a divine label for it. 

I'm pretty sure that all the regular posters on this forum would agree with you on almost all of this. So this part of your argument is uncontroversial, at least here. 

(Many people would disagree with you that naturalistic explanations have been successful in explaining the origins and workings of consciousness. I think we haven't managed that yet. But you are correct that this is no reason for  a God of the gaps argument.)

Reason and evidence, not philosophy alone, guide us to truth.

I'm not quite sure why you bring up philosophy here. That seems unrelated to your anti-religion argument. After all, religion and philosophy are not identical, and there are plenty of philosophers who have no religious belief. 

Moreover, no philosopher I'm aware of would claim that philosophy alone guides us to truth. Science does what science does, and philosophy does other things. For example, philosophy covers ethics and aesthetics, because science doesn't deal with these. 

In fact the argument you are making on this forum, that religious belief has no place in a good society, is a philosophical argument. There is no scientific (empirical, repeatable, objective) test you can do to demonstrate that it's bad to believe false things if those false things make you happy. But you certainly can make an ethical argument that it's always bad to believe false things. So that's philosophy.

I understand that you've been banned for now, but I thought you deserved a reasonable reply to your post. I'll look out for your response, if you make it back after the banishment period.