Is there really much difference?

[Polaris]

So I've met many people of various faiths over the years, some of whom were bat-crazy religious and some of whom were much more normal when it came to their beliefs.

I have to wonder...with those who have a very mild form of religious belief (maybe if only believing that God or gods exist and nothing more), is there really much difference between those people and atheists who don't particularly care about their disbelief?

Both are live and let live as I have seen and are quite accepting of others. I have to even say that most Christians (and the Moslems I have met...save for one...well I don't think he was all that religious, just anti-Jewish) act in a way that is very much similar to atheists. Note, I'm not going along the lines of No True Scotsman.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's feasible that people for whom faith is not very important and people for whom faith is a non issue would act in a way that makes it difficult to distinguish between the two without asking directly. Hell, some very religious people don't -seem- very religious (in my experience), and some anti-religious people are very easily accepted into the fold of the very religious (in my experience), eh?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

In my experience usually they subscribe to at least one or two things from their faith that atheists usually have no obligations to subscribe to. Like not eating pork for muslims. Prolife christians usually. It really depends from person to person, but usually, when you get to know them well enough, there are one or two aspects of their life that is heavily influenced by religion.

I knew a muslim who was indistinguishable from atheist in his behaviour, until one day he expressed on facebook that islam is right to champion child marriages and that as long as children express they want to marry an old guy that's completely fine. Another guy I know who deconverted into an agnostic, quite surprisingly refused to eat meat from nonhalal places. Even though he thought his religion wasn't true. So maybe we are all the same.

In terms of tolerance they usually are indistinguishable from atheists, I would agree with that.

[Something completely different]

So I've met many people of various faiths over the years, some of whom were bat-crazy religious and some of whom were much more normal when it came to their beliefs.

I have to wonder...with those who have a very mild form of religious belief (maybe if only believing that God or gods exist and nothing more), is there really much difference between those people and atheists who don't particularly care about their disbelief?

Both are live and let live as I have seen and are quite accepting of others. I have to even say that most Christians (and the Moslems I have met...save for one...well I don't think he was all that religious, just anti-Jewish) act in a way that is very much similar to atheists. Note, I'm not going along the lines of No True Scotsman.

Can you give me examples of atheists who`s behaviorpatterns are similar to those of religious fanatics?

[Angrboda]

This is related to a question which frequently comes up in debates, namely, how much of the population is atheist. It turns out that while there is a substantial segment of society that is non-religious, only a small portion of that is self-consciously atheist. (And determining that number is itself complicated; see Zuckerman.) I would suggest that on the other side of the line, there are those who identify as religious, who are actually better described as non-religious. I would suggest that the differences are real, but gradual, and not necessarily aligning with the standard guideposts of belief or non-belief (e.g. ethnic Jews who still participate in Jewish religious traditions, secular Japanese who observe Buddhist and Shinto traditions, and Asian Indians who still maintain consciousness of varna and jati in determining whom to marry and associate with). Moreover, the official categories don't always correlate with the anthropological ones (as noted, some Christians believe in reincarnation).

I suppose I would make two points. First, despite its incompatibility with folk psychological notions of belief, it is possible to believe mutually inconsistent things, and even be aware of the inconsistency, without having to give priority to one or the other or otherwise reconcile the two. Therefore, it wouldn't be seen as unusual to me for a Christian to believe in reincarnation, yet also believe that people will burn in hell for not embracing Christ. It doesn't make sense according to most people's understanding of "normal psychology," but it is my contention that "normal psychology" doesn't accurately describe the psychology of the species.

Another point that comes to mind is that religious beliefs and behaviors have multiple levels and dimensions. So religion may be similar to politics: some people might be intensely focused on social issues, another on economic ones, another not especially political, and another, intensely involved politically only if their specific ideological faction is involved in the issue.

So I think trying to create a set of ready-made boxes of limited number to describe religious belief and behavior is going to fail to capture important aspects of the phenomena. In the biological sciences, scientists are generally divided into two groups: the lumpers, who want to see different examples as just variations around a central locus — they want to lump all examples into one broad category; then there are the splitters, who attempt to give meaning and significance to any variation, no matter how small, so things end up split into discrete but meaningful categories. Needless to say there are disadvantages and advantages to both approaches. Perhaps what may be more important is to recognize the utility of both approaches, and to understand how one's approach — lumping or splitting — is going to distort and create artifacts of interpretation as a consequence of the approach you've adopted, and, not to be misled into believing that those artifacts are themselves present in the data.

[Minimalist]

Not to me. You can believe whatever silliness you want as long as you don't annoy me with it or try to make your goofy opinions into law.

That's where fundies cross the line. They can't STFU about their bullshit and they think they are duty bound to inflict it on everyone else.