Now that’s quite a “self-goal”…
Yes, not all atheists are precise copies of each other. And this fact is perfectly compatible with there being varieties, branches and subbranches of atheism. On the other hand, it is, um, much harder to make it compatible with your claim that “there are no varieties of atheism!”.
So, once again you demand that people would just trust you, without giving us any reason, why that would be a good idea.
Two can play this game.
How about “Because they are true.”?
So, are you going to just trust me on that point, or are you going to rediscover that people are not perfectly trustworthy?
That is, that people do not always know the truth, and are not certain to say the truth even when they do know it?
We are merely annonymous Internet users. It is a bad idea to treat any of us as if we were totally trustworthy.
Thus it is a bad idea to offer arguments which presuppose that one is trustworthy.
Unfortunately for you, just about everything you offer here fails unless you are known to be trustworthy.
That relies on you being trustworthy: that you would have recognised and acknowledged an argument, if there was one.
On the other hand, my argument was that Bentham went to Westminster school, which was Anglican, and thus it is very likely that his morals were affected by Anglicanism, which is a species of Christianity. As you can see, it does not rely on me being trustworthy.
Another example is this:
Consensus of just about every non-atheist and many atheists says that it is denial of God’s existence, connected with many related beliefs.
You testify otherwise.
So, let’s interrogate you further: do you also lack a belief that God does not exist?
Have you ever tested this your claim? Have you ever asked others to try to guess your opinion about various things?