I find both of them both insufferable but atheists even more so by the fact that they're usually way more philosophically dishonest, retarded, and gay (openly). Atheists despite their professed lack of a belief in a religion or God largely tend to believe in one or more retarded pseudo-religious ideas such as communism, biological/racial equality, gender theory, humanism, and other bizarre nonsense stemming from "secular ethics," which solely exists as a field in an attempt to create a bastardised version of religion without God. Atheists will try to justify their strain of cope philosophy to you as objective truth and as if it isn't ultimately baseless feelings and opinion which can be freely discarded into the trash. At least Christians will just admit that their entire world view is based off of a blind faith assumption that their God exists and that X,Y, and Z is le objectively bad because their God said so. What grounds do atheists have to say anything is objectively good or bad? Even as a deist (I don't believe God cares about human affairs), I have less of a hard time than most atheists admitting that virtue, morality, and meaning does not fundamentally exist outside of mere subjective opinion and evolutionary instinct. Stirner was right, and still is right, when he called out these retarded pseudo-religious idealistic faggots.
Anyways, thank you for reading my sperg out.