"Thanks for the respectable posts, cool reads, but I'm not gonna go further with this no hard feelings."
No problem, and thanks to you as well.
"I probs sound facetious, but look up the definition of metaphor."
"A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable" - Oxford Reference
I think it speaks for itself.
"Literally all I'm saying is that Gods, religious symbolism, etc. are metaphors and representations that allude to a source of meaning. "
And again, I agree with that.
When we have a problem is when you claim that all representations that allude to sources of meaning are gods.
"When atheists criticize believers with condescension (and vice versa), there is a strong element of irony because atheists also have beliefs that are as flawed or worse than a believer."
See what I mean? When you want to be understood by someone who doesn't use your definition "everyone is a believer", you need to make the distinction between believers and non-believers anyway, as you did here. That's an example of why defining believers as everyone is not useful, on top of being confusing.
As for your point, whether atheists have some flawed beliefs is not very relevant to whether the belief in a god is flawed or not, and in general that's what is discussed between the two sides.
If you want to discuss with them some beliefs that you think they hold and which you think are flawed, then discuss those with them, but saying that they also hold flawed beliefs when they're arguing that a belief in a god is a flawed belief is just a distraction from their original point: even if it was the case, that would not address what they're talking about.
"Often when people have a disagreement with each other and act hostile, condescending, arrogant, uncompromising, etc. it often gets so heated because it's essentially battle between their 'Gods,' which when I say 'Gods' I use it as a metaphor for peoples highest values."
Ok, personally I use "values", or if I want to dig deeper "fundamental values". I don't see the need to use "gods", especially in a debate environment where the term already refers to something different.
But again, if that's how you want to call values and define gods, go for it, just don't be surprised if it leads to confusion, and don't expect people to use these terms the way you use them.
"Whether or not someone is a theist, agnostic, or atheist it completely dictates their entire perspective."
If you're talking about values, then they're important to anyone's worldview indeed. I wouldn't say they dictate it because there are things that are not that relevant to our values.
If you're talking about the concept of god as defended by most believers, then no, it's really not fundamental to the worldview of atheists and agnostics (in fact even deists would not be affected that much). However it's fundamental to theistic worldviews indeed.
"The theist is full of religious dogma and scripture, and the agnostic or atheist is full of cultural dogma and media. What I'm saying is that the theists 'dogma and scripture' are analogous to the atheists 'dogma and media' in their function of forming a persons perspectives, values, etc."
First, scripture and religious dogma doesn't save anyone from potentially being victim of cultural dogma, except for some lonely monks who retreat from the world I suppose, and even then, they often did so based on a life inside society in the first place, so they're in part shaped by it. And religion being part of culture, religious dogma is a form of cultural dogma.
As for atheists, sure, there are some atheists who are victim of cultural dogma, and there are some who are not, either because they left some dogma (religious or not) and are very critical of dogmas, or because they simply don't appreciate things that cannot be questioned as a result of their upbringing allowing them to question anything.
And I'm sure there are some deists who are not victim of cultural dogma as well.
For theists it's harder, since most theistic worldviews are based on religious dogma (which are part of cultural dogma). But there are probably theists who are free of religious dogma, some define themselves as theists but non-religious for example, assuming of course they don't consider their god as something that cannot be questioned.
So being a victim of dogma is not necessarily dependent on your position on the existence of a god, but in general it helps to at least be a deist, agnostic or atheist for that, because theistic worldviews, usually, use dogma to spread and maintain themselves.
"So, when you criticize a religious person for their so-called primitive, out-dated beliefs, you should know in the back of your mind that in 50 years time, whatever beliefs you have floating around in your head may be just as flawed and dangerous as ideas of old to the people of the future."
I try to avoid criticizing people, because I find that usually counter-productive, I try to criticize ideas. So if their ideas have fundamental problems for example in terms of morality or if they simply don't make sense, then I'm going to criticize these ideas.
Whether I hold ideas that will be criticized by people in the future is irrelevant, it does not give a pass to those ideas that I'm criticizing right now.
And if people want to criticize my ideas in the future, let them do so, if I'm as rational and open-minded as I hope I am and they make better points than I do, then I'll have no choice but to change my mind.
And if they're correct and I don't change my mind, then that would not change the fact that I would be wrong on the issue they raised.
"So what is the point in fighting over unfalsifiable semantics like 'is God real or not?' when you can look at God /as it is real/."
The point (at least for atheists) is that some people try to act upon something that they cannot show is real. As you can expect, it can lead to dangerous actions and ideas, so it's important to address their belief.
Please remember that most believers do not believe in the concept of god you're defending, in fact most of them would probably consider your concept of god a heresy or at least something along those lines.
Atheism is only a reaction to what theism tries to push on society, without people pushing this concept of god, atheism would not even exist as a word, and we wouldn't need to argue about the existence of something that no one would even defend the existence of.
We have to address the concepts of gods that believers present to us, otherwise it's dishonest and missing their point, and in majority they won't try to rename "values" as "gods", in majority they'll be defending this supposedly transcendent being that supposedly care about your sex positions and who marries who.
"And doing that quickly leads to more important questions."
The first one being: why the hell would we need to rename "values" as "gods"?