i completely agree with the first two paragraphs, but i don’t quite understand what you mean in the third paragraph. could you elaborate on what you mean by the present iteration of atheism, how its like a religion, and why you think it’s doomed to fail? it sounds interesting and i haven’t heard much about it.

Religion and science are orthogonal. Science seeks to answer the question of "how?", while religion seeks to answer "why?"

Religion doesn't try to answer anything: it's just blind faith. You're not gonna try to tell me religious people are "looking for" anything. The definition of religion is "belief in a deity". It doesn't try to explain or find out anything.

It's dependent on ignorance of basic philosophy, and attempts to derive any kind of morality based solely on science results

Since when atheism prevents philosophy? Haven't you heard of atheist philosophers? They exist, they're not fairies, you know. About morality, it's still a subject and a lot of philosophers have different opinion, with the subjective or objective moral, relativistic moral, etc... And whatever you mean by "derive any kind of morality based solely on science results", it's still better than arbitrarily define a moral based on a book written by some people a long time ago to then enforce it for centuries, with violence if needed, and then when the bad atheists come to clean all the mess by making moral laws to have everybody end up agreeing on after few decades, claim it was just a misinterpretation of the texts or whatever, which is the dumbest excuse I've ever heard of.

Atheism isn't a religion either: atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of an unproven (and certainly unprovable) entity. So a lack of belief certainly didn't kill anybody.

And atheism was never the reason or the foundation of the sentence "the end justify the means", it existed long before atheism was even a concept.