Typical theists versus typical atheists

[bennyboy]

[1]
A typical theist doesn’t mind believing in miracles, said religious if approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind believing an idea, beyond his personal experience, if said scientific and approved by certain scientists, privileged by the high class.
 
[2]
A typical theist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by a god and approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by certain great ancestors (who are usually supposed representing ideals for the human race) and approved by privileged Elite.
 
Even from these two points, one may conclude that while a typical theist is made ready to accept being a follower/supporter of a certain heavenly ruling system, an atheist prefers to be a follower, if not a supporter too, of an earthly ruling system he used to know.
 
In the ‘real’ world (far from the great speeches, religious or political and as I see it), the role of religions (of various heavenly ruling systems) and politics (of various earthly ruling systems) are much alike. In both camps, minds of the faithful believers/followers are driven cleverly to where they are supposed to be. For example on one hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a god. On the other hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a flag (actually, the ideals it represents).

In other words, religions and politics complement each other, so that the most powerful/rich families in every region in the world can legitimately be served by the men on bottom who can choose freely to be theist or atheist.

There's a VERY important difference.  The "typical atheist" you describe, which is not really an atheist but a layperson believer of science, has one belief that you do not, and cannot, hold: he believes that if he wants to, he can pick up the trail, follow all the science, and duplicate any of it that he wants to.  He's been given at least enough examples of this in school, where he has done scientific experiments, and gotten similar results to those expected: same measurements, same chemical changes, same motions of objects through space, and so on.  And if he wants to follow up further, he will be embraced by the scientific community for his efforts, and will likely be allowed access to universities and other contexts in his pursuit of the truth.

The theist, on the other hand, warmly embraces the fact that he CANNOT retrace the steps of the religious greats.  He cannot walk on water.  He cannot expect to talk to burning bushes, or to multiply fish, or to have a direct communication with God.  In fact, if he demonstrates a need or even a desire to see proof that his religious authorities really do have access to the Lord, he will be accused of lacking faith.  If he doubts that any of the miracles described in his Holy Book of choice really happened as described, he may be excommunicated or worse.  How many times has a "typical atheist" been outcast or threatened with bodily harm because he doesn't believe in a particular scientific experiment, result or conclusion?  Plenty-- but only by those religious institutions accusing him of lack of faith!

In short, while you're not wrong about laypeople having a certain faith in particular scientific results (I have never been in a rocket or triggered a nuclear bomb), there is no demand of faith IN THE INSTITUTION or IN THE PROCESS.  That's why the "typical atheist" as you describe it cannot be said to equivalent to the "typical theist" as you describe it. You have faith because there is nothing for you to have BUT faith-- there is no process for you to follow to verify the "truths" you are made to believe.