Typical theists versus typical atheists

[KerimF]

[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.

I am so fucking sick of being lumped in with others just because we happen to share the relatively meaningless term 'atheist'. It's completely empty and devoid of meaning in all respects except to one simple question, and even slight nuances of that same question don't always pertain to it.

As a rational skeptic (and secular humanist, which are both far, far more relevant labels, so please consider differentiating if you want to be taken seriously rather than making somewhat insulting generalizations), I don't give a flying FUCK what any scientist or authority has to say, I give a shit what the goddamned evidence has to say. The identity of any discoverer or experimenter is irrelevant, if they can't demonstrate any claim to be reasonable or plausible, I'll suspend judgment rather than accepting it. As a chemistry major I've studied the subject and the claims it makes do stand up to scrutiny. But I'm not going to expect anyone to believe me if I don't go into detail or make demonstrations to back the claim up, but if they care to ask I'm more than willing to do that because I don't WANT people to be credulous idiots and just take anyone's word for anything. Even if I was a Ph.D I wouldn't answer anyone's questions without asking them if they'd done any studying on the subject first because it's better to become familiarized with the evidence first before speaking to an actual person about it.

Obeying rules only applies if it makes sense; laws can be immoral and that's where things like protests and civil disobedience, or even direct political action like running for office come in to play. If one feels strongly enough about something, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, they should be able to do that and more if they want and have the freedom (both time- and resource-wise, and being in an environment where that kind of activity won't be violently silenced.) I don't consider any ancestors to be 'great' because the identity of the originator of an idea is irrelevant. The content of the ideas or concepts is what matters and we discard those which don't work or make practical sense. Even now, we bastardize what good ideas there are (the type of democracy we have in the U.S. where the people choose one leader and the leaders choose the opposing candidate, is a perfect example). The elite tend to be the polar opposite of the masses, i.e. rich and conservative, alienating them from actual human values and encouraging and enforcing a striated class system that is to their benefit and distracts the lower classes from who their real enemies are.

You put zero thought into this and probably are just parroting what someone else farted out (which, in some cases, the identity of the speaker can be a somewhat useful factor, if they're a complete FUCKING IDIOT, for example, you'd probably want to just dismiss what they say out of hand...but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day). So thanks for the insults and the opportunity (slim as it may be) to educate you. Please actually do something with it and not let it go to waste.

Did I insult any specific person? You, for example? If I did, please let me how I did it and I am sorry in advance.
Please also tell me if some expressions, I wrote, could sound as being a sort of hatred or even judgment against anyone.

I simply said that an atheist doesn't obey rules claimed being inspired by a (any) god. But he doesn't mind obeying rules if made by men based on certain modern notions of ideals, as Freedom and Democracy; even if these ideals exist in great speeches but not in reality (on ground).

By the way, the notion of Democracy is created to be more effective than Dictatorship in controlling better the people. Once the people in a country/nation are made to believe that their men on power are elected by them, those in charge of their system will have 'Carte Blanche' to say and do whatever is good for the ruling class (whose members are privileged by the law/constitution). Then anytime the People complains, the answer comes: "It is the fault of the People that voted for the wrong man (men)". And the case will be closed gradually till the next Free election. It is indeed a simple but very effective trick though costly (it needs continuous propaganda/interviews, besides ceremonies/festivals). But I noticed that, in democratic countries, the men on power have no right to be involved in sexual affairs which is considered being the greatest crime against the nation, all other crimes are forgivable. So, when Bush played the naïve ignorant kid and sent his loyal troops (fortunately, most of them are not American) to risk their life in Iraq (for any reason we may imagine but surely not to protect the American people), he was re-elected for a second term. Also, to me in the least, Obama was great when he was instructed to play the role of Superman who saw the Syrian president giving order to shoot Syrian young protectors in Daraa town in March 2011, Then, he had to play the powerless handicapped blind when my small farm (near Aleppo city) was attacked a year later by long dark beards, coming from Chechnya, to save us from the tyrant he discovered. Naturally, Obama was also re-elected by the FREE American people. Now, should I really believe that the actual US President is the best idol representing the moral and virtues of most Americans? Obviously I don't believe it because I know that real free elections cannot exist (for many reasons) anywhere on earth as real ruling gods cannot exist as well (only in some people's minds perhaps).

---

Why do all theists think atheist = science?

Atheists (in their minds) attack their religion by not being relgious. Science (in their minds) attacks their religion by showing that their god(s) doesn't control stuff like their holy books say.

---

There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

A book which tells you "do X" then turns around and tells you to do the exact opposite is not a reliable guide to anything.

In the gospels Yeshua bar Yosef tells you you have to obey every jewish law (because he was, if he existed, a proto ultra orthodox Jew), but by Saul of Tarsus, you are told the Jewish laws have to be ignored. So your "perfect detector" is a self confessed muddled pile of bullshit.

Please help me find a contradiction said by Jesus himself. Thank you.