What else they can do is irrelevant. Read closer. I think that I gave clear examples of my perspective in context.
When you make a sweeping generalisation, expect it to be pointed out to you. If you assert that "atheists do not advocate for non-gods or non-religions" you are simply ignoring all those that do. If however, you mean that one does not advocate for non-gods or non-religious simply by being atheist, then I would agree, but I would then suggest you be less ambiguous in your language.
Depends on context, no? Why would they talk nonsense about God? They're atheists. It's like saying atheists are capable of talking nonsense about nonsense.
They are capable of that as well. But the issue is not a matter of why but of whether they can. And indeed they can.
My point was that they could talk nonsense about science. To an atheist the concept of a sentient, motivated, moral God is nonsense to begin with.
Not necessarily. An atheist merely doesn't hold the belief that such exists. There are many atheists who find that concept to make sense, yet can't be convinced that it actually exists, but don't assert that it doesn't. You are grossly generalising the atheist as some high-brow scientist that is only capable of what you consider to be rational thought. That is patently ridiculous. The atheist simply does not hold belief in God. Whether they consider the particular concept of God to be nonsense or not is not why they are atheist.
For example, I am agnostic as to whether you are wearing a hat or not. I do not hold the belief that you are. I can be considered "a-hattist". But the idea of you wearing a hat is not nonsense to me.
What is the one fundamental difference between an atheist's and a theist's understanding of the difference between religion and science? There can be no misunderstanding.
Again with the gross and rather absurd generalisations. Sure, some theists, possibly the majority (I don't know) have some difference of understanding, but it is not necessary. To some theists, God picks up where science ends. That is their belief. Their understanding of science is the same as many scientists, possibly even you, in it being the study of the natural world. But they consider God outside of science. To them there is no overlap. No issue between their belief and their understanding of science.
To grossly generalise as you do is, frankly, disappointing.
I agree, but only in context of theism.
No, theists really can speak scientific nonsense outside of theism as well as atheists can. Why would you think they can't? Do you think they are infallible when talking about science outside of the context of theism?
What are the scientific aspects of religion? The entire theist belief system is based on non-scientific "miracles".
Not necessarily. Some theists believe in miracles, sure. Not all. But to say "the entire theist belief system is based on" them is absurd. It is based on scripture. Some take the miracles verbatim and some don't.
Of course the miracles would be explainable through science, but theism assigns authorship to God, which is not science.
But they can quite easily assign it to God via the agency of what you and I might believe to be the science behind it. Yes, some believe God is a sky-daddy who pokes his finger into affairs of man, while others believe he set the world in motion, left it to the laws of physics/chemistry/biology that he set up, and is able to interact via the agency of consciousness. And others hold different views. Some are incompatible with much of science, while others are not - they merely place God out of reach of science. To those, your rather bigoted views - and that is how they are coming across - hold no water.
Not a theist who does not believe in divine creation, regardless if he is a scientist. Else he would not be a theist.
I know quite a number who believe in divine creation yet happily busy themselves in their roles as scientists. Do they believe in creationism? No. Do they believe in a physical cosmological model of the universe? Yes. But they hold belief of an ultimate cause. They hold beliefs that are outside the remit of science. They are also theists.
An example is the theist scientific proposition that the flagellum is an irreducibly complex system and therefore has to be a creation by God. (Dover trials). Today we are studying micro-tubules for the possibility they might be tiny organic quantum computers.
Sorry, what is this supposed to be an example of?
Read closer. That was in response to an accusation that atheists are somehow jealous of religious people.
So saying "We don't smell... you do!" is your attempt at a grown-up response? If someone accuses atheists of being jealous then try to have that discussion of why they might think that, or some such. Resorting to petty and childish tit-for-tat exchanges is, as much of your message here, disappointing.
Can't speak against, or divorce from the church, without penalty. The first one is blasphemy, the second is apostasy. Mortal sins. God is a jealous God.
There are several countries where individuals are happy to act on behalf of God and meet out divine justice.
So why would they be jealous of atheists? Envious, perhaps, if they see their own faith waning and are envious of the manner of atheists. Jealous, though? Or is your view that God is a jealous God your only explanation?
