They are both about the same thing.”

So “with” and “without ” are about the same thing.  Yup, that will work well.

And where do those people come from? Within the faith.

Likewise, an atheist could accept that there is a Christian god, that we are in a big VR sim, or that the flying spaghetti monster are what we have in store for the afterlife.  That said, seeing as how we have never found any even vaguely verifiable evidence of magic/gods/whatever, it is more likely that once you are dead, what appears to happen when you die is exactly what happens you die… you die and stay dead.  It isn’t an absolute belief that can’t be shaken, but it is close enough to live by.

As an atheist, I think that it is entirely possible that we are living in some big computer simulation on some dude’s desk.  I accept this as being a possibility, and a possibility that isn’t all that far fetched.  That said, I live my life like I am not a computer simulation because there is no strong evidence to make me believe otherwise.  Likewise, I don’t live my life going to church and or by following the rules of ancient superstitious goat herders because while it is possible that they are right, there is no evidence for it.  I have a strict “assume reality is real” position that I tend to stick to until prove otherwise.

Objective truth versus subjective experiential.

What on earth are you babbling about? Stop conflating things foolishly.

I doubt this. He’s much more concerned with courting the Protestant evangelical vote than he is to practice his own faith.

Are you saying that atheists do not believe that God does not exist? 

It certainly is interesting how people all define some words a little differently, resulting in
insynchronicities in communications.  I have found that in my interviews, atheists all have a slightly different description of what they think atheism is,and your expressions in this regard adds to that variety of definitions an most unique interpretation, for which I thank you for your interesting input.

As per evolution, I have always viewed evolution as a critical part of creation, and not in competition with it.  Neither denies the other, only people do, in their combative interpretations which regard science and some of the things taught by religion as in opposition.

Where science and religion meet and agree, is in the truth, whether confirmed by science, or yet to be confirmed by science, while the faithful wait for the proof which science promises to verify (one day).

I fear a disaster, natural or man-made, will soon hit Louisiana, and they have only themselves to blame.

Also, atheists don’t have religious beliefs.  They are asserting that there’s no evidentiary basis for beliefs the religious hold.  That assertion is not a “belief.” It is, as you yourself said, a fact.

But, I’ll give you points for not saying evolution is “just” a theory.

Interesting to note that school on the other hand certainly does seek to control and abuse people, by some interpretations.

In looking at the teaching of Christ, which some people call a religion, it is interesting to note that Jesus taught people to be loving and the opposite of being controlling, yet most who claim to be followers of his teaching do not follow it, and do the opposite, which others then copy and call “Christianity”, defaming the teaching of Jesus, which itself is a fine practical teaching of the laws of physics in commonplace terms.

The object of religion is the truth

Funny, I thought that the object was to control and abuse other people.

Most atheists act like the burden of proof is upon non- atheists to prove God exists, based on the presumption that it does not exist until proven otherwise.

I look at the science, and find no difference between atheists and other types of religious people in this respect, neither  of which present scientific evidence to support their beliefs.  Atheists view themselves as being non-religious, yet believing God does not
exists is as religious a belief as believing IT does exist, where there is no scientific proof to show the belief is true.

An atheist has faith that God does not exist.

Science verifies which religious beliefs are true, and which are not, and in this respect, they are compatible and are complimentary, with science filtering untrue notions out of religious traditions, and in this respect science itself could be considered an aspect of religion.

The object of religion is the truth, as is the case with science, both respect and seek this same thing, and while science is method for proving the truth, religion relies upon “gut feeling” and other senses to discern the truth in a manner of theoretical science, which is then just believed until science either verifies the truth or that which is untrue.

Religion is about believing *something* without evidence.
Science is about examining the evidence, in order to arrive at the truth.