Atheists, more often than not, buy into evolutionary theory, but they also, more often than not, do not ascribe to social darwnist perversions/oversimplifications of a theory that they’d consider applicable only/mainly to the development of complex organisms, shared traits, etc in biological studies.

Nothing about atheism, in and of itself demands that they believe evolutionary theory is accurate, nor does it demand a religious adherence to it. Dawkins, as a fairly well known figurehead of atheism, notes in his own writings that not all atheists buy into his views on darwinism, though he criticizes them for various assumptions on why they doubt or disregard it.

Similarly the big bang is typically seen as one scientific explanation, and many atheists may feel it is the best theory available so far, but not believe it as indisputable fact, or may feel that string theory or other theories are more likely to provide a better model to verify. Others simply are agnostic about how everything began, but strongly disbelieve in any god(s) being responsible for it.

You can find some atheists who take scientific theories and twist it into a religion, or at least a replacement for religious explanations with remaining question viewed as inevitably solvable through the scientific method. Atheist scientists are often strongly in this category and also tend to get more interviews and be more outspoken, like Dawkins. But there are also atheist scientists who fall more in the category of eternal skeptics, who don’t expect or contend that science can or will solve all mysteries and are quite content with admitting that they can’t explain everything, at least not yet.

Non-scientist atheists generally fall more into the skeptic category than the science-as-religion group. Big bang to them is just a theory that could be proven wrong… just as evolution is. They generally consider them better or more valid working theories due to their adherence to the scientific method and scientific principles over theories like ID or pure creationism which they disregard due to what the believe is a reliance on the supernatural, something they don’t believe in.

We’re a fairly diverse group that doesn’t always fall into the stereotypes of the Dawkins types out there, or the stereotypes of the stereotypes of the Dawkins types out there.

Your adjustments seem to be geared towards some sort of ‘gotcha’ on belief as opposed to disbelief, but without actually changing the gist of the statement overall. If it helps I can skip ahead to the end of that gotcha game to the point that when I use the term belief the context guides what exactly I mean by it, whether it be a belief in a greater truth or merely having confidence in an idea (ie defs 1 and 3 from Merriam-Webster). I apologize if my usage of the term was careless or confusing in this regard, but I differentiate between the meanings when I say something like “believe scientific explanations are more fulfilling” vs “believe in god(s).”

As far as to what ends their decision to rely more or entirely on natural explanations as opposed to what they’d consider supernatural is hoped to lead, it varies considerably. Some feel that it is a more logical path towards understanding the world around them and a more satisfying method of satisfying their curiosity. Anti-theist types generally seem to cling to a belief that with natural explanations being verified that their anti-religious views will become more accepted and will lead to what they’d consider a more ‘enlightened’ society, as absurd as that may sound. Still others may not really feel science is a perfect way to explain everything, but view it as the best way to inform their other philosophical/ideological perspectives, even though those perspectives may generally disregard god(s) or the supernatural for whatever reason.

Atheists are notoriously difficult to group together so cleanly. As atheists themselves admit when trying to organize for a common cause, it’s like herding cats.

As far as adherence to the scientific method… for science: this can and often is generally true regardless of other philosophical considerations, religious and otherwise. Still others, both religious and non-religious feel that philosophy also informs science to varying degrees. A non-religious view of philosophy informing science would be ethical constraints on testing human subjects, the development of the scientific method as the appropriate way to study the natural/observable/testable world. There will always be some philosophical debates, religious and otherwise, that involves the value or methods of scientific study and how its findings should affect our perspective.

Those who advocate separation in this regard generally admit that these areas of study can certainly inform each other, and the neither can be entirely isolated when it comes to human experience and understanding, even if the work is done separately to ensure objectivity and/or more usable results.

As far as naturalism, even that can vary greatly. From those who embrace the brutality of nature and do evil, to those that make a distinction to the human condition, regardless of any religious views, that our consciousness necessitates ideas like natural rights/law or a social application towards liberty or a pragmatic application of ensuring as much freedom as possible. Not to mention all the gray areas in between or those who honestly don’t ponder too deeply on the subject.

The other issues are, at least my opinion, an appeal to tradition that doesn’t really speak to the validity or correctness of modern application of government limitations/rights.

The theocratic style of government in many of the earlier colonies, especially those who came here to establish their own religious communities in peace away from the oppressive religious policies where they were from interfering in that, wouldn’t fly under our modern system.

The State/local indifference to the 1st Amendment restrictions on respecting an establishment of religion in our early history under a Constitutional government are also fairly irrelevant to our modern system as the 1st Amendment was viewed as not applying to that level of government, and even long after the 14th Amendment, it has been a slow process of defining if and eventually to what degree the 14th Amendment makes such protection applicable against State/local government.

Traditions prior to that may have been perfectly acceptable under the Constitution before, but that doesn’t speak to whether it would be a proper application under modern constitutional law and interpretation. Nor does it speak to whether or not liberty is best protected with such a limitation on government in order to prevent further intrusion into other areas of religious freedom.

On the one hand you’ll have some argue that limiting government in such a way is actually empowering the government to limit rights. Others argue that limiting government in such a way ensures it is denied the power to limit our inalienable rights.

Hence why two reasonable people, one Christian and one atheist, will look at the exact same situation and one will see it as a judge forcing his minority view on the majority, and the other will see it as a judge limiting the government from heading down the slippery slope of meddling in issues that are purely in the realm of individual rights/liberty.

There are some yahoos on both sides who simply seek to squash their ideological opponents, but most on both sides lack malicious motives and actually share the same pursuit of liberty, even if they disagree on the best ways/methods to do so.

My point wasn’t that the 1st Amendment has changed, but that it wasn’t legally applicable prior to its existence, nor was it legally applicable against State/local government until far later in our history as without 14th Amendment incorporation the Bill of Rights generally did not reach to that level of gov’t.

And my view of modern Constitutional law is incorporating both amendments and jurisprudence over our nation’s history as opposed to ignoring it or throwing it out.

And I agree that not all rulings are the best, nor is the current precedent ideal, but that’s why I was alluding to the idea that reasonable people can disagree on what the best interpretation is. On this issue it appears I’m closer to modern precedent, whereas you seem to have doubts about whether 14th Amendment incorporation is appropriate on this issue.

One of my few disagreements with Clarence Thomas is on the idea of substantive due process, and he’s my favorite justice in general on the bench. So I can certainly relate with frustration with a great deal of modern precedent. This is one area where I don’t think modern precedent has limited government power enough… mostly due to the clash with tradition making it nearly impossible to implement (and being political suicide).

But when it comes down to it, you seem to believe the traditional ways have merit, while I believe that further restrictions have merit, even though we seem to agree that religious freedom in general is important and Constitutionally protected.

So I think we’d both agree the other is wrong, but for reasons unlikely to persuade the other due to our Constitutional interpretations as opposed to logical contradictions. If I’ve learned anything that it’s nearly impossible to prove one way or the other on substantive due process due to the ambiguity of the language employed in the 14th Amendment that allows various approaches on ideas of intent, textual, originalist, a construction of prior precedent of similar prior language, etc etc etc. Even if those arguing can agree on what the current precedent is, right or wrong, and what clear language they’re basing their views upon.

ie… I think that’s where we hit a stalemate.