I was over on the r/debateanatheist subreddit and formulated a lengthy and thoughtful response to a person who was questioning the divide between religion and science. They talked about rejecting the scriptures on the basis of them conflicting with scientific fact and questioned whether religion would be more acceptable if religious people accepted god within the context of science.

When I went to post the reply, comments were blocked. Not wanted to waste my effort, I thought I would post it here instead for your consideration. I hope you enjoy it:

So first of all, I would encourage you to change "declaration" to "belief." I have a belief that no god exists. I don't declare that belief or try to convince others of it unless they are asking me questions.

First question: Is is worth it to claim gnostic atheism of the grounds of Evolution, abiogenesis, age of the planet, star formation etc?

I'm not sure what you mean by "worth it." But perhaps I'm not the one to answer this anyway, since I don't claim atheism on the basis of scientific discovery. The implausibility of the existence of god is the foundation of my disbelief outside the context of scientific discovery.

Next question: What do you do about religions that accept all of those things and find support for their God or gods within that framework: not a god of the gaps argument, but a graceful god who works through naturalistic means?

What do you expect an atheist to do about these religions? This was my belief before becoming an atheist. I believed that science was one means of obtaining truth and spirituality was another. I believed that in time the two would agree as they both moved closer to truth.

It was only after I realized how illogical the conclusions of religious thinking are that I rejected it as a source of truth. I still accept "spirituality" as a means of obtaining information but my definition of spiritual has been modified. It pertains to things that we can't easily define physically but do know exist, like thoughts and emotions, rather than an unknown realm that we have no way of confirming.

Final questions: . . . Can you tolerate our continued existence and success? Why or why not? What would be enough if not?

I find this backwards thinking, from my perspective. It attributes to the atheist the traits found more strongly within the religious mindset.

As an atheist, I am far more tolerant of others' beliefs. While I no longer agree with them, I do have an intimate understanding of Christian beliefs. I understand why people believe the way they do and the process of moving away from those beliefs. I respect their right to believe the way they do.

On the other hand, many Christian religions do not have the same tolerance of others' beliefs. Though they may claim to, they put a great deal of effort into transforming others' beliefs because of the underlying belief that if people don't accept Jesus, they will go to an unhappy place after death. There is pressure on Christians to convince others to believe as they do.

As an atheist, I am concerned only with how a person's beliefs affect them and me in this life. Along those lines, I see many troubling things within the Christian belief system.
Christian beliefs justify a great deal of harmful behavior in the name of god that has at times even been as extreme as causing death to others. While we aren't necessarily forcing people to be baptized at sword point in our current era, Christians still create a great deal of harm to people through social ostracization, biased court judgments and justified emotional and physical abuse, among other things.

I am more than happy to allow you to believe as you wish, but I am not okay with allowing the injustices that take place in the name of religion. I know of the Christian ones intimately, as I said, but also hear that these biases seem pretty standard across religion. I could be wrong about that.

If you quietly practice your individual beliefs, then I am more than happy to coexist with you in peace. But when you allow court decisions to be affected by religion, when you break off vital social connections due to religious beliefs and when you terrify my children by telling them they will go to hell if they don't believe the way you do, then I'm not okay with your beliefs. Additionally if you stand by and allow others to do these things because of religion, than I am also uncomfortable with your belief system.

In short, my rejection of religious beliefs is not based on their inability to mesh with scientific ideas but on the real harm I saw within Christian belief systems and that I believe exists in most if not all other religious belief systems. I found belief in god to be a manipulative tool to give some humans power over others by their claiming a special connection to god. I found Christian beliefs to be destructive to many of the people practicing them and the people around them.

That alone is enough to reject them, outside of any scientific knowledge they may possess. The fact that some religious people can accept both religious and scientific beliefs simultaneously doesn't eliminate the harm religious beliefs cause.

If religious beliefs were modified so that they no longer justified harmful practices toward others then I would find no fault with the beliefs. However, my experience suggests that when religious people let go of the abusiveness of their religion they are also able to open their minds to the possibility that god does not exist at all and often move in that direction. In other words, when a religious person loses their fear of a god who will reject them for no longer believing in him, they stop believing in him.

I already accept your existence and success within your belief system and will allow you to continue to believe as you wish. I feel no need to eliminate your belief system and am happy that you personally don't feel a conflict with science. I will draw the line, however, when your beliefs cause me or mine harm.