MarxistTheist type is usually not particularly well educated in theology so they can't even present nuanced arguments beyond "god did it yo the bible said so" nor do they ever really get deep into theological texts because their grasp of theology is usually quite poor.
Agreed.
MarxistThe atheist is usually also pretty crap because, in general, most atheists just substitute theism in form.
Definitely not. It's simply a rejection of the god claims. "God exists." Do you accept this as true or not? (A/theism) If BigFootism was the belief in big foot, and ABigFootism was the rejection of that belief, would Abigfootism be a substitution? No. It's actually in directly opposition. Deism would "qualify" more as a "substitution" for Theism.
MarxistGenerally, most posit that while there isn't some big other figure with unlimited power, there's still a cosmic order of sorts, evolution or chaos theory, and so on blah blah, that provides them with some sort of unique place in the universe - which still utilizes the existence of an, albeit less conscious, "other" which is beyond life and in control. Nor are they ever particularly well versed in theology which makes things even more boring, because there's nothing like a nonbeliever asking theological questions that can't be answered.
Generally, you should never tie Atheism into any other belief or stance on anything else other than what Atheism is, and that is dealing exclusively with the claim of god's existence. Atheism has no dogma or tenants, yet people misdirect Atheism to tie into many other political, moral and scientific stances. Stating you're an Atheist does not mean you are automatically tied to accepting the big bang theory. I've met Atheists who do not accept the big bang or evolution.
Also, overall, nonbelievers are far beyond well versed compared to believers. It is how they became nonbelievers in the first place, because they started to study what they were blindly accepting without question as a child.