Atheism is not a religion by any sense of it.

Anyway, it only means someone does not believe in the existense of a super natural diety of any sort, there is no justification to give, the people who have to prove or explain anything are those who think this god or that godess exists, then prove it's more than a pretty story someone made and others decided to believe.

By example, by is it laughable for an adult to believe in Santa Claus, but the same group of people will find it perfectly acceptable that an ault believe firmly in god? it makes no sense.

Not really, people see the complexity of life and assume because it seems so complex to them (and, to be fair, some of it is still a mystery, like consciousness) that it was somehow created.  The problem with that, is there are numerous examples of why that's simply inaccurate.  Our reproductive organs and waste management systems being so intertwined is one.  Our air intake and food intake being in the same pipe is another.  The Laryngeal nerve of the Giraffe, is yet another.  What kind of brilliant design is it that the nerve goes from the base of the brain, and travels all the way down the neck, around the arteries of the heart and travels back up the neck to the larynx, providing motor function, whereas, an intelligent design would go from the brain, to the larynx which is a ridiculously small distance to travel in comparison.

I always find it amusing when people liken a belief in deities to Santa Claus because the latter is a mythical, Americanized reimagining of an actual person. Santa Claus might be an extremely twisted / perverted myth but there is at least some foundation in reality because Saint Nicholas of Myra was indeed a real person. The same can not be said for any deities because there is no such basis in reality.

I don't know why that would bother you, because it's a perfectly logical response.  It is not paradoxical at all.

The idea of a creator is not scientific.  It is not a scientific theory, it does not make testable predictions, it is not provable by any test that has yet been devised.  It is not a theory (in the scientific sense) and I'd hesitate to call it a hypothesis.  It's magic (as in something that defies the natural laws we observe) and a place called I fucking love science is probably not the place to discuss theories on magic.  I fail to see why people interested in science rejecting non-science would seem paradoxical to you.

The reason people bring up flaws when you mention that god might have made it is because when most people talk of god, they are talking about yahweh or jehovah or allah, all of which are supposed to be omniscient and perfect and designed the world for man.  The concept of a perfect god flies in the face of the many examples of imperfect or inefficient design.  The idea of having an appendix, whose only known function is to burst and kill us, makes no sense if you assume a perfect god, but makes sense under an evolutionary perspective.

 Of course, you could argue that there is a designer who isn't interested in humans, in which case we shouldn't be interested in him.  You can also argue that there is a designer, but he's just really bad at designing stuff, and we shouldn't worship that guy either.  

Again, I'm not sure why you're upset beyond the fact that people are arguing against your position with solid evidence.

Edit:  If the term magic offends you, replace with miraculous.

Atheist from a Jewish family here.  And I know many others.  Most of my friends are from Jewish families and are atheists.  You'll see a lot of them is you look.  Even among people who identify as Jewish, many of them are kind of half assing it.  There are a lot of people who nominally believe in Judaism, but I doubt actually do (or at least are willing to break most of the laws in the old testament).  

You're less likely to see atheists from Muslim backgrounds for various reasons.  For one thing, depending on the country, leaving the religion is punishable by death.  Many muslims are immigrants, so running the risk of cuttin all social support you may have will prevent many people from leaving the religion.  That being said, I'm sure there are probably many muslims who have left the faith.  There are a number of high profile examples.

I'm not.

It shouldn't bother you to know more about the observable world around us.  Understand, I didn't respond that way to somehow 'slam' you, or insult your intelligence, rather, the reality is, not everyone knows everything about everything.  There're probably plenty of knowledge that you have, that's focused on an area I may not be as read up on, or simply not interested in (not meant as an insult either), but, by discussing these things, by sharing the knowledge, we help everyone involved to become more knowledgeable about things.  Sharing information is not bad.  Learning new things is not bad.  That is precisely why the internet is so freakin marvelous.  It literally gives us all the wealth of knowledge we have accrued up to this point, at our fingertips.  Truly a marvel.

This shouldn't be a paradox, at least, I don't see it that way.  I see it as providing information to someone else who may have specialized in other areas in their life.  It's sort of like a computer enthusiast (I would fall in this category), helping someone with their PC.  The person who's PC is messed up doesn't know much about computers...that's not a bad thing, they could be a history professor, or a chemist, or whatever.  Tons of stuff they know, that I don't.  But, I help them with their problem, however, I make sure they're there, and they're watching what I'm doing so that maybe in the future, they will be able to fix that issue themselves.  I don't expect people to know everything I do about PC's, nor do I look down on those who have chosen a different life path.  However, I find people who are closed to this spread of information...well, rather concerning, maybe that's just me.

But, when discussing things that I find to be as important as the concept of creationism vs evolution, you should expect examples brought forth to explain the position I have in this matter.  There are numerous examples of why a perfect being did not create this world, for humans (~80% of the surface of the Earth will kill us), the vast, vast majority of outer space will kill us.  The things I mentioned in the previous message, are not logically engineered by an 'entity' we'd consider perfect.  That's just what we as a specie have learned.  Nothing more, nothing less.

That's because, as JWein said, the idea that it was created by a God doesn't allow for any predictions, nor is it testable.  And when discussing science...science has a ridiculously high level of proof required before a thing becomes certain (Six Sigma standard).  People are actively trying to disprove virtually everything we've come to know up to this point, and if you were to apply those same standards to any of the theist beliefs, well, it wouldn't pass any kind of scrutiny.  Again, this is not meant as a slam, I'm merely trying to explain why invoking a God in these instances is met with such resistance.  Assuming the God concept for areas we don't understand currently (and you'd need to be more specific about the awes of nature, because we've come to understand a GREAT deal about nature) discourages critical thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the world around us.  That is simply not healthy.  Because eventually we come to a point where all there is is those gaps, but we've never taken an active step to understand those gaps, because God has been plugged into it.

The problem with thinking that the first humans didn't have this defect or that defect is the first humans didn't have access to any kind of medical knowledge.  Cancer goes back a very, very long time.  And it's illogical to suggest no such things existed back then, if nobody was there to observe it and understand what it is they're seeing.  It's like the tree falling in the forest riddle.  If nobody is there, does it make a sound?  

Remember, early humans thought sacrificing children to Gods, brought rain, or a good harvest.  We understand now, that's simply barbaric ignorance, and rarely do such things occur this day and age (there are some places where such things still occur, sadly, but those involved are usually arrested).

I feel this deserves a response.

Most atheists don't define themselves as atheists. "Atheism" isn't opposition to theism; it's merely the lack of theism (and related things, like deism). Most atheists use the description "atheist" only when the topic of religion comes up, and otherwise the label and its meaning has no bearing on their lives. An atheist doesn't make decisions on the basis of being an atheist in the way that a christian makes decisions on the basis of being a christian.

Let me put it another way. When a Christian is deciding whether or not to give money to a particular charity, their thought process often includes "is this what god/jesus would want me to do?". An atheist doesn't ask "is this the right action for an atheist?". Instead, they are likely to ask "is this action going to have positive repercussions in the world?" In the end, the christian and atheist ways of asking it have the same fundamental effect, as the Christian believes that god wants them to do things that have positive repercussions. But the key in this situation is that the atheist isn't defining themselves, or their actions, on the basis of being an atheist.

Note the word "most" in all of this. There are exceptions. Richard Dawkins, for instance, is what I call a dogmatic atheist. He likely makes decisions much like a devout christian would, but without a deity - if it's not in service of being an atheist, it's something he has a problem with.

I am an atheist. It's a description of me. It does not in any way define me. Being an "atheist" is not part of my decision process, unless the decision is "do I agree with this person who asserts that god does/doesn't exist?". It is a consequence of my worldview, it is not the basis of it. If I were presented with evidence firmly supporting the existence of a deity, I would no longer be an atheist, and yet my worldview would not have changed at all (and my decisions would still not be based on my belief, or lack thereof, of a deity). This is because "atheist" is not defining me at all.

And when it comes to traditions that arose from religious origins, I always re-evaluate them to determine whether the religious element is an issue. I celebrate Christmas, but in a secular manner - goodwill to all men, gifts for children, etc. The modern Christmas has its origins in Christianity (and that version was influenced, itself, by Pagan rituals around the solstice), but I don't participate in any of the religious stuff. I will likely celebrate my marriage with a wedding ring, but it won't be a religious symbol, to me. I will happily eat Halal or Kosher meat - that there was a rabbi or an observant muslim blessing the animal during slaughter has no impact on me, and the traditions of ensuring the animal is killed humanely and without stress is not only consistent with my view on the issue, but also produces a better-quality meat.

On the flipside, when I die, I want my body buried in an unmarked grave with no casket or other casing. Instead, I want a little memorial in the home of my loved ones, with a few pictures and maybe one or two other things they associate with me, because as far as I'm concerned, I live on in their memories, not in some afterlife - the location of my body is irrelevant to their memory, and such markings would therefore be a waste of money. And so, in this case, the typical religion-based approach is rejected. Not because it is religious, but because it isn't consistent with my worldview.

Atheists don't tend to be overly concerned about symbolism, except where the symbolism is relevant. In politics, symbolism has an influence on perception, and thus is recognised as relevant. But in deciding which car to buy, symbolism is irrelevant, and thus the origin of the name "mazda" isn't relevant.

:-o I come back and one of the threads on the top has to do with religion?!?!?! And it is when I come back from bein inactive for a bit?!?!?! YES!

Well I am a Christian, so I believe that Atheists are Atheists because they hate God and don't want him to exist, so they lie to themselves and say that there is no evidence for the existence of God even though It's right in front of them.

Moderated - Leadified