That's because you have a skewed view of atheists. The majority of atheists you become aware of on the internet are of course going to be the ones in debates. The "silent" atheists will never be in a discussion where their atheism is relevant, thus they would never reveal their atheism and you would never know they were atheists. There are way more "silent" atheists; they simply don't enter these discussions.

And why is religion the only topic that shouldn't be discussed? Every other topic that's important to humanity is discussed thoroughly to encourage a mixture of different ideas, but when religion comes along, it gets some sacred privilege to be left alone. Why is that?

And why is it that discussion of something is an indication of a weak or false belief? This type of attitude isn't seen anywhere else You would never hear proponents/opponents of something like gun laws or gay marriage saying things like, "Why do you always try to talk about gun laws or gay marriage? The fact that you bring it up so much probably means your own stance is wrong."

It's an incredibly silly idea.

I don't have all that much respect for the Bible either, but you have to be absurdly biased if you really want to compare some stupid Hollywood actor to it.

Also, ideally, it's true that the source of the idea shouldn't be used to judge it, but, for the sake of convenience, it's easier to reject stuff said by people you know to be morons. Especially when there are far better atheistic ideas/people to look at.

I understand that.  Im not tryiing to convince anybody on what to believe in just so you know though.  I definitely dont look up what athiests or christians, or any kind of religion at all.  This was a complete accident that I found this.  Anyways I get what you are saying that athiests can be loud but so can christians or any other kind of religion.

Because it's not about facts or even opinions. When it comes to belief you have to take everything on faith, and no real discussion can be had when everything boils down to "My invisible friend > your invisible friend" and "Your invisible friends don't exist because science". So everyone just winds up with a sore ass and absolutely no good comes of it, kind of like a weekend at hatmoza's house.

Think your unknowingly referring to Islam, as that is the only religion left in the modern world where you will be jailed/killed for speaking against it.

Otherwise, since religion is faith based and not tangible, discussion and debate is moot from the get-go. But there is something to be said about constantly discussing something. To bring it up all the time means in principle that the idea in question isnt mostly agreed upon. If something is not always discussed, then tha means a viewpoint tends to be a majority one, no real discussion needed.

It's not about being or participating in debates...its about starting them...A LOT. And mentioning  your atheism / attacking religion at the slightest reference to it. Believe me, i have witnessed this million times where there was no debate to begin with. They feel threatened by the very mentioning of anything religious so they attack it relentlessly, which screams their insecurity about their own beliefs. Now, if a religious person made a topic regarding atheism, i could somehow understand this behaviour.But that's almost never the case. Its almost always other way around

I do have the idea that atheists feel they always have something to prove against religious followers.

Much truth here. But it isn't because of what you preach. Why would a religious person attempt to use logic to prove their viewpoint when no logic applies?

Is this about gay marriage or religion? I am so confused.

What do you mean?