Atheism is a flaw. It's lazy. It's basically saying i'll leave it all to science. But by doing so you leave it up to scientists to come up with answers instead of free though and challenging yourself to discover the meaning of life, Do you atheists realize by default you believe in magic, that magically everything was started. Because that is the loop hole in science, that has no answer and will never have an answer to how it all started. You also by default believe that out of no purpose, from nothingness came to be. I think that is more absurd that what you athesits think religion tries to explain. By the way all you atheists and most people in general have the wrong idea of what GOD is. The reason why most atheists exist is because they are scared of what they heard form the bible. They think God is only some deity , and the concept of hell scared them, instead of just focusing on jesus and how to lead a good life. Science and the roots of religion are on the same page. Science has the idea of a grand design that started from a point, religion had the idea of a creator, a grand design .The only problem is with science you can't ever say there was a reason why this started. The furthest you can get to with science is that there was some form of matter or particle. You can't ever say how it got there. Or why.

Ask anyone who's found liberation and life from a twelve step group (Alcoholics Anonymous) or had their life transformed by religion (I'm thinking people coming off drugs/prostitution, etc, which I know several who are now upstanding contributors to society) and I think you'll have your answer.

As defined by merriam-webster you are correct.

As defined by atheists themselves you are grossly mistaken. It is simply the rejection of the claim that God exists as it lacks necessary evidence and/or explanation.

Back on topic:

To some extent, religion is great - It brings people together in a social community, teaches good morals (for the most part), and brings families together.

On the other hand it teaches backward thinking. Belief without evidence is a silly concept to any rational being. It also teaches intolerance to anyone offering opposing views of morality or any ideologies of the church.

50% of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, that God supplanted humans on Earth roughly 10,000 years ago, and that potatoes don't have DNA.

I blame this statistic on religious ignorance. People are reliant upon the church for knowledge of science, and that is a real issue. Rely on the church for spirituality, but rely on science for science.

The two are not competing - they should remain mutually exclusive and maintain respect to their fields and not attempt to relate them (Hello, "Intelligent Design"). 

Come on man, there is so much wrong and lazy with what you said i can't be bothered to explain it all. And just because we don't have an answer for something yet does not mean that it's lazy to reject the creator answer that has provided no evidence. Religion just give's god as the answer for everything while science actually requires people to go out and test their hypothesis and have it reviewed brfore being accepted as science. One require's wokr while the other requires nothing yet you call athiest lazy? And athiest don't necesarily believe anything about how our universe came to be as many have different opinions the only one they share being that their is not substantial proof for the existance of god to believe it. Lumping all athiest togather would be like saying all religions as the same which is equally absurd.

Also you are most likely an athiest when it come's to all other theories about god bar the one you believe so calling athiest stupid is a bit of a self insult.

Negations are not beliefs though.  Atheism is a negation of a belief.  This is part of the reason why, when you debate an atheist about religion, all they do is go into an attack mode and don't really present anything that is constructive or useful.  Now an atheist who subscribes to humanism or some other -ism, which is a belief system, may end up arguing for the views in that, or try to pull a fast one that their negation actually has something.  But, mainly what you get is attack, attack, attack, and then presume that the default position is nothing.  Of course, for the person who actually wants something like a moral system, a community, or anything else like that, including ritual and pomp and circumstance, being a negation, an atheism has absolutely nothing to offer at all.  So, an atheist evangelizing (Dan Barker is an example an evangelizing atheist, as are the athiest who put signs up), expect to burn everything down and return nothing, and then call that nothing "truth".  Heck, atheism doesn't even have science with it, though atheists, after getting rid of religious faith, will end typically falling on science, believe they have something that can cause them, and everyone to be forced to submit to, eventhough they will find submitting to anything but themselves abhorant.

Religion may benefit us a society, with it's moral beliefs and teachings but it must remain separate from politics. It makes people go crazy, i'm not saying politicians shouldn't have faith but i would rather those who are clearly extremists just stay out of it (that means many Republicans or any far-left/ far-right party out there). There's just no way religion should affect policy making, you are bound to discriminate against someone that way. You just need to be tolerant to others difference (i hate evangelicals)

I can't understand the idea that leaving these things up to scientists, the people that have made discoveries which created everything around you right now is being lazy.  Physicists are obviously the best equipped to try and ascertain how the universe began.  Are you telling me that every person should try to build their own particle accelerators or giant telescopes to try and figure out for themselves what actually happened, or should they just take one of the hundreds of guesses that religions toss out as indelible truth?  If you're saying that everyone should try to study science and understand these discoveries then I agree, but I just can't agree with the idea that everyone who doesn't choose a crappy answer to the question is being lazy.  It takes just as much time to look at and deny the answers religion gives than it does to accept them.

By default we believe in what we've seen.  Not magic.  Some things don't have answers yet, but history says we'll get there.  

But Math says we won't.

Godel's incompleteness theory seems to more or less prove we will never find a complete science of the universe... even if we were to brazenly assume that humanity will always live on and not be wiped out.

Hell, we can't even prove math.. so really everything we think we're sure of... we aren't.

Sure we'll never be 100% certain of anything, but we'll learn more and more about it and I think we'll get a pretty good idea of how the universe began before too long.  I mean think of the gigantic strides science and technology have made in the lifetime of our parents or their parents.  To say "science will never ascertain _____" seems highly presumptuous to me as science is just the means by which humans study the world around them and try to understand it, and I think one day we will have the technology to study things as difficult as the beginning without invoking "god did it".

How do you science yourself around a mathematical law?