Monthly Archives: July 2016

Atheism

Categories | New pages | All pages | Basic help with editing

This wiki strives among other goals to:-

Note; this Wiki says relatively little about Liberal Christianity because Liberal Christianity is less harmful.

It is unlikely that contributions supporting religion or superstition will remain in articles. Still editors may put those opinions into talk pages.

This wiki Supports Naturalism Philosopher Paul Draper, wrote that naturalism is the concept "that the physical world is a 'closed system'". That means "nothing that is neither a part nor a product of [the physical world] can affect it." More simply:

If a disease is caused by microbes, we can learn more about how microbes interact with the body and how the immune system can be activated to destroy them, or how the transmission of microbes can be contained. But if a disease is caused by demons, we can learn nothing more about how to stop it, as demons are said to be supernatural beings unconstrained by the laws of nature (unlike natural causes). (Definition of Naturalism)

To write a new Atheism article, enter the page title in the box below.

Atheism is defined as:

People often assume that atheism is a religion, which it is not.[1] Saying that atheism is a religion is rather like saying that not collecting coins is a hobby. Atheism is in fact the absence of religion and therefore cannot be considered a religion in itself. Atheists are often associated with scientific thinking and critical thinking, while religions demand belief without supporting empirical evidence. Scientists like Richard Dawkins show how scientific thinking stops people believing in superstition and religion. That often leads to lack of religious belief generally, agnosticism and finally atheism.

The term "atheism" comes from the prefix "a," which means "not" or "without"; and "theos," which means "God"; so "atheism" literally meaning "without God."

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, and from this atheists typically do not believe in any other supernatural forces or influences.

Atheism does not lead inevitably to any particular moral position, though Humanist morality is popular among atheists. Religious people (theists), notably Christians, frequently like to imagine that human beings only want to be moral if theyre afraid some supernatural father-figure will punish bad behaviour. Frankly, people are better than that. We've evolved so that we care about our relatives: we care about other people from our group, and we can care about humanity and about sentient beings in general. When others do well, we feel better ourselves, and when others suffer, we feel worse. Cultures with memes that encourage helpfulness survive better than uncooperative cultures, so we work to make our culture into a culture in which we and others can surviveor we work to maintain our culture in that way. See:

Do we need religion for ethical behaviour? How many immoral acts have been committed in the name of a particular religion or god? Some examples of this behaviour include the Inquisition, the Crusades, and more recently the murder of abortion doctors in the United States by fundamentalist Christians. So which is the better of the two ideologies below?

Perhaps you will feel like reading the two articles before deciding.

Visit link:
Atheism - Wikia

Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night.

Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else.

Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Its us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.

Was Rorschach.

Does that answer your Questions, Doctor? Alan Moore, Watchmen

Read the original:
Quotes About Atheism (1313 quotes)

Atheism - Defining the Terms There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute truth and thus no universal moral standard of conduct. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Atheism - Strong Atheism Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"

Learn More Now!

Excerpt from:
Atheism - Philosophy - AllAboutPhilosophy.org

Help support New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...

(a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26, c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philosophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.

Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past than a critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philosophical meaning; and though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):

Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship .

Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause . This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause . That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type . Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism , however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism , in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world.

A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism; and may be further viewed as cosmological or psychological, according as it is motived, on the one hand, by a consideration of the paucity of actual data available for the arguments proving the existence of a super-sensible and spiritual God, or, what amounts to the same thing, the attributing of all cosmic change and development to the self-contained potentialities of an eternal matter ; or, on the other hand, by an empiric or theoretic estimate of the powers of reason working upon the data furnished by sense-perception. From whichever cause this negative form of atheism proceeds, it issues in agnosticism or materialism; although the agnostic is, perhaps, better classed under this head than the materialist. For the former, professing a state of nescience, more properly belongs to a category under which those are placed who neglect, rather than explain, nature without a God. Moreover, the agnostic may be a theist, if he admits the existence of a being behind and beyond nature , even while he asserts that such a being is both unprovable and unknowable. The materialist belongs to this type so long as he merely neglects, and does not exclude from his system, the existence of God. So, too, does the positivist , regarding theological and metaphysical speculation as mere passing stages of thought through which the human mind has been journeying towards positive, or related empirical , knowledge. Indeed, any system of thought or school of philosophy that simply omits the existence of God from the sum total of natural knowledge, whether the individual as a matter of fact believes in Him or not, can be classed in this division of atheism, in which, strictly speaking, no positive assertion or denial is made as to the ultimate fact of His being.

There are two systems of practical or moral atheism which call for attention. They are based upon the theoretic systems just expounded. One system of positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God, would naturally follow from the profession of positive theoretic atheism; and it is significant of those to whom such a form of theoretic atheism is sometimes attributed, that for the sanctions of moral actions they introduce such abstract ideas as those of duty, the social instinct, or humanity. There seems to be no particular reason why they should have recourse to such sanctions, since the morality of an action can hardly be derived from its performance as a duty, which in turn can be called and known as a "duty " only because it refers to an action that is morally good . Indeed an analysis of the idea of duty leads to a refutation of the principle in whose support it is invoked, and points to the necessity of a theistic interpretation of nature for its own justification .

The second system of negative practical or moral atheism may be referred to the second type of theoretic atheism. It is like the first in not relating human actions to an extra-mundane, spiritual , and personal lawgiver; but that, not because such a lawgiver does not exist , but because the human intelligence is incapable of so relating them. It must not be forgotten, however, that either negative theoretic atheism or negative practical atheism is, as a system, strictly speaking compatible with belief in a God; and much confusion is often caused by the inaccurate use of the terms, belief, knowledge, opinion, etc.

Lastly, a third type is generally, though perhaps wrongly, included in moral atheism. "Practical atheism is not a kind of thought or opinion, but a mode of life" (R. Flint, Anti-theisitc Theories , Lect. I). This is more correctly called, as it is described, godlessness in conduct, quite irrespective of any theory of philosophy, or morals, or of religious faith. It will be noticed that, although we have included agnosticism, materialism, and pantheism, among the types of atheism, strictly speaking this latter does not necessarily include any one of the former. A man may be an agnostic simply, or an agnostic who is also an atheist. He may be a scientific materialist and no more, or he may combine atheism with his materialism . It does not necessarily follow, because the natural cognoscibility of a personal First Cause is denied, that His existence is called in question: nor, when matter is called upon to explain itself, that God is critically denied. On the other hand, pantheism, while destroying the extra-mundane character of God, does not necessarily deny the existence of a supreme entity, but rather affirms such as the sum of all existence and the cause of all phenomena whether of thought or of matter. Consequently, while it would be unjust to class agnostics, materialists, or pantheists as necessarily also atheists, it cannot be denied that atheism is clearly perceived to be implied in certain phases of all these systems. There are so many shades and gradations of thought by which one form of a philosophy merges into another, so much that is opinionative and personal woven into the various individual expositions of systems, that, to be impartially fair, each individual must be classed by himself as atheist or theist. Indeed, more upon his own assertion or direct teaching than by reason of any supposed implication in the system he advocated must this classification be made. And if it is correct to consider the subject from this point of view, it is surprising to find to what an exceedingly small number the supposed atheistic ranks dwindle. In company with Socrates, nearly all the reputed Greek atheists strenuously repudiated the charge of teaching that there were no gods. Even Bion , who, according to Diogenes Laertius (Life of Aristippus , XIII, Bohn's tr.), adopted the scandalous moral teaching of the atheist Theodorus, turned again to the gods whom he had insulted, and when he came to die demonstrated in practice what he had denied in theory. As Laertius says in his "Life of Bion", he "who never once said, 'I have sinned but spare me

Epicurus, the founder of that school of physics which limited all causes to purely natural ones and consequently implied, if he did not actually assert, atheism, is spoken of as a man whose "piety towards the gods and (whose) affection for his country was quite unspeakable" (ib., Life of Epicurus, V). And though Lucretius Carus speaks of the downfall of popular religion which he wished to bring about (De Rerum natura, I, 79-80), yet, in his own letter to Henaeceus (Laert., Life of Epicurus, XXVII), he states plainly a true theistic position: "For there are gods: for our knowledge of them is indistinct. But they are not of the character which people in general attribute to them." Indeed, this one citation perfectly illustrates the fundamental historic meaning of the term, atheism.

The naturalistic pantheism of the Italian Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) comes near to, if it is not actually a profession of, atheism; while Tomaso Campanella (1568-1639), on the contrary, in his nature-philosophy finds in atheism the one impossibility of thought, Spinoza (1632-77), while defending the doctrine that God certainly exists, so identifies Him with finite existence that it is difficult to see how he can be defended against the charge of atheism even of the first type. In the eighteenth century, and especially in France, the doctrines of materialism were spread broadcast by the Encyclopedists. La Mettrie, Holbach, Fererbach, and Fleurens are usually classed among the foremost materialistic atheists of the period. Voltaire, on the contrary, while undoubtedly helping on the cause of practical atheism, distinctly held its theoretic contrary. He, as well as Rousseau, was a deist. Comte, it will be remembered , refused to be called an atheist. In the last century Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin , and Herbert Spencer, with others of the evolutionistic school of philosophy, were, quite erroneously, charged with positive atheism. It is a charge which can in no way be substantiated; and the invention andonism of Ernst Hackel , goes far towards forming an atheistic system of philosophy. But even the last named admits that there may be a God, though so limited and so foreign to the deity of theists that his admission can hardly remove the system from the first category of theoretic atheism.

Among the unscientific and unphilosophical there have from time to time been found dogmatic atheists of the first type . Here again, however, many of those popularly styled atheists are more correctly described by some other title. There is a somewhat rare tract, "Atheism Refuted in a Discourse to prove the Existence of God by T.P." British Museum Catalogue, "Tom Paine", who was at one time popularly called an atheist. And perhaps, of the few who have upheld an indubitable form of positive theoretic atheism, none has been taken seriously enough to have exerted any influence upon the trend of philosophic or scientific thought. Robert Ingersoll might be instanced, but though popular speakers and writers of this type may create a certain amount of unlearned disturbance, they are not treated seriously by thinking men, and it is extremely doubtful whether they deserve a place in any historical or philosophical exposition of atheism.

REIMMAN, Historia atheismi et atheorum . . . (Hildesheim, 1725); TOUSSAINT in Dict. de thologie, s.v. (a good bibliography); JANET AND SEAILLES, History of the Problems of Philosophy (tr., London, 1902), II; HETTINGER, Natural Religion (tr., New York, 1890); FLINT, Anti-theistic Theories (New York, 1894); LILLY, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892); DAURELLE, L Atheisme devant la raison humaine (Paris, 1883); WARD, Naturalism and Agnosticism (New York, 1899); LADD, Philosophy of Religion (New York, 1905); II; BOEDDER, Natural Theologh (New York, 1891); BLACKIE, Natural History of Atheism (New York, 1878); The Catholic World, XXVII, 471: BARRY, The End of Atheism in the Catholic World, LX, 333; SHEA, Steps to Atheism in The Am, Cath. Quart. Rev., 1879, 305; POHLE, lehrbuck d. Dogmatik (Paderborn, 1907) I; BAUR in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), s.v. See also bibliography under AGNOSTICISM, MATERIALISM, PANTHEISM, and THEISM. For the refuation of ATHEISM see the article GOD.)

APA citation. Aveling, F. (1907). Atheism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

MLA citation. Aveling, Francis. "Atheism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Beth Ste-Marie.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Read more from the original source:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Atheism - NEW ADVENT

A gathering of topless, nipple-less Atheist women in Coney Island, New York, courtesy of National Geographic.

Atheism is the exciting belief in the non-existence of a non-deity's existence. Atheists main belief in life is that there are absolutely no absolutes. WHAT. One of the youngest and least recorded religions, Atheism stands out for its lack of scriptures, rituals, prophets, and other sacred paraphernalia. Atheism had become increasingly popular in the 21st Century and its popularity was projected to grow steadily as we approach the Apocalypse. Since the Apocalypse already happened (See: George W. Bush), it is said that the reign of atheists is now over... or is it...?

According to a 1998 scientological study conducted by the independent company Loyal Servants of Our Lady of the Weeping Misery of the Holy Mother of God and Friends, Atheism is more widespread than any other modern cult, including Catholicism. The study claimed that "they hath broughte a pox unto His land, and doth spreadst theire Vampyre seed amongst both schoolchild and man of Politick, hairdresser and window-dresser alike." In a three-part expos, National Geographic reported that "Atheism is spreading in more than just a so-so way throughout God's land, gaining followers in countries as diverse as Easter Island and Africa."

In recent times, the cult has been the subject of heated controversy. Government sources have shown links between Atheism and homosexuality, pedophilia, and communism. Communities throughout the world have expressed a growing concern as an increasing number of role models such as Mike Tyson and Pat Robertson are exposed as practicing Atheists. The first prominent religious figure to address the Atheist Problem was Christian spokesman George W. Bush, who described Atheists as "a real threat in America, including to the rest of the world", and attributed the danger of Atheism to the fact that "you can't really tell them apart from regular folk. They're so hidden, so undercover, you could say they're almost indivisible."

After decades of receiving little to no attention from Acadaemia, Atheism has finally caught the interest of modern archaeologists, who have deemed Atheism boring enough to be worthy of prolonged study.

Reginald Wharton III at his 50th birthday party in Staten Island.

Wharton, struck by lightning while throwing rocks at children in Central Park, left virtually no documentation of his religious ideology: his only remaining belongings were two packets of ketchup and some illegible scribbles on a Burger King receipt. Wharton is said to have been cremated in Gunfire Creek, New Jersey, though neighbors claim his body was buried "somewhere out west". This allegation is further confused by the testimony of Geraldine Chan, Wharton's personal seamstress and joint proprietor of Hunan Happy Cleaner, Inc., who claimed in a 1974 interview that "Me no know him well, but pretty sure he bring two stained shirt and golf-style pants the Wednesday after police say he dead, so me no know much if report was right. But me think he a Atheist, ha ha."

Further doubt about Wharton's death was cast by the 1977 testimony of California grave robbers Pedro Antonio Lopez-Gonzalez-Torres and Juan Generico Perez-Caramba, who were apprehended in Amarillo, Texas for urinating on private property. While under police custody, they confessed, among other things, to have opened Wharton's casket a few months before their arrest, only to find "no bodily remains -- just a couple of packets of ketchup, and a pillar of salt".

Lopez-Gonzalez-Torres' and Perez-Caramba's testimony was dismissed as unconstitutional by the Armadillo County District Court of Appelations upon the discovery that their confessions had been extracted at gunpoint by police officer Rodney King, who made Lopez-Gonzalez-Torres confess to several crimes, including the murder of John F. Kennedy. However, the charges against the police department were dropped when the Armadillo County Bureau of Infinite Justice showed Lopez-Gonzalez-Torres and Perez-Caramba to be Russian illegal aliens, thereby rendering their testimony void and bringing to doubt their belief in Christ.

No further testimony was obtained from L-G-T and P-C, who were promptly executed by firing squad in the summer of 1978, shortly before the Armadillo County Court of Counter Appeals found them to be innocent.

Most Atheists deny that Wharton ever existed, citing insufficient tangible evidence.

Chomsky (upper left, in a bath robe) gets another lecture from a burning piece of shrubbery.

Chomsky, a staunch Atheist, categorically denied the existence of God and stubbornly refused to acknowledge any sort of supernatural event, despite having been reputedly approached by talking, spontaneously-combusting specimens of plant life on at least five different occasions in the summer of 1967 (the so-called Summer of Love), and various other times in the years following. After encountering a talking serpent during a hiking trip in downtown London, he wrote in his only surviving journal: "'Twas the freakiest thing I ever did see, a fluke of Evolution, or perhaps a side-effect of bodily fatigue, yet not unlike in its wonder to the burning sculpture of the Virgin that confronted me last week during my visit to the Aquarium. Nature is indeed a remarkable force."

Plagued by apparitions, Chomsky died of natural causes after being attacked by a flock of ravens while repairing the hot water heater in the basement of his beach house in Cancun, Mexico.

Atheist opinion of Chomsky is divided: many say there was no such man, or if there was, that there was nothing special about him, while other Atheists simply don't care.

Atheists believe in a Goddess, named Athe, however, they believe that she doesn't exist. Atheists live by the Atheist motto "No God, nowhere, regardless, period except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster of course.", though most choose to state this view using completely different wording. When confronted with questions regarding the Creation of Man, most Atheists adhere to the fundamentalist theories provided by their gods only son Richard Dawkins, who claims that the Earth was created accidentally by the Flaying Spaghetti Monster an un-supernatural huge random super-explosion called the Big Bang Meat Ball. The Big Bang Meat ball theory states clearly that this explosion was brought about by The Flaying Spaghetti Monster, who doesn't exist of course. Modern archaeologists dismiss this theory as "preposterous and unamerican."

A few Atheists, however, have expressed different yet equally shocking beliefs. Celebrity boxer and amateur theologian Mike Tyson, for example, said in an interview with Oprah that many Atheists do in fact believe in the story of Richard Dawkins, "so long as God isn't involved." Tyson is notable in that he is not only an Atheist, but also an Athlete.

The Atheists doctrine also known as the Richard Dawkins doctrine also know as the commandments of the Flaying Spaghetti Monster states

Many Atheists believe it's important that Richard Dawkins doctrine is of absolute importance. Atheists worship their God, "Flaying Spaghetti Monster", and their Gods only son Richard Dawkins.

There are far fewer Atheist churches than those of their God-fearing counterparts. As of this writing, the African American Commission of Atheist Churches in America and its Colonies (rarely referred to as the double-A.C, A.C., A.C) has reported the count of modern Atheist churches in the Industrialized World to be exactly zero.

The Atheist God, also known as mudkip.

France is one, so is Russia and all of Eastern Europe (Soviet bloc), a few Scandinavian countries and pretty much the whole European continent. Atheism is catching up in Canada, Australia and Japan, any other free democratic industrial/developed country except America.

An typical Atheist tourist.

On weekends, Atheists often partake in rituals such as shopping, catching up with chores, and sitting around. These practices are often conducted in Athletic Wear, notably sweat pants, especially in South America. The question of circumcision is highly disputed among Atheist sects, and its practice varies widely depending on how convincing the surgeon was and whether the parents can afford it.

An Atheist (who wishes to remain anonymous) vacationing topless in the Amazon Jungle.

Though casual Atheists are virtually indistinguishable from God's people in terms of their appearance, the more active cult members (orthodox atheists), particularly those who practice tourism, show a predilection for topless nudity. These topless travelers tend to stay away from popular vacation hot-spots, and prefer to make pilgrimages to less-frequented haunts such as the Amazon Jungle or Canada.

Aguilera gives a motivational lecture at an Atheist fundraiser

Normal folk are sometimes confused by Atheists who paradoxically wear religious emblems like the crucifix or the American flag. While some Atheists do in fact wear crucifixes, they normally do so for purely sacrilegious purposes and in acknowledgement of other Atheists such as Marilyn Manson and Christina Aguilera, as opposed to the more ceremonial use of the crucifix by pop celebrities such as the Pope and David Beckham.

In 1982, the government-sponsored shockumentary An Unbiased View of Those on the Wrong Path declared Atheism to be "a disturbingly well-organized religious cult, with congregations and priests that mimic and mock those of our good people." The renowned documentary's most shocking scene showed a religious ceremony lead by a priest in a Lacrosse shirt and bell-bottoms mumbling words in an obscure tongue to an audience of naked prepubescent children. The scene was shot in what appeared to be a dreary, dark cellar. The documentary caused an uproar throughout the world that lead to the U.S. invasion of several Central American countries.

In the 1990s, however, a shockumentary by the Discovery Channel showed An Unbiased View to have used questionable methods of reporting that were a possible breach of the rules of journalism set forth by the Geneva Convention. The Discovery Channel hired prominent scientologists, most of whom were translators, to show that the previous documentary was nothing but a misunderstanding. The supposed gathering in a gloomy, dark basement was in fact filmed during daylight hours in a park in Sweden. Further scrutiny displayed that the obscure tongue spoken by the High Priest was actually Swedish, and that the alleged naked cultists were nothing more than Scandinavian children on a nudist field trip. Shortly after this discovery, U.S. Religious Leader George Bush Senior issued a formal apology to the government of Nicaragua, "even though you have to admit you're better off than before the invasion", and proceeded to bomb Iraq instead, out of principle.

An Atheist demonstration gets out of hand.

The treatment of Atheist suspects varies among the Muslim countries. In less tolerant nations such as Saudi Arabia, Atheism is punishable by flogging or decapitation, depending on how devout the suspect is, whereas in more lenient, progressive nations such as Syria, Atheism is largely overlooked when the suspects are male, but is punished by publicly urinating on the perpetrator and then stoning her to death in the case of a female suspect.

In Singapore punishment ranges from a two thousand dollar fine to death by electric chair, a policy similar to that of the state of Texas in the U.S. They began to ponder the use of ovens and gas showers.

But the left-leaning state of California prides itself as a religious colony for persecuted atheists, along with Gays, scientologists and Marxists seem to congregate in San Francisco.

Link:
Atheism (religion) - Uncyclopedia - Wikia