[Skybird]

You guys have a very erratic view of what an atheist originally is. I would recommend to stop thinking of an atheist being somebody who is something explicitly special: being atheist, that is. Better think of an atheist as someone who is somethign not: a theist believer. If you are atheist, its not as if you claim a certain characteristic that you have subscribed to, its just that you refuse to do right that: to subscripe to the characteristic feature sets of theism. Seen this way, atheism is a natural state of man, while every religious state of man is an un-natural, an artifical, an "added" state of man.


Atheism is no belief in itself, atheists do not believe in "something" that just is different from Christian or Islamic belief. It is no conviction. It is the rejection to take over theists' beliefs and concvictions on the basis of hear-say. Its healthy empirism, so to speak, and a non-membership for the theistic club. Does something like a "non-membership" even exist, does it make sense to think in such a term? Hardly. Atheists are people who have not joined the club of theism and thus reject to follow the house rules of the theistic club home. Simple as that.


The relation between political leadership and religious leadership is very old. Both, politics and relgions, always have used each other to mutually autorize themselves before the people and then claim power and control over that people. Its a cooperation in abusing the people, and keeping them locked in slavery.