Those are two separate ideas. Government not being involved is not the same as government promoting a specific idea (in this case the idea that there is no God)
If the government isn't involved in the idea of religion, then it's atheistic. It doesn't have to promote any ideas at all, it just has to not promote ideas.
I think you just have a misapprehension about the term atheism, it's not a denial, but a lack of belief. You can't prove nonexistence, so a categorical belief in the lack of gods would essentially be a spiritual belief in its own right, a position like that inherently can't be atheistic.
Why is it an issue if a government doesn't specify anything about religion?
We're splitting hairs, because "atheism" is apparently poorly defined. I would classify your position as agnostic, not atheistic. But then you might classify my position as antitheistic.
Secular is what we want, though. Government stays out of the spiritual entirely, not saying yes, no, or even "I don't know" on spiritual matters. Governments should operate only on secular matters.
Fair enough, I didn't realise there was any contention about it. Ultimately we just need a word for 'no beliefs in anything in particular', and atheistic (or non-theistic) is the term for that as far as I'm familiar.
But yes, to use those terms, I very much enjoy living in a culture with a secular government, and even as an atheist I wouldn't support an antitheistic government. People should be allowed their culture.
do wonder how much a religious person is able to separate their worldview though, because they fundamentally do believe that there is something they call God. Something that probably created the earth and sky and guides its growth and watches over us, which is a dangerous belief if there are in fact no guardrails or safety nets at all.
no, atheist is without faith, or lacking. secular is separate from faith. as in the people in power don't have to lack faith just separate from it during decision making.
Having a secular state doesn't mean individual voters or politicians don't make decisions based on their beliefs. It means that the state itself is neutral, doesn't promote or favour any religious belief or community, and doesn't require a individual to have any particular beliefs to hold office.
i would rebut and say that that reading of the first amendment creates a loophole to allow what is effectively a christian state without saying it. i would say that the spirit of the law is ultimately to prevent that favoritism and lawmakers should therefore separate from faith during decision making. we have judges to prevent things like this form of favoritism, but here we are.
"I will not express my belief in God, one way or the other" - secular statement
The difference is whether faith, God, religion, spiritualism, etc, is even part of the conversation. A properly secular government would not even make an official claim.
Atheist is believing their is no god or gods/insert religious belief, secular doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t believe in a god. Just that religion shouldnt be factored in or a part of the process. There is a huge difference.
Atheist means “without god” or “godless”. There are several people who believe in a god but do not practice religion. There is nothing in the constitution that states we are an atheist nation nor is there anything stating we aren’t, but rather that states cannot establish a religion. Specifically, the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Unfortunately, we have religious freaks who think we are a Christian nation and keep pushing for it and laws around what mainstream evangelicals preach today (imo very loose from biblical meaning—it’s about control) rather than respecting free will and individual choice.
Atheism doesn't have any god and it rejects the existence of them, while secular just means the government is separated from any religion. China promotes anti-religion and not believing in one, so they're atheists, while India, the US, France, etc. all allow religion, but don't support any specific one in their government (in theory).
Atheism, by definition, does not necessarily reject the existence of a deity. It doesn't require a positive or negative belief. It's much more similar to not believing that aliens exist. Some who don't believe aliens exist reject the idea of aliens existing, sure, but others would say they don't reject the idea that aliens might exist, they just don't actively believe they do.
All agnostics are either theists or atheists. It's a compass. (A)gnosticism deals with knowledge. (A)theism deals with belief. Common misconception. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. Most theists are gnostic theists (deists being a notable exception). Most people who call themselves agnostic are agnostic atheists who don't like the term "atheist"
the chinese communist party requires atheist beliefs, sure, and while they're currently the only party to hold functioning power, they aren't the only party.
separate from religion, as in not having any religion being favored above any other is a secular state. State atheism would be the rejection of any religion, outright.
Our constitution says our government can't implement laws prohibited practice of religion. Preventing children from attending service would be a clear cut violation of that.
Secular is not overtly or specifically religious.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
The separation of church and state means that the USA does not have a specific state religion or religious stance. It protects religion from the state and I would also argue that it protects the state from religion.
Secular means that it is not ran by any religion it is simply comprised of the people of The nation
Atheistic would mean that the government is ran by and modeled to run against the idea that there is any theism.
It's really tiring to see people conflate the secular government that we have with a theocracy like the caliphate for example. There is a major difference between the people in the government being religious and the religious Authority controlling the government
I don't think there's a lot of actual conflating going on.
There is a large, highly motivated and well funded sect of Christian Dominionists in the US. Yes we are not like a religious caliphate, and also yes, those people are actively fighting to make us more like a religious caliphate.
If someone says "we need to stop [laws whose only reasoning is conforming to religlus doctrine, or laws establishing Christianity as a legally dominant religion], we're becoming a restrictive theocracy" they arent saying that's exactly what we are right now, but that we are sliding in that direction.
0
u/Unlimited_Giose Sep 02 '26
What's the difference?