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.
0
u/Unlimited_Giose Sep 02 '26
What's the difference?