Deny literally has nothing to do with Atheism.

A - meaning without

theism - meaning belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Directly translated Atheism means WITHOUT BELIEF in the existence of god or gods.

Notice it is NOT “deny” god or gods.

A - leprechaun - ism is not a denial of leprechauns.

A - fairy - ism is not a denial of fairies.

A - santa - ism is not a denial of Santa Claus.

They mean “without”.  As in WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY EXIST.

It is a nice trick to use language to assume existence of your god(s) and then label anyone who doesn’t fall for the trick deniers of assumed existence.  Unfortunately, the burden is on YOU to SHOW EVIDENCE for your supernaturalism.  The burden is NOT on atheists to prove your baseless assumptions to be wrong.

Prove there are no dragons.  Oh, you can’t.  Well then dragons must exist and that makes you a dragon denier.

As for the danger of Atheism… another logical fallacy and red herring from the religionist camp.  The argument goes - when one assumes good comes from god(s) how can one be good if they don’t believe in god(s)?  And there we find (yet again) the ASSUMPTION that both god(s) AND ethics coming from that supernatural being for which there is no evidence.

It’s all black or white.  Either good with god(s) or bad without.  The problem is there are people who do good and bad things WITH god(s) and people who do good and bad things WITHOUT god(s).  Religionists have a tough time understanding that ethics arise from people living with one another and have nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

Look, religion or no religion hurting other people is not ethical because it is not good for society or yourself.  Helping old ladies across the street is.  And, guess what, you don’t need to believe in fairies to help the old lady.

Religion works on a post-life reward basis.  Do as we say, get an eternal cookie.  Religionists are afraid that if actual evidence is the guide to belief, everyone will rape and kill the neighbor’s dog.  And maybe that’s what religionists would do if they weren’t facing an eternal grill party.  But for the rest of us, including most of Europe (where atheism is high and the crime rate low), we still simply get up in the morning, go to work, pay bills, love each other, and feed the neighbor’s dog when they are on vacation.  In other words, we are kind, ethical, and fair because it works better than mean, selfish, and cruel.

But that doesn’t stop religionists from scaring people into believing stuff that has no basis in reality.  It’s too bad really.  All the atheists I know want to make the most out of this life because as far as the evidence is concerned, this life is probably all we get.  So, why waste it?  Do good, live well, be honest, and help others.  Religionists simply have trouble with that third point.  No worries.  They’ll come around.  You can’t DENY gravity forever :D

PRICELESS!

The bible is the most widely book read in the world and the most misunderstood. Proven fact. It contains more murders, violence against women, unjust wars and illogical fables, just to name a few things, yet it has never been banned as being to violent. Go figure. The bible, or organized religion, is a way to brainwash and control those who are to afraid or to lazy to investigate reality for themselves. Instead, it is much easier for them to be told what to do, what to believe and never question those in authority, no matter how wrong, unjust, or insane the statement is. All you have to remember is that: be it the church, state, government or it’s leaders, they are never wrong and you must do as you are told. Why do you think they call they sheeple?

I believe in reality. Proven fact and provable theory. Fairy tales are fine for children, however it is time for adults to stop believing in fantasy and adhere to facts, not heresy. By waiting for some imaginary superior being to solve all of your problems and sit by and so nothing, nothing happens. Aren’t these(religious people) who claim God helps those who help themselves, yet on the other hand they don’t want to0 offend their God by doing something that needs to be done as it may jeopardize their chances to get into heaven-another imaginary place.

Another thing I was thinking about today. Why does God require 10% of a persons income. Surely God, who has created(according to the bible)everything, would have no need of monetary compensation what so ever. If things need to be done, money should be no requirement for whatever God thinks needs doing. That is man’s greed speaking there. Any answers to a logical need of humans money for God let me know.

Tax them. 

Churches, Temples, Mosques, tax them all.

They are a business, they solicit money, the Pastor needs a new Cadillac.  When the church catches fire they call the fire department, when they have a break in they call the police, they support Israel then let them pay war cost.

I would go after non-profits too, you know the ones where the presidents and directors make $100K plus.

This is a wonderful essay. It’s a keeper and a sharer, and that’s what I’m about to do.

Thanks..

Well, yes, it is true that some (not sure all) EU countries have an auto-pay church tax.

But we must keep in mind what Europeans call a church and what Americans call a church are two very different things.

In Germany for instance, the church tax that comes out auto-deducted from one’s paycheck can only go to an “established” religion… basically Catholic or Lutheran.  There are a few others, but not many.

Scientology, on the other hand, is considered a cult and is currently under investigation (surveillance) for possible plans to subvert the German constitution… a big no-no.

The idea of modeling a similar system in the U.S. initially sounds attractive for the reason(s) you state.  But in practical term, the overhead of handling auto-deductions for millions of Americans to thousands of churches in the U.S. seems rather unrealistic.  And, that doesn’t even begin to address the constitutional issues of church/state separation in managing such a system or who gets to decide who is and who is not an established religion.

For those who are curious, taxpayers not belonging to a church in Germany are not forced to pay church tax and those paying the tax can opt-out… with the proper forms of course.  I believe the opt-in happens automatically if one is baptized and confirmed in a particular established church - but don’t quote me on that.

I go the other way on the issue WRT the U.S.  Perhaps the only involvement the U.S. government should have with churches should be through the I.R.S. on April 15th each year.  Between the land and the buildings and the annual revenues, many churches in the U.S. are raking in the BIG BUCKS tax free.  Pat Robertson’s media empire is the other CNN (Christ ad nauseum Network).  And supposedly the Catholic church is one of the largest land owners in the world.  The real question is why “churches” automatically deserve tax exempt status?

This is the indirect big giveaway to religion from government few are willing to discuss.

i was going to comment,but yours left me speechless. good shot.

Re: Manson

Thanks for that concrete reasoning.
*****

Believers cannot conceptualize no belief.  It seems they can digest the prospect of no religion, but NOT non-belief.  THEY feel that if there’s “no god” then there’s no point to anything, THEY then transfer this biased perspective onto atheists as an understood “worldview of atheists”.  Since they haven’t adjusted their reasoning/outlook from “belief” to “non-belief”, it is still their BELIEF in god which makes their erroneous assertions of “what atheists believe”.

Believers “understand” that they believe and atheists don’t.  To qualify THEIR belief they see non-belief as WRONG.  Since believers BELIEVE, they ASSUME that atheists MUST believe in “something” and attach all sorts of connotations to non-belief.  Most of this driven by what they’ve been taught.  They don’t understand what non-belief REALLY IS and they haven’t any real world experience to draw from regarding the perspective or the thought processes of unbelievers.  How could they? They believe.

I’ll tell you what happened to separation of church and state, it never actually existed. It was a nice thought and it looks good on paper, but if anyone truly believes that religion, or “faith in God” has not always had some degree of impact on our government or its policies, you are delusional. It took 185 years until a Catholic was elected president. I need not go into detail about when the first Jew, African, or Asian were elected to government seats. I certainly need not go into the effect of the Evangilical Right in recent history. And I most certainly do not need to quote to you fine and intelligent people the words to our nation’s pledge or the Presidential oath of office.

Wait, I forgot the use of bible and oath in various court proceedings. Need I mention that?

The day we elect an atheist, I’m available, as president of these here united states, is the day we will Begin to seperate church and state.

Amen.

Simply put, atheism is a LACK of belief.  It is the zero set.  It is (belief x 0).

But to answer if atheism is a type of belief or faith, we need do some simple math.

Think of some multipliers for the number 10.

10 x 2 = 20
10 x 1 = 10
10 x 0 = 0

20 is two sets of 10.  20 is a type of 10.

10 is one set of 10.  10 is a type of 10.

0 is zero sets of 10.  0 is a type of 10?

But zero is also zero sets of 5, zero sets of 39, zero sets of 3.14159 and so on.  Zero is zero sets of all numbers.  Therefore, zero is a type of all numbers.

But if zero is the no-set of all things, then zero apples is the same as zero oranges.

We can say…

10 x 0 = 1,000,000 x 0

because…

0 = 0

but that also means…

apples x 0 = oranges x 0

christianity x 0 = islam x 0

But is christianity also a type of islam?

How about…

christianity x 0 = satanism x 0

Can we really compare apples to oranges?

belief x 0 = What?  A type of belief in all things?

Is zero belief a type of belief?

Is zero faith a type of faith?

In this sense, the assertion that atheism is just another type of belief or faith is difficult to support.

A short answer from a secular humanist, about which god is the right one, or the one that actually exists.

I think that for most ‘believers’ who claim a belief in one god, they agree that there is the SAME God regardless of their brand of religion.

Now, I should ‘qualify’ that by saying that various religions have their various prophets, but generally only believe in ONE god, be it God the father of Jesus, (no, I’m not saying that I believe that, I’m just saying this from my secular humanist position of having NO religion, but respecting most others) and that would be the standard Christian view. Or, Allah, the god of Islam, as connected through the prophet Mohammed, or whatever God represented Moses (I guess) for the Jews.

Those are the Big 3 on the global scale, all being Mono-theist religions. I can’t really address the many others.

Still, my understanding from those who actually have the ONE God picture in mind is that it’s the SAME one, though there are many prophets.

Now a ‘believer’ is gonna tell me that I’ve got it all wrong, and that’s OK, since I’m not suggesting this as a ‘believer’ myself. I’m just trying to give an idea of how they can actually have the same one, across all the religious spectrums.

I’m not saying that they DO...or that jillions of gallons of blood hasn’t been shed over who’s god is the true god. I’m just suggesting that some believers are willing to settle on the fact that it’s the same one, regardless of who the word comes through.

Maani, would you care to comment? afterall, you are a man of the cloth, are you not?

your perspective would be enightening.

as as point of reference, i will state upfront that i am an athiest. there is no doubt in my mind that a “God” in whatever form you wish to attribute one to, does not exist. which brings me to question i have always pondered.

there are many, many, different religions out there, each as valid as the next, each with a different take on what the word of God is. However, the one thing in common that they all have is their belief that there is one God, theirs of course, and all the rest are pretenders.

so, given that, and assuming that there is indeed a God, and only one, which all agree too, EVERYONE except ONE is wrong, and their God does not exist.

Given that, how can anyone be CERTAIN of their conviction, and worse, try and foist it on others?

Religion is a dangerous thing when it is practised beyond the personal.  it’s arrogant, intolerant, hypocrtical, and yes, evil.
as long as people keep their religion to themselves, no problem. as soon as you try and shape my opinion, my quality of life, with your brand of religion, it needs to be stopped, quickly.

separation of church and state was genius by the founders. it’s too bad the current plunderers don’t heed it.

as for the rest of your post, and i cringe as i type this, i agree with you fully.

Deists are not polytheist, i think that is what you were thinking of. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

And lincoln was not an atheist, he was if anything a deist, or maybe a freeform christian, but he certainly would not be considered a evangelical or even mainstream christian today.

I’ll tell you what, any religion who needs state sponsorship is just filled with political Machiavellians, with little to no validity to their beliefs. I’m an ardent supporter of my cultural faith, but I don’t need it to justify myself.

I’m just glad we have atheists, agnostics, pseudo-nihilists, secular humanists, free-thinkers, minority religions and me making sure we keep the government in check with its purpose.

Church and State are separate, and forever they shall be so!

It is dangerous for the children to think.We will give them the philosophy they should beleive in and damn them if they want another one.She is yelling about an atheist to be an activist about guns when it is the christians who fight to give everybody a gun.On guns she has no beef with atheists.Atheists do not beleive in the here after so basically they want stay here as long as they can and guns have a tendency to interrupt that philoso[hy.It is the christians with the here after who could care less about gun violence.

Purplewolf and Coyboy,

Thanks for bringing the REAL point back in focus. The Separation of Church and State.

In short, TAXPAYERS don’t provide the funding for CHURCHES representing ANY faith or state! They never have, at least not when I was attending my 12 years of Catholic schooling. They didn’t pay for anything connected to the school, or the associated church.

Matter of fact, we didn’t even get to ride the taxpayer supplied school bus with the kids that went to the public school on the next block. (and yes, my parents did pay taxes, so the least they could have done was let us ride the school bus, even if we all had to get off and walk that extra block from the public school.) Hell, we had to WALK past it anyway, as we walked from home to school and back.

That said, I don’t even know how all of this ever even got this far. The answer is NO! Taxpayer dollars aren’t supposed to be allocated for individual churches. Not a million, and not a dollar.

As for Lincoln being an atheist, I’m not sure of that. If memory serves me, (without looking it up), he was a deist. (believing in more than one god.) If someone knows otherwise, I’ll certainly stand corrected.

Meantime, I have to agree that Ms. Davis here should probably just move to Tehran or Saudi Arabia. Actually, she’d be slightly better off in Tehran, where they like Jesus well enough. (actually they are fine with Jesus). It’s just certain ‘so-called’ Christians they aren’t much in favor of. But then, Gandhi felt the same way, and so do I.

I do NOT want a NATIONAL RELIGION, and neither did the founders.

Why is this church being favored for this funding? Churches are tax exempt from paying taxes on all the donations they receive and should have fund raisers if they do not have enough money for whatever repairs they need. The state should leave this alone as they are using money from taxpayers who may not want their tax dollars spend this way. It only benefits a few over the majority. If this was a religious group of other than a Christian belief, would they also receive this type of funding?

What about separation of state and church? Also Lincoln was an atheist. If the allocation of $1 million is to be used for anything, it needs to be used for something that benefits everyone on n equal basis like a library or park for example and not a church.

Good read with logical information: Biblical Nonsense by Dr. Jason Long. Is also online at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com for free or can find the book online on eBay or Amazon.com. Well worth the time to read.

It should be clear that the religions in this country are becoming increasingly vocal to any opposition of their beliefs. Any mixing of church and state is unconstitutional. Period. Political figures are pretty much required to be christians now. At this rate, we are on a quick path to having the Taliban for Jesus in this country.

Belief in god and belief in a religion are two different things.

@Blackspeare:

What you do not seem to see is that atheists set great store by the observation that they oppose believing in something without evidence. They do not at all necessarily hold the unquestioning belief that this or that god does not exist—on the contrary, they are open to the evidence. Thing is, god (whichever one) doesn’t have a lot going for it. The idea of no god, on the other hand, is actually backed by substantial evidence. That’s why it is rational not to believe in (whichever) god. Not so vice versa.

For an in-depth discussion of arguments for and against the idea, I can only recommend Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”. It is a fair account of the best evidence either way.

It is interesting that believers in a supreme being and non-believers in such (atheists) are really opposing sides of the same coin----they are both religions in the true sense of the word.  Both believe in something that cannot be proven and must accept their belief on “faith”: either the existence or non-existence of a supreme entity.  So if you want to avoid being associated with a religion you have to be an agnostic.