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

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.

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?

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

Thanks..

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

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.

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.

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.