Claiming that atheists “cannot prove that God does not exist” often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim “God does not exist” and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim “God exists” and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it — or even care much about the claim in the first place.

From: Atheism is Based on Faith?
Author:  Austin Cline


Rejection of a belief is merely the belief that it does not exist.  Atheists may spin it (and they feel a need to since they are distancing themselves from religion), but the fact remains.  Their religion is the belief that god does not exist.  it is not founded on any solid facts, just beliefs.

You took the time to respond in length while my responses were short and ambiguous.  And I agree with you for the most part. Most religions are both a set of beliefs and a set of actions.

However, atheism is a set of beliefs.  it is not the absence of belief.  So it is not the same as dark and light.  Calling it a religion may be a bit much, but it has many of the trappings of a religion. 

for the vast majority of Christians and Atheists, what each decide to believe is less important than how one acts.  But for some in both camps, the beliefs of the other are a threat to their own dogma, and so they react violently (through words or a few cases, actions).

That was my point.

I agree with ForkedNives here, there is no atheist ideology at play, no atheist agenda, no atheist rituals and no atheistic superstitions.

I just found your article and would like to chime in. 

first, you'll never convnce me that it's simply atheists failure to accept the theist's claim that God exists. Atheism is a deliberate one-sided affair...Atheist's make a decision against God.

Second,  No one believes that the existence of God is capable of verification by methods of science. But God's existence is capable of verification by reason and science doesn't tend to the denial of this in properly instructed and well balanced minds. 

Actually it was a Jewish man who took the school prayer issue all the way to the supreme court because his son was taunted by christians because he didn't participate in school prayers.

As to the pledge of allegiance a christian sect called the Jehovah Witnesses was the first group to challenge the pledge in public schools. They consider it to be idolatry.

You love to blame these things on what you perceive as "the other side" when in fact many of these issues came to be because of the zealotry of your own kind.

BTW: Did you know the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist?

I personally don't think the root of most problems are religion vs. religion etc. I think people (and governments) use religion as a tool to solve their "problems". It is used as a control mechanism. Dictators use it to control their populations, politicians use it to pander votes in order to gain positions of power, Countries use it to wage war in order to gain access or control of other countries natural resources, individuals use it to discredit others, etc.

Unfortunately I don't think that will happen. The ruling class knows history quite well and will not let religion die because they know how effective it is in controlling the general population. They will simply use the herd to rewrite the history and science books to dumb down the population.

Yes, proof of the existence of the One God and our certainity of His existence comes by the natural light of reason. reason is the intellect apprehending truth. Men even children possess reason; animals have none. Reason is one of the things that separate man-kind from animal-kind. 

Believing in God seems to be the natural condition or intuition. That's why I said  people don't have to persuade themselves that there is a One God, rather they have to try to persuade themselves there is no God. That's why I said that men do not grow into the idea of a One God, rather they endeavor to grow out of it. 

Some cultures do not include any concept of your god or any other dieties. It is not always a choice between one or the other. It is different for everyone. When the Spanish arrived in South American the natives were not choosing between your god or no god. They were choosing between life and death. Same goes for North America. Many natives were given the choice to believe in your god or die and then their children were taken away from them so they could be indoctrinated. Looks to me personally like there are many choices. Your god, many gods, no gods or some other god.

The belief in the existence of god is plain and simple a leap of faith. One has faith that their church, its clergy, and texts are revealing the truth.

Then why have you defended the inclusion of intelligent deign in science books in other posts within this forum?

Of course you were. Might as well pull the atheist out of a long list of cases which have led to current law regarding religious prayer in schools. I wouldn't expect otherwise since that what many people and groups have done over the years. The man I was referring to was the lawyer in the Engel vs. Vitale case and his son was one of several litigants in the case.

Look at the list of cases. They involve mostly one religious sect vs. another. The bible reading cases involve disputes often based on the version of the bible used and prayer issues involve one religion vs. another. Some of them have nothing to do with prayer in school however they set precedent involving the separation of church and state cases. Some of these cases involve tax dollars used in the funding of parochial schools. 

Maybe you should take a look around the world to see what statistics other countries have and then maybe you wouldn't agree with such naive uneducated conclusions as to what causes such problems. As a whole this country is very religious and we have more problems than many societies that are much less religious.

As it should be. In one breath you criticize not only every other religion in the world, but also countries that do teach religions in their schools...... then in the next you wonder why others criticize yours. This country was started because of people like you who wished to impose their religious beliefs on others. 

Of course he does in your book. He is just as much a zealot as you are, just from the other side of the spectrum. His cases generally fail because the constitution states giving no preference to any particular religion over others not religion vs. the lack thereof. The successful cases involved one religion vs. another. You seem to blame so much on the lack of religion even when it is one religious sect against another.

As usual you blame all the problems in the world on everyone else. So convenient and comfortable, yet often so untrue.

I don't have to look around the world to know what happened and what is happening in America as far as public education is concerned. 

Like it or not, agree or not, these are factual conclusions. direct results that followed taking God and Judeo-Christian principles out of schools and instituting Secular and Atheistic Humanism in its place. 

I'm a graduate of a superb public education during the 50s, the last generation whose educational philosophy complied with Judeo-Christian principles, ethics and values. Then, the big problems in school were talking in class, standing out of line, gum chewing, and so on.

Then, parents sent their kids to schools knowing that the school would respect, not challenge, ignore, or usurp their parental rights and authority. Then, discipline was taught and practiced. Then, educators taught patriotism , morals and character along with reading, writing, math and the sciences. We started and ended the day with a prayer. We respected our teachers, and were civil and decent to one another. Then, the primary function of education was teaching facts and subject matter, and schools were not human resource centers. 

I believe the difference between then and now, is because we were given ethical and moral standards. Both history and statistical evidence show that there was no student violence, toward other students and teachers, no police presence required in schools, no drug testing needed, no epidemic of students infected with  venereal diseases. Then, our schools weren't plagued with drug abuse, teen promiscuity, and pregnancies. Then, Students weren't stressed out, depressed or committing suicide. 

But with the cultural and sexual revolution of the early 60s, came the infusion of the principles of Secular and Atheistic Humanism into the curriculum of our schools. Humanistic educators believe the proper role for schools is to change, create or clarify student's values and since God was reduced to irrelevant, the only absolute truth is that there are no absolutes values...all is relative and what seems good to one is morally right and they can choose.  This is especially true in the area of kindergarten through 12th grade classroom sex instruction.   

Today, any objective person can only conclude that the staggeringly high numbers and instances of these pathologies in our student population are causalties of Humanist classroom sex instruction.