I don't think you've demonstrated this at all. A lot of people who don't really care one way or the other about theistic dogma look at the situation and simply see massive organizations raking in tons of money and paying zero taxes, and don't think it's fair. Just doesn't pass the smell test at first glance or upon extremely careful scrutiny. Just because somebody may be ideologically opposed doesn't mean that this simple truth does not also exist. This argument doesn't stand up to common sense. Most people (besides maybe anarchists) believe that everybody needs to be taxed something to pay for services that the government provides. Doesn't matter what the percentage you believe it should be is (large or small) to realize that arguing that everybody should "try to get it to zero" is fundamentally untenable, unfair, and unreasonable.You see; it's not really about fairness...It's about punishing people who believe differently from him, because he doesn't like them.
because if he were evaluating it logically, he could arguably get a better deal out of the situation by getting rid of his tax burdens as well.
Before I begin; sorry, I don't know hubski markup yet, so I don't know how to quote you efficiently. To address the first paragraph; given the democratic nature of the republic, and the past 200+ years of Judicial history, I'd say that for the vast majority of people, it does pass the sniff test. At any rate, majority has little to do with the "rightness" of a subject. If you really want me to demonstrate it, I'll start with the idea that this atheist worships the state. How do we know this? Because from the get-go, he presumes the state owns everything. This is why he willingly confuses subsidies with tax exemption. To him, it's not that the government isn't taking away something from the church. It's that they're letting them use what the government already owns, while the same privilege isn't being extended to everyone else. This is an arrangement he despises, and as such, thinks it should be changed. It's the equivalent of a petulant child demanding their mother take away their sibling's juice box because they don't have one. For the second paragraph: full disclosure - I am an anarchist of sorts. Taxation is violent theft. It's a group of people taking money away from people who've worked for it (mostly so they can buy bombs and bullets to kill brown people in the Middle East). I think it's actually unreasonable to say that someone is justified to take another person's money just because they wear a badge or sit on a seat of authority. Really, how do you justify it? I mean, really, how is that a reasonable position? How is the unilateral use of force and violence to rob people in any way remotely reasonable? The simple truth is: it's not reasonable. It's just statist philosophy; a violent, immoral system that many can't even see because they were raised in it and have had their head pumped full of statist nonsense in public schools.
But I'm an atheist that does not worship the state, nor to I believe the state owns everything. Furthermore, most of my friends are atheists, and none of them believe anything close to these ideas regarding state ownership. What the state owns, or does not own, actually has absolutely zero to do with atheism. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And no atheist I've ever met believes otherwise. Nor will you find a stance on state ownership of property in any definition of atheism in any book on the subject, because it does not exist. I just wanted to clear that up since your premise regarding atheists is immediately and obviously flawed. It's called being part of society. This has nothing to do with my stance on religion mind you, but I do believe as a social creature born into a community, that it is eminently fair and just that all members that want to be a part of that society must contribute if they want to stay in it, and that the levying of taxes and the spending of such taxes at the hands of elected representatives is probably a better system than any alternative. I think this position is the very definition of reasonable. I think you can have an honest debate as to the amount of taxation, and how that money should be utilized, but the premise is sound. But I do believe people should have the right to leave the society/nation/community that they were born into and go somewhere else without owing anything back if they so choose.If you really want me to demonstrate it, I'll start with the idea that this atheist worships the state. How do we know this? Because from the get-go, he presumes the state owns everything.
I think it's actually unreasonable to say that someone is justified to take another person's money just because they wear a badge or sit on a seat of authority. Really, how do you justify it?
Is it? I mean, we like to pretend our ideas and such are isolated and affect nothing outside their own little realms, but nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism affects the whole man, and as a result, society. Look at the Soviet Union. It was a state that was officially born out of atheism. Here's a list of other atheistic states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism Here's a recent thread from r/atheism that highlights the trend I'm pointing out: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/y3275/so_i_noticed_... My premise is anecdotal, yes. But that's entirely different from saying it's flawed. And the only reason this premise is anecdotal is because there's no real way to be empirical about it (or, indeed, much of social science). The reason this premise is true is because the only power in a completely naturalistic system is violence and coercion (aka, control). The state organizes these into the largest, most coordinated body possible. Therefore, the state is supreme. (Note: the only difference between the state and the mob is that the state is usually bigger than the mob. Some anarcho-capitalist scholars say the state uses the "Mafia model" of government). That is why atheism almost always goes hand-in-hand with statism. Even you deceive yourself when you say: Really? It's reasonable to force every living creature shaped by millions of years of diverse evolution into a box of conformity? And what elevates one man over another that they get to decide what the criteria is? Thought experiment: replace "social creature" with "black people." Imagine it's being spoken by a white person of privilege, during slavery in America. It's the exact same language used to defend slavery. (And truly, we're all slaves to the state). It's reasonable to threaten violence against those who want to opt out of the system? It's reasonable to have armed men raid the homes of families because they didn't pay protection to the biggest mob of all? As an atheist, you don't even have any logical grounds for morality (a fact I will defend to the death). Yet you employ the language of morality to obfuscate unilateral mob violence against people. Reasonable? Right? Good? Fair? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A (Now, I'm a Christian, so I won't always agree with him, but stefbot makes some amazing points in that video).I just wanted to clear that up since your premise regarding atheists is immediately and obviously flawed.
but I do believe as a social creature born into a community, that it is eminently fair and just that all members that want to be a part of that society must contribute if they want to stay in it
| Atheism affects the whole man, and as a result, society. Look at the Soviet Union. It was a state that was officially born out of atheism.| You're making the mistake of correlating the abuses of the Stalinist dictatorship with tenets of atheism that don't exist. A glance at the various abusive theistic dictatorships throughout the world's history effortlessly reveals that not a single abusive attribute of Stalinist Russia is unique to its dictator's views on religion (aside from those very views themselves). You can't be forced into a state in which you exist since your inception. Regarding conformity, I already said that you should be able to leave the society and community that you were born into should you choose, and go somewhere else. You're making an artificial and arbitrary distinction. It is a fact that humans are social creatures in the aggregate. Not up for debate. But to use your bad analogy, it doesn't matter WHICH community one is born into, -you're born into one. You use the collective resources of it for the duration of your time in it. You shouldn't be able to do that without contributing as it is theft, and if you don't like that arrangement, you should be able to exit of your own free will, whether you are black, white, American, Brazillian, -whatever. This betrays a lack of understanding of atheism, which takes no stance on morality and has nothing to do with it. But on the topic, I will say that you don't need belief in a being that does not exist in order to act morally. Morality is defined culturally, and this is evidenced by the different moral codes that have, in reality, existed across different cultures throughout history and exist today. What was moral at one time may not be today and vise verse. Concepts of morality are taught, and are shaped and created by the people in the culture itself, with some concepts of morality likely having biological roots tied to out inherent self preservation instinct (near universal prohibitions on certain types of killing for instance, even though most cultures allow all sorts of killing to take place in certain situations). As horrifying as some absolutists view fear it is, history shows us that moral codes have been fluid across cultures. Additionally, many people rightly understand that certain types of religious affiliations (like Christianity) PREVENT you from being moral, due to their treatment of women and homosexuals. Now, you may not agree with this, but as morality is defined by culture and always has been, a large segment of culture deems these views as horribly immoral. In order to claim otherwise, -that morality stems from a creator, you must first prove that there is a creator, which has not been done.Really? It's reasonable to force every living creature shaped by millions of years of diverse evolution into a box of conformity?
Thought experiment: replace "social creature" with "black people." Imagine it's being spoken by a white person of privilege, during slavery in America. It's the exact same language used to defend slavery. (And truly, we're all slaves to the state).
As an atheist, you don't even have any logical grounds for morality (a fact I will defend to the death). Yet you employ the language of morality to obfuscate unilateral mob violence against people.