Atheism

This is a difficult question to answer, because the data do not support a simple "Democrats are X and Republicans are Y" interpretation. There are some politicians who like to link "atheism" and "Democrats" (usually this claim is linked with the claim that Republicans are much more religious and therefore better to vote for), but statistics show no firm correlation between political party and belief in a religion. In fact, there are atheists and agnostics in both parties.

But you probably would not know that, since the media tend to focus on extremes, and at this point in our politics, the extremely religious (usually members of conservative Christian denominations) are very dominant in the Republican party. This means the Republicans who espouse conservative Christian views get the majority of the interviews and since this view seems to attract the Republican base, numerous candidates who want to get elected make religiosity an issue. But that does not mean that all Republicans are conservative Christians, nor does it mean that all Democrats are godless.

According to studies conducted by reputable demographers, about 14-20% (the numbers vary with the polls) of Americans identify as atheists, or as people with "no religion." Many are neither Republicans nor Democrats, preferring a libertarian candidate, or choosing candidates based on issues rather than on party. Some polls do say that a larger percentage of people with "no religion" vote for Democrats, but it is difficult to make a correlation, since a large number of people who are members of an organized religion also vote for Democrats. The Democrats as a party have members with a wide range of views, some of whom are indeed religious and others of whom are not religious at all. So, while it would thus be difficult to give a percentage of atheists who claim to be one party or the other, it is fair to say that, in our current political climate, Democrats are less dominated by conservative Christian viewpoints than Republicans are.

In American politics: U.S. Representative Pete Stark of California. In British politics: Nick Clegg, a Member of Parliament and leader of the Liberal Democrats party.

Reverend James Huber is a humanist/atheist.

See link below.

Hercules or Heracles is a Greek/Roman hero

He described himself as a follower of Judaism, so neither.

He was a Presbyterian, so no.

Generally, No. There certainly have been terrorists who do not believe in God, e.g. are Atheists. However, the vast majority of Atheists are not terrorists and there are fewer Atheist terrorists per capita than any other religious group. Atheists in the United States are slandered as terrorists and similar by religious people who may feel threatened by them or find their lack of belief repellent. This is simply name-calling and does not change the reality of whether Atheists commit acts of terror.

One might state that he is a poor speller and hates to bother to use spell checkers, indicating a certain laziness of character. One might then go on to extrapolate that this laziness of character is reflected periodically in his laziness of thinking. One might also state that he has too much time on his hands since retirement, and needs to find something more useful to do with his time left on Earth, than to argue about things that he really can't prove one way or the other, because his OPPONENTS never change their minds EITHER! One might also state that he is quite aware of his condition, as he himself states that his posts may be impeded by his defective cortex. One might also state that he is held helplessly imprisoned in the firm grasp of a loving God, who relentlessly keeps his focus on practically NOTHING but issues about God. Being God, he cares not a fig about how long it takes for his DEAR child to wake up and realize that the faulty notions that his skeptics hold on the nature and character that have been falsely attributed to him aren't particularly threatening to him either. Having all of eternity to wait out mortals, he can afford to be exceedingly patient and forebearing. People frequently twist truths around to their own ends, and "Griggsy" seems to have swallowed plenty of "cinnamon twists" in his time, and has somehow failed to realize the difference between "natural food" and "manufactured parodies of truth" in the process. One might also state that if his hair bristles at reading any of this, that he asked for it, (see question history). Surely he can't expect everyone to maintain the same level of ignorance indefinitely, can he?

Since he was not a head of state of a theocracy but the president of a secular government nothing would have "happened".

He was born as a Sunni Muslim, but he considered himself an Atheist and had a very dim view of Islam.

According to a 2012 Gallop Poll, about 15% of South Koreans identifiy themselves as convinced atheists, and in a 2002 poll, about 46.5% consider themselves as irreligious. Making Soth Korea the 5th most atheistic country.

Mostly it is for the same reason that people do not believe in any gods. There is simply no proof of their existence. Holy books such as Tanakh, Midrash, Bible, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon,etc, are only claims of supernatural beings. They are not proof and cannot be proven; just like they cannot be disproven either.

He is in the Atheist Bible if that helps. Here's a couple of his quotes that might help answer your question. " I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love my life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."- Bertrand Russell * "And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence." - Bertrand Russell * Originally published in 1925, in a small book titled What I Believe. That same book was used as a piece of evidence in 1940, when the New York City court system deemed Russell morally unfit to teach at City College.

Yes. So long as students are not required specifically to pray as part of an official school function, there is no issue with church-state separation.

The 'Moment of Silence' may be a silly waste of time, but it is not unconstitutional.

Atheism is not a religion, and cannot be "practiced." It is a single stance on a single issue. It is simply the absence of belief in gods. There are European countries which have a large majority of atheists.

According to Wikipedia, the five most secular (non-theist) European countries are Estonia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

It would appear not. ''Scepticfiles.org'' quotes W. T. Root, professor of psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, who examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character." He is quoted as saying that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from penitentiariers or nearly so.

In 1997, Rod Swift found that .209% of federal prisoners are atheists (See related link: Rod Swift study).

In 2010, Tim Covell updated that information, and discovered only .08% of the U.S. federal prison population is atheist (See related link: Tim Covell study).

It is claimed that over a period of 10 years , those executed in Sing-Sing Prison for murder were 65% Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

If they ask a question here, as you just did, you are not being lazy. You simply want knowledge from the cyber-community known as WikiAnswers. Doing their own research is an extremely hard task, and isn't possibly feasible for most people.

He's never mentioned his beliefs before.

The largest difference is obviously that secular humanism is a philosophy, while Christianity is a dogmatic religion.

Secular humanism focuses upon humans for cultivating morality; Christianity teaches that God is responsible for man's morality and free will.

Secular humanism wishes to transcend boundaries of dogma and parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

Furthermore, secular humanist ethics/morals are subject to criticism and rational guidance, unlike dogmatic, unquestionable, god-inspired tenets of Christianity.