Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?

TKDB

@Grafix

From what I've read, individual Atheists do their own defining.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne -You asked me to explain the contradiction in this post below ...

@ZeusAres42

@Plaffelvohfen

@Dee


Look at the bold type (my highlights in your original post).  They define a doctrine as "a belief or set of beliefs held by a group".  The definition states one of the three social structures which utilize doctrines is "a  group".  Right?  Atheists, by definition, belong to "a group", which is neither a Church nor a political party.  You then stated that atheism has no beliefs, by default, declaring this to be so via a lack of belief in gods.  That's merely expressing the negative of the positive statement, i.e., that atheists believe there are no gods.  That's a belief in and of itself and is also the necessary doctrine.which defines and identifies an atheist.

You've misunderstood. A 'lack of belief' is not belief - by definition. You are attempting to reduce the choices to 2: belief for/belief against. However, there is a third option: no belief or a "lack of belief". 

Grafix

@TKDB and @MayCaesar and @Dee and @ZeusAres42 and @Plaffelvohfen and @SkepticalOne

TDKB, I used the definition that @SkepticalOne himself used and then turned it around to demonstrate that it did not actually support his own claim that a lack of belief in Gods was not a positive position.  The positive position is believing there are no gods, which ultimately is a belief and therefore is a doctrine.

I do however, see where MayCaesar is coming from when she discusses a "default" position at birth.  It could be argued that until a Christian is baptized they are an atheist by default, having as she states, know "knowledge" of any deity.  Otherwise, I generally support your arguments.  I fully appreciate that you are coming from the acceptance that our bodies are the temple of God's Holy Spirit immediately at birth, therefore we can't possibly be "born" atheists.  To understand May's statement it's necessary to see atheism as they do, merely as an opinion devoid of all spiritualism, inapplicable to any state of being. I actually consider May's explanation to be a very honest and accurate depiction, but nevertheless it does overlook a major problem that afflicts most atheists.  If we analyse the following statement in its candid honesty, it is very revealing ...

Any positive position requires some knowledge, while default position does not, by definition. Furthermore, any positive position requires evidential support, while default position does not. If you manage to support a positive position with enough evidence, then the default position will need to be discarded - but until you have done so, it should not be.

She states that being born with no knowledge is by definition being naturally born an atheist, due to that very factor - born in the absence of knowledge of any deity.  You can't really argue with the logic of that and I accept it as good logic.  Then she states that a default position does not require evidential support and does not even require any knowledge.  (Obviously, that has to be restricted to specifically mean atheism, for it is not true of many default positions in other contexts.) 

It is that statement which is so revealing and elucidates why it is so frustrating discussing religion with atheists.  As May acknowledges, they have no need for any knowledge about deities in order to hold the position they take.  That too is logical, but it is precisely what presents a major issue for all atheists, an abject ignorance of the topic of Christianity which requires a deep knowledge of its deity to even begin to discuss it with any authority, yet invariably atheists set themselves up as experts on it, arrogantly presuming they are qualified to debate Christianity, when in fact they are the least qualified to do so, due to the very fact which May herself states - no requirement for any knowledge of deities to defend their opinion. It is an oxymoron, because it is really saying, they reserve the right to hold their opinion in ignorance, which is EXACTLY what they do.
.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

You've misunderstood. A 'lack of belief' is not belief - by definition. You are attempting to reduce the choices to 2: belief for/belief against. However, there is a third option: no belief or a "lack of belief". 

I think it is you who is using reductionist semantics and not me.  Atheism is the adherence to an opinion.  Holding an opinion requires a belief in your own opinion.  You believe that there is no God or gods.  That is inherently a belief which can be stated positively.  It is the belief that Gods are mythical or are delusions because you believe they do not exist. 

Playing with semantics does not prove or disprove anything, it is merely a manifestation of sentence construction, re-organising grammatical parts of speech to express exactly the same thing.  If you can express something using positive parts of speech, than it is a positive.  If you can't, then it is a negative.  All atheists I speak with employ the same obfuscation, because they obviously read the same material to defend their argument.  It is misleading and can be shown to be so, merely by using the correct definition of that which defines a negative and a positive, as follows:

"There is no other way to do it than make it not square, but round."  This statement although it uses negative parts of speech, is still a positive statement because it has a positive meaning, namely, "There is only one way to do it and that is to make it round."

Conversely, a negative statement is, "I don't like bread", or "I don't love any God, because I can't love a God when I don't believe in any Gods."  There is no way to re-organize the grammatical parts of speech in either of these sentences to create a positive, because they are genuine negative statements. 

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

****I think it is you who is using reductionist semantics and not me.  Atheism is the adherence to an opinion.  Holding an opinion requires a belief in your own opinion.  You believe that there is no God or gods.  ***

I don't believe there are no gods.  I don't believe there are gods. I'm not convinced gods do, or do not, exist because I have not seen sufficient evidence to come to either general conclusion.

Let's say we visit the art museum and I want to show you a painting that "lacks the color black". Would you assume it is white, or would you accept it might use all (or no) colors except black? In this analogy color is belief in gods. My 'god canvas' is mostly blank. Do I reject some claims of gods? Sure, and these might be represented as the boldly colored brushstrokes of a tiny brush on the fringes of the canvas. Nonetheless, my canvas is mostly blank in acknowledement of the infinite possibilities for gods and god claims.

Lack of belief cannot be legitimately rearranged to mean "belief". That would violate the law of non-contradiction. A rock cannot be a rock and a 'not-rock' at the same time, and this equally applies to belief and not-belief.

I hope this has clarified things for you.

AlofRI

Mine does.

Dee

@Grafix

******   That's merely expressing the negative of the positive statement, i.e., that atheists believethere are no gods.  

I state simply that I cannot say for certain there are no gods so therefore the burden of proof is on those making the claim that there are gods to prove their claim , no one has come close to doing so , if you or others did I would like you be a believer.

****That's a belief in and of itself and is also the necessary doctrine.which defines and identifies an atheist.

Using your flawed rationale that means your non belief in unicorns , leprechauns and the Yeti are all beliefs as that’s exactly what you’re stating , right? 

Dee

@TKDB

34

Dee

@TKDB

61

John_C_87

TKDB said:

I understand how some may view Religion in general, but aren't our individual values, an inner reflection of our inner stances?

Being Non Religious is voluntary.

Just as being Religious is voluntary.
Hence the question, do some and their non Religious stances align with U.S. Values?  

First, this is really not funny Plaffelvhfen though laughing at grievance is not a clear and easy crime to prove. Also as a person who is experienced at saying funny things without an intention to say funny things, a good laugh is a good laugh where ever it comes from and there is a freedom of laughter as it is an issue of the freedom of speech. "Being" of the None-Religious is hard work, and is not voluntary, however being non-religious can be made to look easier by simply passing laws to the respect of religion. When TKDB addresses GOD as not a simple axiom of numbers just like those used in algebra there would have been a removal of a cost set public on GOD.

What we know is a religious God is not the same GOD modeled by the use of mathematics. This is your first obstacle TKDB as it is meant for a person who does not know God, who cannot translate GOD to an object of sharing in a state that is free, without cost, without charge. An atheist is only some-one here who does not understand your evidence. 

TKDB

@Dee

@ZeusAres42

@Plaffelvohfen

@SkepticalOne

Separation of Church and State is an example of utilized Atheist Segregation, IE segregating prayer from schools.

Therefore Atheist Segregation is a form of Atheist values. 

Dee

@TKDB

18

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Separation of Church and State is an example of utilized Atheist Segregation, IE segregating prayer from schools.

Therefore Atheist Segregation is a form of Atheist values. 

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote:

I don't believe there are no gods.  I don't believe there are gods. I'm not convinced gods do, or do not, exist because I have not seen sufficient evidence to come to either general conclusion.

OK.  I do "get" this now that you have added the additional qualifier and can reduce it to "I'm not convinced gods do or do not exist because of an absence of evidence either way".    However, the very first statement you made in an earlier post simply said ...

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
Atheism doesn't have any beliefs, at least, not by default. The only thing necessary for one to be an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. Atheism has no doctrines.

Merely stating "a lack of belief in Gods" as a stand alone statement is not sufficient to define your position, given what you have now since added by way of qualification.  Your first stand-alone statement omits the other half of your definition, namely that you also "don't believe there are no gods".  The addition of that qualifier changes things immediately and shifts your position from a positive one to a neutral one, i.e. from the positive belief that there are no gods. 

The two together paint a very different position, indeed.  Similarly, if you had simply said, "I don't believe there are no gods" then that is also identified as a positive position because it uses the double negative, i.e., that you do believe there are gods, however by putting the two statements together that immediately changes your position from a positive one.  It does not, however, move it to a negative one, though.  It moves it to a neutral position, that you don't believe either way.  I'll repeat that.  It is not a negative position.  It is not a positive position.  It is a neutral position.  That is the definition of the position of an agnostic and defined as such, so perhaps you are not an atheist after all.

To understand the critical importance of accurate definition, your original statement, quoted below, demonstrates how poor definition only adds to misunderstandings and confusion, because what you were really trying to impart, (according to your later statement), but failed to, is "an absence of any belief at all either way".  This original statement, made by you, does not do that ...

Grafix 
February 23 
@SkepticalOne: - You wrote ....

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
Atheism doesn't have any beliefs, at least, not by default. The only thing necessary for one to be an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. Atheism has no doctrines.

Grafix

@Dee - It's all very easy to be a smart jackass after the event, but it's not clever, simply disingenuous and your untimely crowing has not gone un-noted. 

Until @SkepticalOne explained his position accurately, he had not previously put on the table the other half of the definition of his position, namely that he also defines himself as having no belief that there are no gods.  The positive of that if stated as a stand-alone statement, because it is a double negative, means that he believes there are gods.  Therefore to qualify his position accurately, it is necessary for BOTH statements to be used as qualifiers to accurately define his position, which then shifts his position to a neutral one.  That changes everything and to which I have subsequently responded.

You may recall, until his most recent post, he explained his position as per the quote below, which might have been better expressed as "an absence of any belief at all, either way", as opposed to simply "a lack of belief in gods" .  He originally defined his position as follows ...

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
Atheism doesn't have any beliefs, at least, not by default. The only thing necessary for one to be an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. Atheism has no doctrines.

piloteer

Hey Y'all. I just got here. Can somebody fill me in on what an "atheist stance" is so I can join in your reindeer game? 

TKDB

@piloteer

https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheistic_values

"Atheistic values"

"Atheistic values are the values displayed by atheists."

"They are a stark contrast to Christian Values, and include:

• desperate clinging to the unfounded belief in the non-existence of God and the total rejection of morality
• typically a preference for socialism or communism
• opposition to any mention of the Lord in public school
• support for the theory of evolution
• support for abortion
• denial of the value of the Bible
• secularization of society (e.g. language, holidays, government)
• hostility toward organized religion and religious people
• moral relativism " 

@piloteer

The Atheist stance, platform, position, what any Atheist argument, or debate consists of.

Separation of Church and State is an example of utilized Atheist Segregation, IE segregating prayer from schools.

Therefore Atheist Segregation is a form of Atheist values.  

@piloteer

And where did YOU read "reindeer games" as part of the theme of this specific forum?

"Hey Y'all. I just got here. Can somebody fill me in on what an "atheist stance" is so I can join in your reindeer game?"

ZeusAres42

@piloteer @Grafix According to the American Oxford Dictionary an Atheist is someone that believes there are not Gods. However, according to the British Oxford Dictionary, an Atheist is someone that either disbelieves or lacks a belief in God or gods.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

@piloteer

From Wikipedia.com

"In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Wikipedia › wiki › Outline_of_athei...

Outline of atheism - Wikipedia "

What's going now?

Do individual Atheists, self subscribe to an individually thought up position on the subject of Atheism in general, when it comes to they and their counter debating talking points? 

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

@piloteer

From Wikipedia.com

"In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Wikipedia › wiki › Outline_of_athei...

Outline of atheism - Wikipedia "

What's going now?

Do individual Atheists, self subscribe to an individually thought up position on the subject of Atheism in general, when it comes to they and their counter debating talking points? 

@TKDB really? You're going to use Wikipedia over Oxford?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

You're not maybe using the internet to wage an artificial conflict against Religion, through your individual non Religious rhetoric talking points are you?

Because, that seems to be what you're engaging in right? 

"@TKDB really? You're going to use Wikipedia over Oxford?"

TKDB

@Dee

@ZeusAres42

@Plaffelvohfen

@SkepticalOne

Separation of Church and State is an example of utilized Atheist Segregation, IE segregating prayer from schools.

Therefore Atheist Segregation is a form of Atheist values.  

piloteer

@TKDB

Wooops. I guess I should have asked someone who actually knows what atheist stances are. That's alright though, I can work with what you gave me TKDB. At least you gave me something, and that's more than anybody else has so far. First let me highlight the ones that I do not adhere to so people don't confuse my atheistic stances with your painfully shallow and absurdly generic atheistic stances. 

1. I do not reject morality as a value. I believe that since my morality comes from love and respect for ALL human beings, my moral outlook is stronger than most peoples. I also believe that if you need to be told by a deity that you've never met, heard, or even seen, your morality is  disingenuous. I also believe that acts of charity are only truly righteous if you do them of your own accord, and not because a deity told you to, or the government did. In all fairness though, that doesn't mean all Christians give to charity simply because God told them to, and they can be charitable because of a love for humankind, but when an atheist is charitable, it can only ever be because of love and compassion for fellow humans. I find that to be more genuine than being charitable because you've been told to do it.     

2. I 100% reject the notion of communism or socialism, and I believe Christian doctrine more closely resembles communism than my views on communism. From a communist stand point, the idea of collectivism is paramount for economic and social development. That means they believe that we should all work, think, and live for the sake of everybody else in society, and we should consider our own wants and needs last. Even if our own happiness comes second to everyone else's needs. Our very existence should be for society and not ourselves. 

In my view, commusnism correlates more closely with Christian values than my stance on collectivism. Although Christian doctrine doesn't necessarily say that we must live for the sake of others, it does say that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. That's not very capitalist in my eyes. Christianity claims greed is a sin, and we shouldn't be self serving. It is my belief that communism is just the institutionalized form of Christian collectivism. 

I reject communism, and I accept greed as a guiding principle that is virtuous. I believe the main reason for my existence is for the happiness of myself. I love myself, and my love for others is based on how happy they make me. I live for the sake of myself before considering the wants and needs of others. I believe the virtue of greed is very much misrepresented and it's a misconception to correlate greed with thievery. Greed simply means to live for the sake of yourself, and consider your happiness to be the most important reason to life. I can also point out that when people are genuinely charitable, it is actually done out of greed. If giving to charity actually makes you feel better as a person, then the true reason you're giving to charity to help others is to make yourself feel good. Who does it make feel good? YOU. When a person is truly charitable, the reason they do it, and the end result of it is to make themself feel good about themself. Greed is a virtue.       

3. I staunchly believe that ALL children should be taught the values of Christians, and why Jesus is important. I also believe all children should be taught the basic values of all major religions, and LGBTQ history. I think the only way to make children as smart as we can is to teach them as much as we can. Nothing should be kept out of the public school curriculum. 

4. I can't disagree you on my feelings on evolution, but it should be pointed out that not all atheists believe in evolution. Some atheists reject scientific evidence as legitimate. It's not necessarily a given that all atheists believe in evolution.

5. I do support a womans right to choose, but it should also be noted that probably isn't 100% uniform from start to finish. I would imagine that at least some atheists don't think abortion should be legal. Or at least they believe there should be limits on abortion. 

6. I do not deny the influence the bible has had on history, society, and widely accepted morality. I don't invest any value in the bible myself, but it is the best selling book worldwide, so obviously it has a value to a lot of people, and I cannot deny its value to them.         

7. I'm not quite sure what you mean by secularism. It seems like you think atheists believe religious holidays should be outlawed?!?!? That's just asinine. I don't know of any atheists that want religious holidays to be outlawed. Secularism does not mean disallowing people to practice their religion freely. It just means the government shouldn't impose religious laws. I think it would suck if I didn't have Christmas off from work. I also think the day after Easter should be taken off also, but hey, that's just me. 

8. You aren't very clear about what you mean by hostility toward organized religion. If you consider an atheist persons rejection of religions moral, social, or political authority to mean hostility, then perhaps you should brush up on your definition of hostility. Not all atheists are hostile to religious people, just like not are religious people are hostile toward atheists. Obviously it depends on the person and whether they have a tendency to be hostile. It's worth pointing out that it would probably be offensive to you if I said all Christians are hostile toward atheists. Claiming that hostility toward religious people is an atheist stance is-in and of itself a hostile claim. 

9. Not all atheists believe in moral relativism, and not all religious people reject it. Many atheists base their moral beliefs on traditional standards, and reject the notion of moral relativism. Some atheists accept Christian morality as the basis for their moral codes, they just don't believe in God, or any of the stories in the bible, but they believe all people should adhere to those morals.

Martin Heidegger is the philosopher who is cited as the creator of modern relativism in contemporary thought. He was closely associated with the Catholic church and also believed in a form of "free" Protestantism (whatever the hell that is). So the modern idea of moral relativism was rationalized by a Christian.

 Moral relativism just means that not everybody is in 100% agreement on what is and what isn't moral. Different cultures have different views on morality, that's undeniable. So it's pretty difficult to dispute that morality is subjective. Your idea of objective morality just means that you think somebody is immoral if they don't agree with your moral code 100%, but that is only a belief, and it's not provable. The fact that peoples idea of objective morality is not something that can be proven is further evidence of the subjective nature of morality.

 Many people on this site who identify as Christian actually don't think it is immoral to be gay. Many others here who are Christian would consider them immoral and unChristian. Many of the Christians on this site think abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, or if the woman or child are in danger if the pregnancy proceeded. Other Christians on here believe that is immoral and they are unChristian. That is a demonstration of the subjective nature of morality. When Christians cannot agree on what is objectively moral, it's pretty obvious that morality is relative.         

The little blurb you had at the bottom of your post doesn't make any sense, and I have no idea what you mean by "atheist segregation", and I get the feeling that nobody on here does either so I'm just gonna leave that one alone.

Ok. So we've reached the part about whether your shallow and generic list of "atheist stances" fit in with American values. Below I will list all your atheist stances that are not illegal to have in America...............................uuuuuuuummmmmmm, I'm just gonna save us some time and tell you that they are all not illegal stances to have in America. Lets check again just to be sure.

desperate clinging to the unfounded belief in the non-existence of God and the total rejection of moralitytypically a preference for socialism or communismopposition to any mention of the Lord in public schoolsupport for the theory of evolutionsupport for abortiondenial of the value of the Biblesecularization of society (e.g. language, holidays, government)hostility toward organized religion and religious peoplemoral relativism "                  
Yup. Not a single one of those are illegal to have as moral or political or social stances. Now lets compare those to my more genuine atheist stances.

• A staunch belief that my atheistic morals are superior to religious morals because of their genuineness. 
• A staunch rejection of communism or anything related to collectivism.
• A staunch belief in the virtues of teaching all things that influence our society, including religion.
• Support for theory of evolution.
• Support for abortion.
•  A belief that the bible is arguably the most influential book of all time, so its value cannot be denied.
• A belief that a truly secular society allows for freedom of religion.
• An understanding of the fact that not all religious people are hostile toward atheists and vice versa.
• An acceptance of moral relativism.

And again here we see that none of these things are illegal stances to have in America. 

Now, since none of the things are illegal on either of those lists, its plain to see that they are allowed in American culture and society. I'm sure it will be generally accepted that the reason these things are allowed in American society is because of American peoples acceptance of liberty. That means the liberty to have alternative views on issues. So long as we abide by the law, none of these values, or religious values are destructive to the civility of American society. 

Since neither the shallow and overtly generic atheistic stances, and the genuine atheistic stances are illegal stances to have in America, it can be argued that many people in America adhere to these stances, and since those American people do adhere to them, it can be argued that they are an influential force in American culture, society, and politics. Many of the atheistic   values are espoused in popular culture and by influencers on social media. Because of that fact, it is plain to see that the generic list, and the genuine list of atheist stances are also American values themself. Since all of those stances, and all other stances that are accepted by the various atheistic portions of society, it is easy to see that atheist stances do indeed align with American values. Thank you for your time, and have a pleasant rest of your day.

 Peace my G's.                              

piloteer

@MayCaesar

Thank you for your support MayC. You ARE one of my G's (G stands for gangsta).  

MayCaesar

@piloteer

Grant Cardone has an even more radical position on this: "Being poor is selfish". The reason is, if you are poor, then you cannot give a lot of things away, and if you want to be charitable, then you have to earn a lot of money first. Greed is the primary driver for earning money, hence, however counter-intuitive it might look to some, greed is the most effective charity tool.

I think some people confuse greed with the desire to be above others. Many see greed as the desire to take, to get up at the expense of others. While that certainly can be a part of it, greed in itself does not have anything to do with it. It all depends on what other character traits greed coincides with.

I am very greedy; I want to have billions - yet, if you look at how I actually live, you will think that I am an extreme ascetic. I practice extreme minimalism, I do not buy anything I do not need that does not make me feel great, and I can easily, say, be happy with only spending $1,000 a month while living in the US.
Being greedy does not necessarily mean wanting to live a luxury lifestyle in an ivory tower. Being greedy might mean just having freedom to buy experiences you want, and money is a prerequisite to it.

Sure, your date can go well no matter how much money you have, but what is cooler: to take your date to a local Starbucks, or to swimming with sharks in Costa-Rica? I do not know about others, but I want to experience a lot of different things in life, and without a lot of money your ability to do so is quite limited, as well as that of people around you.

I firmly believe that the reason greed is vilified in Christianity, Islam, socialism, communism and other totalitarian ideologies is because rich people are harder to control. By declaring greed and, hence, rich people evil, totalitarian leaders get a strong ideological tool to use to take down the opposition: make people themselves go after the rich, and no rich will be left in the society, hence leaving all the power to the totalitarians.
There is nothing more dangerous for a totalitarian leader than a guy with the resources to wage war against tyranny. Vilifying the fundamental human strive that makes collection of those resources possible assures the dominance of the ruling class.

Imagine if it was the opposite: the ruling class said, "Guys, get as much money as you can; greed is good". When you have a society of rich self-sufficient people, then the ruling class becomes irrelevant and cannot survive for long. 
Vilification of greed is necessary for tyranny to arise, hence why we see it in virtually all mainstream ideologies.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

I couldn't agree with you more. Greed is a virtue!!!!

RickeyD

Atheism is the antithesis of American values, mores, norms, ethics, essential to a sustainable Constitutional Republic. Atheism is moral relativism, a demonic ideology that destroys mind, body, soul, nations. Atheism is a metastasizing boil on the backside of any society that seeks to live in honor, dignity, morality, respect to God and His Covenants. Atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, have no place in public office, law enforcement, positions of leadership within America's Government, schools, Universities...any occupation mandating a degree of moral and ethical turpitude; atheism-Darwinism-abortion-sexual perversion i.e. homosexuality/lesbianism (LGBTQ) are causation, symptomatic, of a sick and dying society.

 

RickeyD

Atheism is the antithesis of American values, mores, norms, ethics, essential to a sustainable Constitutional Republic. Atheism is moral relativism, a demonic ideology that destroys mind, body, soul, nations. Atheism is a metastasizing boil on the backside of any society that seeks to live in honor, dignity, morality, respect to God and His Covenants. Atheists, LGBTQ, have no place in public office, law enforcement, positions of leadership within America's Government, schools, Universities...any occupation mandating a degree of moral and ethical turpitude; atheism-Darwinism-abortion-sexual perversion i.e. homosexuality/lesbianism (LGBTQ) are causation, symptomatic, of a sick and lost society.

 

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

Three points:
1) point of clarification - I said nothing about a "absence of evidence". I referenced insufficient evidence. This is an important distinction to me, and most likely, many theists.
2) Your standard of justification is not required before we accept someone else identity. I'd it were, then we should be doubting your theism as you haven't provided justification. This is of course ridiculous. 
3) I have little interest in how you as someone who is not an atheist feels atheism should be defined. That's fairly presumptuous and arrogant. No one needs to ask your permission for what label they use and how it should be defined. You should be working with what they state their position is rather than trying to argue about labels.

Your (and the OP's) inability to square my views as an atheist with the claims of the op has everything to do with your misconceptions of atheism and atheists, and nothing to do with me misunderstanding what atheism is. 

If you are done with your word games, we can continue. If not, then you're just not ready to have an honest conversation about atheism and I have no more time for you.

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@Dee

@ZeusAres42

@Plaffelvohfen

@SkepticalOne

Separation of Church and State is an example of utilized Atheist Segregation, IE segregating prayer from schools.

Therefore Atheist Segregation is a form of Atheist values.  

I am not against prayer in schools. I am against teacher led/teacher encouraged prayers. Kids can (and do) pray all they like and so long as it is not mandatory or coerced by the school I'm cool with it. So...no, disallowing prayer in schools is not an "atheist value". Try again.

MayCaesar

@RickeyD

What does it feel like, Rickey, to resent billions of people based on minor aspects of their lives? I am curious, because I have not resented anyone in over a decade, and resenting such numbers of people is a bit outside the scope of my imagination.

I thought your religion teaches love, compassion and acceptance. It says a lot that most atheists are more accepting of those not like them than you, religious fossils.

Dee

@Grafix

****  It's all very easy to be a smart jackass after the event

After what “event”? How is it “smart Jackass “ asking you to explain your flawed position?

****, but it's not clever,

Really ? Yet questions though have left you with no valid answers , you’ve failed to address that

*****simply disingenuous and your untimely crowing has not gone un-noted.  

Indeed , so I take it you’ve still no answers to how you defend your flawed position, you may get assistance if you wish 


Here is what I said again and what you cannot address because you’ve been trapped in your own trap of irrationality ....

I state simply that I cannot say for certain there are no gods so therefore the burden of proof is on those making the claim that there are gods to prove their claim , no one has come close to doing so , if you or others did I would like you be a believer.

Using your flawed rationale that means your non belief in unicorns , leprechauns and the Yeti are all beliefs as that’s exactly what you’re stating , right? 

Any defence instead of your usual personal attacks that fail to address what you avoid?

Dee

@TKDB

2.1

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Is that prayer causing you any harm?

How can prayer physically assault you?

Because if simple prayer can't harm you, or physically assault you, then where is the danger in prayer?

Because I've witnessed thousands of prayers, and not one time, has a peaceful prayer by adults, or kids, ever harmed or assaulted anyone.

And if a group of Atheists were so concerned over prayer in school, why isn't there a such thing as an Atheist Public School system? 

So instead of creating an Atheist School system, the Atheist go about segregating prayer from schools, to suit their Atheist narratives?

"I am not against prayer in schools.
I am against teacher led/teacher encouraged prayers. Kids can (and do) pray all they like and so long as it is not mandatory or coerced by the school I'm cool with it.

So...no, disallowing prayer in schools is not an "atheist value". Try again."

Sure it's an Atheist value, and it's Atheist Segregation.

TKDB

@piloteer

You're an Atheist Teacher, who's teaching me plenty.

And thank you for your efforts, because each one of you has a unique way to explain, and express your unique Atheist narratives.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Separation of Church and State is an example of utilized Atheist Segregation, IE segregating prayer from schools.

Therefore Atheist Segregation is a form of Atheist values.   

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Word "segregation" implies isolation of one group of people from another. Separation of church and state does not isolate anyone from anyone, it simply sets the rules for how the state can interact with the church. Atheists and religious people are not segregated in any way here, and, in fact, a deeply religious person can support separation of church and state - as the Founding Fathers did.

The sentence "segregating prayer from schools" does not make much sense, nor is it a necessary consequences of separation of church and state, really - as long as we are not talking about public schools.

piloteer

TKDB said:

@piloteer

You're an Atheist Teacher, who's teaching me plenty.

And thank you for your efforts, because each one of you has a unique way to explain, and express your unique Atheist narratives.

You are most welcome TKDB. This is an interesting topic. 

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Absolutely we are talking about Public Schools.

Is that prayer causing you any harm?

How can prayer physically assault you?

Because if simple prayer can't harm you, or physically assault you, then where is the danger in prayer?

And because I've witnessed thousands of prayers, and not one time, has a peaceful prayer by adults, or kids, ever harmed or assaulted anyone.

And if a group of Atheists were so concerned over prayer in school, why isn't there a such thing as an Atheist Public School system? 

So instead of creating an Atheist School system, the Atheists, go about segregating prayer from schools, to suit their Atheist narratives, couldn't they?

"Word "segregation" implies isolation of one group of people from another.
Separation of church and state does not isolate anyone from anyone, it simply sets the rules for how the state can interact with the church. Atheists and religious people are not segregated in any way here, and, in fact, a deeply religious person can support separation of church and state - as the Founding Fathers did."

"The sentence "segregating prayer from schools" does not make much sense," nor is it a necessary consequences of separation of church and state, really - as long as we are not talking about public schools."

Sure, it makes sense, it's a byproduct of those Atheist values. 

The Atheists made the segregation of prayer from the Public schools a reality.

TKDB

@piloteer

"You are most welcome TKDB. This is an interesting topic."

And I'm wondering if I should take this debate argument, before the SCOTUS?

"Separation of Church and State is an example of utilized Atheist Segregation, IE segregating prayer from schools.

Therefore Atheist Segregation is a form of Atheist values."

MayCaesar

@TKDB

I do not see any harm in prayer, but nor do I see any reason for it to be present at schools. There is no harm in dressing up as rainbow unicorns and dancing and singing at the beginning of each school day, yet nobody talks about making it into a part of the curriculum.

Has nothing to do with atheism; it is just basic common sense. Children go to school to study, not to pray; for prayer there are churches available.

Once again, "segregation of prayer from school" makes no sense. "Separation of prayer from school" does.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

I'm being REAL with you, and you rely on this Atheist filtering of my words, to suit your Atheist narrative?


"I do not see any harm in prayer, but nor do I see any reason for it to be present at schools."

("There is no harm in dressing up as rainbow unicorns and dancing and singing at the beginning of each school day, yet nobody talks about making it into a part of the curriculum." )

Another example of Atheist Segregation.

"Has nothing to do with atheism; it is just basic common sense. Children go to school to study, not to pray; for prayer there are churches available."

It doesn't make sense to you, because the Atheist core of your common sense, refuses to see it that way.

"Once again, "segregation of prayer from school" makes no sense. "Separation of prayer from school" does."

It makes plenty of sense, because the Atheist Segregation narrative, has made it a reality.

And how about addressing this major issue?:

And if a group of Atheists were so concerned over prayer in school, why isn't there a such thing as an Atheist Public School system? 

So instead of creating an Atheist School system, the Atheists, go about segregating prayer from schools, to suit their Atheist narratives, couldn't they?

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

Is that prayer causing you any harm?

How can prayer physically assault you?

Because if simple prayer can't harm you, or physically assault you, then where is the danger in prayer?

Because I've witnessed thousands of prayers, and not one time, has a peaceful prayer by adults, or kids, ever harmed or assaulted anyone.

And if a group of Atheists were so concerned over prayer in school, why isn't there a such thing as an Atheist Public School system? 

So instead of creating an Atheist School system, the Atheist go about segregating prayer from schools, to suit their Atheist narratives?

"I am not against prayer in schools.
I am against teacher led/teacher encouraged prayers. Kids can (and do) pray all they like and so long as it is not mandatory or coerced by the school I'm cool with it.

So...no, disallowing prayer in schools is not an "atheist value". Try again."

Sure it's an Atheist value, and it's Atheist Segregation.

Are you opposed to mandatory Muslim prayer in public schools?

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Do you have ANY legitimate News Media outlet video proof, to support your statement?

"Are you opposed to mandatory Muslim prayer in public schools?"

Are there Muslim public schools in the United States?

(As a matter of public information, there are:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_schools_in_the_United_States

"Category: Islamic schools in the United States" )

And if so, I would imagine, that it's voluntary to be a Muslim, or not, right?

Just like I'm a Religious individual, and it's based on a voluntary basis.

I'm pro Freedom of Religion:
Islam, Catholicism, Christianity, and Hebrew, and the rest of the Religions.

@SkepticalOne

And how about addressing this major issue?:

And if a group of Atheists were so concerned over prayer in school, why isn't there a such thing as an Atheist Public School system? 

So instead of creating an Atheist School system, the Atheists, go about segregating prayer from schools, to suit their Atheist narratives, couldn't they?

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

You're not maybe using the internet to wage an artificial conflict against Religion, through your individual non Religious rhetoric talking points are you?

Because, that seems to be what you're engaging in right? 

"@TKDB really? You're going to use Wikipedia over Oxford?"

Really? You're going to ask me if I am waging a war just because I asked you about using Wikipedia with Oxford?

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Being opposed to prayer at school has nothing to do with being atheist, once again. Not every religion features prayer, and not every follower of a religion that features prayer wants it to be done at public schools. I am not advocating for some sort of "atheist education", whatever that might be. I simply see no reason for prayer to be at school, is all - but if it is there, it is not a big deal. 

The fact that I happen to be an atheist does not affect my position in any way; I simply do not think that schools should have aspects of churches. Churches are churches, and schools are schools; no need to mix the two.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Here's what I SAID:

(You're not maybe using the internet to wage an artificial conflict against Religion, through your individual non Religious rhetoric talking points are you?)

Here's what YOU SAID:

"Really? You're going to ask me if I am waging a war just because I asked you about using Wikipedia with Oxford?"

Did I use the word "war," in my statement?

Here's the rest of what I said:

Because, that seems to be what you're engaging in right? 

A (conflict,) not a war.

@ZeusAres42

Please, explain yourself?

TKDB

@MayCaesar

And you're wrong, because a prayer said in any Public school, can't hurt anyone can it?

And I will continue to view the ban of prayer in any Public school, as a form of Atheist Segregation.

"Being opposed to prayer at school has nothing to do with being atheist, once again. Not every religion features prayer, and not every follower of a religion that features prayer wants it to be done at public schools. I am not advocating for some sort of "atheist education", whatever that might be. I simply see no reason for prayer to be at school, is all - but if it is there, it is not a big deal. 

The fact that I happen to be an atheist does not affect my position in any way; I simply do not think that schools should have aspects of churches. Churches are churches, and schools are schools; no need to mix the two."

And I'm noticing how not one self described Atheist, is addressing this question:

And how about addressing this major issue?:

And if a group of Atheists were so concerned over prayer in school, why isn't there a such thing as an Atheist Public School system? 

So instead of creating an Atheist School system, the Atheists, go about segregating prayer from schools, to suit their Atheist narratives, couldn't they? 

RickeyD

@MayCaesar ; There is no compromise with evil/atheism if one loves and adores Jesus Christ. You represent evil in our World, you are Satan's emissary in Time whether or not you believe this is wholly irrelevant. I hate atheism with a passion and if I were in a position of authority, the avowed atheist would never hold a position of authority in government...NEVER! Atheism is the face of evil in any society and the astute and the wise know this and should defend against the relativistic morality of those who seek death to mind, body, soul and the destruction of our posterity.

The Holy Spirit via the Psalmist perfectly articulates/expresses my sentiment concerning the atheist...

How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand;
When I awake, I am still with You.

19 Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!
Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men.
20 For they speak against You wickedly;
Your enemies take Your name in vain.
21 Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.  Psalm 139:17-24 (NKJV)

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

Are you opposed to mandatory or teacher led Muslim prayer in public schools? Whether it is actually happening or not is irrelevant. After all, you've suggested 'prayer doesn't harm anyone'. I'm just curious if you accept that for all prayer.

There is no need for "atheist schools' if public schools are not advocating religious ideology. Advancing religious ideology is not something public funds should be paying for.