Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?

RickeyD

@SkepticalOne ; Islam is demonic, Allah is Satan and there is no difference between the ideology of Islam and the atheist...both culminate in death of the mind, body, soul, in Hell. Atheists have no business in American government...they are the face of evil in our society.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

No, your stance is wrong:

And yes there is a NEED for an Atheist School system.

Because if any Atheist is going to chase prayer out of any Public school, then that's Religious discrimination.

As well as an example of what Atheist Segregation looks like.

"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."

And who are you, to tell any non Atheist Public School system, how to utilize their Public Funds?

"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."

@SkepticalOne

I'm pro ALL Religions.

Has any Muslim prayer, that you've maybe heard, ever caused you any individual harm?

I'm going to again, reiterating this specific 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

"I'm pro ALL Religions."

I'm am skeptical of that claim. Would you be accepting of teacher led Satanist prayers? 

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

Also, a school system free of religious indoctrination is a school system which allows for religious freedom. A secular school system which privileges no religion (including atheism if you consider it a religion) is the best possible scenario for a pluralistic society.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

What's wrong with this idea?

Maybe it's not Atheist enough for you?

(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

What's wrong with this idea?

Maybe it's not Atheist enough for you?

(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? )

Repetition doesn't make a bogus talking point valid. I have questions waiting for you above...

John_C_87

SkepticalOne said:

@TKDB

Also, a school system free of religious indoctrination is a school system which allows for religious freedom. A secular school system which privileges no religion (including atheism if you consider it a religion) is the best possible scenario for a pluralistic society.

No its not.

SkepticalOne

RickeyD said:

@SkepticalOne ; Islam is demonic [...]

In that case, I take it you are opposed to teacher led Islamic prayers in schools. Are you opposed to teacher led Christian prayers as well?

SkepticalOne

John_C_87 said:

SkepticalOne said:

@TKDB

Also, a school system free of religious indoctrination is a school system which allows for religious freedom. A secular school system which privileges no religion (including atheism if you consider it a religion) is the best possible scenario for a pluralistic society.

No its not.

Really? You think religiously neutral schooling is unfair? I'd love to see your reasoning...

SkepticalOne

I think it is hysterically amusing that, in the same thread, I have one believer telling me I am not an atheist (@grafix) while another is telling me I'm too much of an atheist (@TKDB).

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

What's hysterical is that some Atheists, chased prayer out of the non Atheist Public School system?

Why not be an Atheist pioneer, and create your own branch of an Atheist Public School system, in the United States, and stop treating the non Atheist Public School like a subordinate because it's not Atheist enough to your liking @SkepticalOne?

Thus ending the Atheist epidemic of Religious Discrimination that has been going on for years now?

And ending the Atheist practice, of the Atheist Segregation of the Public schools, that aren't Atheist enough, for the millions of Atheist citizens in the United States?

Why should any Public School, in the US have to keep, putting up with the Atheists and their Atheist Segregation practices.

You're wrong @SkepticalOne.

"Repetition doesn't make a bogus talking point valid. I have questions waiting for you above..."

The Atheist perception is responsible for the all pro Religion stance that I have come to having a stance on.

And not one Muslim, Hebrew, Catholic, or Christian individual, has ever gone after the Public perception, like the Atheist mindset has done now for years, that I have witnessed with my own eyes.

And your debate style @SkepticalOne is apparently how your mindset works? Yes, or no?

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

A fair and equal debate point, in regards to Atheist students, and Religious students.

https://www-publicschoolreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.publicschoolreview.com/amp/blog/are-atheist-clubs-the-wave-of-the-future-in-public-school?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA=#aoh=15825754236685&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.publicschoolreview.com/amp/blog/are-atheist-clubs-the-wave-of-the-future-in-public-school#aoh=15825754236685&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s 

"Are Atheist Clubs the Wave of the Future in Public School?"

"We examine the rise in atheist club in public schools across the country – and how the push for Christian clubs may have inadvertently spurred this growth."

"High school students have many options in extracurricular activities today, allowing them to explore a wide range of interests. For students who want to move beyond the basic theatre productions, school newspaper, and high school athletics, there is another choice available at a growing number of schools today – atheist clubs. These organizations of self-proclaimed free-thinking students have been cropping up at high schools from coast to coast, thanks in part to the rising number of religious clubs that have also been making their way into classrooms today.

The Rise of Atheist Clubs

According to the Huffington Post, the increase in atheist clubs is being fueled in part by an organization known as the Secular Student Alliance. This group is responsible for placing more than 300 college-based clubs into schools nationwide for free-thinking students, and it is now moving into the high school realm."

"The director of the high school program for Secular Student Alliance, JT Eberhard, told the Huffington Post that he would like to see the rise in both atheist and other religious clubs inspire a dialogue between all students. In addition, Eberhard said, “I also hope it will let the atheist students know that you can be an atheist and it’s okay.”

At the start of the 2011-2012 school year, there were approximately one dozen clubs established at high schools across the country. This summer, that number has risen to 39 groups in 17 states, and 73 schools have requested information from the Secular Student Alliance about how to start an atheist club at their location.

The Washington Post reports that many of these clubs are found in states that have a number of residents claiming no religious affiliation, including Washington, New York, and California. However, a significant number are also coming into “Bible belt” states like Alabama, Texas, North Carolina and Louisiana. In some cases, students are able to establish their clubs with little resistance from school administrators, although others have had to fight harder to get the school staff to accept and allow their groups to meet."

"Legal Ramifications of Atheist Clubs

Despite the fact that some school administrators are uncomfortable with the idea of an atheist club, students who want to form the groups are protected by the Equal Access Act of 1984. U.S. Legal describes the Equal Access Act as legislation that compels public schools to provide equal access to extracurricular clubs. The act was originally designed to allow for the establishment of Christian clubs within public schools but has also been used to support clubs of different religions, as well as Gay-Straight Alliances.

Rev. Barry Lynn, one of the co-authors of the Equal Access Act, told USA Today that the legislation provides “a free speech benefit” to believers and atheists alike. Now, with the help of the Secular Student Alliance, atheist students around the country are taking full advantage of the law, by organizing their own groups of student skeptics, free thinkers and those that simply want to explore both sides of the religion issue. "

"In order to start an extracurricular club at a school, according to the Equal Access Act, students must be able to demonstrate student interest in the club and attract a faculty sponsor. When the group abides by these guidelines, no club can be discriminated against based on politics, religion or philosophy. The club cannot interfere with the “orderly conduct of educational activities within the school.” Schools can also opt out of the act entirely, by prohibiting all extracurricular clubs that are not curriculum-based."

"Today, as more Christian groups have trumpeted their rights to form clubs within the schools, atheists, and other groups are taking notice. The Secular Coalition for America asserts that Jay Sekulow, the director of the American Center for Law and Justice, has championed many of these efforts, by defending religious groups in the American court system. However, Sekulow’s efforts may very well be the same path to allow groups of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists – and even atheists – to take advantage of the same legal protections upon which Christians have learned to call."

"The View of Atheists in Public School

 According to atheists who have attempted to start their own clubs in public schools, the problems do not lie as much with their legal protection as with the attitudes of other students, teachers, and administrators. A student at an Oklahoma high school organized one meeting of his new atheist club before getting pulled into the principal’s office and accused of starting a “hate club,” according to USA Today. His sponsor teacher withdrew from the club the next day, telling the student continuing his participation would be “a bad career move.”

"However, other students have been able to form clubs with little or no resistance from staff or other students. Trevor Lynn, a high school student in Eureka, California, faced no problems when he began his own atheist club at school.

“The administration of our school really prides itself on being able to have a club for everybody,” Lynn told the Washington Post. “They saw no reason to stop us.”

In some cases, it may be the approach of the club members that impacts most directly the reaction from the rest of the school. The New York Times reports on a successful club started at Rutherford High School in Panama City, Florida. The faculty sponsor of the group, Michael Creamer, encourages his students to be friendly and non-confrontational when dealing with other students that do not share their beliefs.

“Mr. Creamer told us, as an atheist, you have to be on your best behavior,” one club member told the New York Times."

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

I didn't bother to read your post. I'm still waiting on answers from you...no need to move on until this have been addressed:

Are you opposed to teacher-led Satanist prayers in public schools?

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@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?

You're right. That was a deliberate strawman on my part. But do you realize that you made a strawman before I did and are you going to be able to admit that you did? The following is the dialogue between us:

ZeusAres42 said:

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.

Explanation: This passage is merely just an explanation of the definition of what the term Atheist means according to the American Oxford Dictionary as well as according to the British Oxford Dictionary. 

TKDB said:

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?

Explanation: This is kind of an argument from authority on my part though. A passage from Wikipedia can not be dismissed on the sole bases that it is from Wikipedia and the fact that anyone can write entries. The passage in the Wiki is valid and in somewhat allignment with what is said in both the Oxford dictionaries anyway. Nonetheless, it doesn't look good to explain what a term means according to a Wiki when a person has just told what the definition is according to Oxford dictionaries.

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?

Explanation: This here is a strawman from you. Just because someone questions you for using Wiki over Oxford does not mean that they are using the Internet to wage an artificial conflict against Religion whatever that even means.

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

Explanation: Deliberate strawman on my part. And I know it's a strawman, and I know why it's a strawman, and I admit it's a strawman.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

I've addressed you.

And I'm not opposed to any Atheist teacher, teaching what they teach to their Atheist students, as long as they are fair and equal through their Atheist teachings?

I'm making the guess, that any Atheist teacher, is going to be pro Student, pro Family, pro Community, and pro Humanity, right?

"Are you opposed to teacher-led Satanist prayers in public schools?"

(Teacher-led satanist prayers?)

Did this happen, or has it ever happened in REAL LIFE?

Being that you posed the question, based on something? 

Where is your News Media outlet video, to support your question? 

John_C_87

SkepticalOne said:

John_C_87 said:

SkepticalOne said:

@TKDB

Also, a school system free of religious indoctrination is a school system which allows for religious freedom. A secular school system which privileges no religion (including atheism if you consider it a religion) is the best possible scenario for a pluralistic society.

No its not.

Really? You think religiously neutral schooling is unfair? I'd love to see your reasoning...

No, of course not. I know the idea of a religiously neutral school system is impossible, not unfair. The whole structure of the school is built around religion, from religion. Why do you think politics took over schools from the founders of school in the first place they understood that basic principle about school? The united state was to learn something outside the farm, or kinds of farming.

The public school system does not hold a separation of church and state as a common defense to the general welfare between the two systems court and schooling. Freedom of religion is stating as fact as a basic idea public school system, as well as many others, cannot stop acts of religion that are without cost or charge to the system directly. The first amendment is a united state, a group of things that possess a single basic principle together.

I was reading an interesting article the other day about how the common defense of the general welfare is the most abused comment ever cited.

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

****(Teacher-led satanist prayers?)

****Did this happen, or has it ever happened in REAL LIFE?

Does it need to happen before you can say if you support it? Either you're for all teacher led/government endorsed prayer in schools or your own reasoning argues against you:

'Has any Satanic prayer, that you've maybe heard, ever caused you any individual harm?'

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

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

If you can't be consistent, then there is something wrong with your reasoning.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42


"separation of church and state. The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. ... The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion."

So this is the Law that is apparently being used, by some of the Atheists in the United States, that is used pretty much to disrupt the Religious choices of the Freedom of Religion seeking, religious individuals?

Talk about an anti Religious Public bargaining chip? 

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Absolutely, I don't debate over Fictional questions.

I debate from within the confines of REAL LIFE.

****(Teacher-led satanist prayers?)

****Did this happen, or has it ever happened in REAL LIFE?

"Does it need to happen before you can say if you support it?

Either you're for all teacher led/government endorsed prayer in schools or your own reasoning argues against you."

@SkepticalOne

And your individual self, doesn't get to tell me how I'm going to think and react, because you're apparently, implying as much?

Are you trying to, maybe indoctrinate me, through your fictional musings? 

I'm a fair and equal debater, and that's my standard.

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

Absolutely, I don't debate over Fictional questions.

I debate from within the confines of REAL LIFE.

****(Teacher-led satanist prayers?)

****Did this happen, or has it ever happened in REAL LIFE?

"Does it need to happen before you can say if you support it?

Either you're for all teacher led/government endorsed prayer in schools or your own reasoning argues against you."

@SkepticalOne

And your individual self, doesn't get to tell me how I'm going to think and react, because you're apparently, implying as much?

Are you trying to, maybe indoctrinate me, through your fictional musings? 

I'm a fair and equal debater, and that's my standard.

Pointing out flaws in your reasoning is not 'telling you what to do'. You are welcome to adjust your reasoning to match your claimed position (religious freedom) or not.

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42


"separation of church and state. The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. ... The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion."

So this is the Law that is apparently being used, by some of the Atheists in the United States, that is used pretty much to disrupt the Religious choices of the Freedom of Religion seeking, religious individuals?

Talk about an anti Religious Public bargaining chip? 

It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state. Better hope opposing sects of Christianity (or those Satanists you refuse to imagine in such a privileged position) never use the power of government to advance their religious views at the expense of your own. If you had ever been a religious minority, you would understand clearly the danger of mixing religion and government.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?

"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."

Tell me something what Religious culture, is doing as you describe in the United States?
 
"Better hope opposing sects of Christianity never use the power of government to advance their religious views at the expense of your own."

What sects of Christianity are you lamenting over, that could wield such an influence via the power of the government, via your fictional hypothesis?

@SkepticalOne

Easy words to say, when utilizing the internet, to influence others through the individual use of your Atheist mindset, isn't it? 

"Pointing out flaws in your reasoning is not 'telling you what to do'. You are welcome to adjust your reasoning to match your claimed position (religious freedom) or not."

@SkepticalOne

I asked you these questions before:

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

And you reply with the below?

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

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

@SkepticalOne

Thank you for teaching me even further, through the lens of your standards.

John_C_87

@TKDB
"separation of church and state. The principle that the government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. ... The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion."

Under no condition does the process of separation of church and state prevent representation before Congress, Senate, and Executive officer, a person, or people can unite to conspire to prevent representation and is at no point ever done by Separation of Church and State. The basic principle you do not translate correctly is that it is always a union that a person speaks for some type of religion, and religion does not speak for some type of itself. 

Words like freedom of religion out of context of all created United state made by the union of American Constitution and the onion of amendment one mean you have a legal right to speak or write down how your religion has a cost or a charge to others no other religion only your own. So which one is your religion in this line-up (A) GOD or (B) GOD one is your definition of GOD and the other one is only an axiom of numbers. This is your big chance to the I D a fake in a line-up.

It isn't that the Atheist does not believe in GOD it is that the person accused does not know the odds of GOD being simple a number 89.

 

Grafix

@Dee - I normally don't bother responding to your posts, because you invariably wind up getting very aggressively personal and always off-topic.  Another reason is that you refuse to use the very excellent features of this board, when quoting anyone.   Instead you choose to use your little line of asterisks, which has more than once caused others to misunderstand that (a) you are even quoting someone else and (b) others to also misunderstand the origin of the quote.  Further, you spread your text out like a child, taking up huge space on the page, just to draw attention to your posts.  In a word, everything you seem to do and say is based on self-gratification. Sadly, now I have, like you, descended into the gutter of criticising another poster on a personal level.  I apologise, but it is why I ignore your posts as a standing rule, on most occasions.  If you are prepared to alter your approach I am more than happy to conduct a civil discussion with you, but it must also be based on F A C T S and be ON-TOPIC, which even this post is not, due to YOUR post.

Now to this claim made by you, quoting me with your line of asterisks and then your denial of any event ... 

****  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?

The "event" is the post in which @SkepticalOne revealed the other half of his definition concerning his own views to which you immediately made a post addressed to me crowing how wrong I was.  Well yeah, I admit I only defined half of the position of @SkepticalOne because he had only given me half of his position to go on, just as that is all you, likewise, had to go on.  Then he revealed more.  After you crowed I commented thus....

@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.

Then you launch into this ... 

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?

I have never debated with you what your conclusions, beliefs, position on the God thing is.  N E V E R  to the extent of never being interested in what you think or have to say as a general rule.  The post you are rebutting at the top of your rebuttal is my post on the views held by @SkepticalOne and never has been nor ever was about Y O U.
.  

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

****"What's hysterical is that some Atheists, chased prayer out of the non Atheist Public School system?"

That is not a true statement - individual prayer is allowed in schools, and I know of no atheist which seeks to change that. What HAS changed is that prayer cannot be coerced by school officials. 

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

***"The "event" is the post in which @SkepticalOne revealed the other half of his definition concerning his own views to which you immediately made a post addressed to me crowing how wrong I was.  Well yeah, I admit I only defined half of the position of @SkepticalOne because he had only given me half of his position to go on, just as that is all you had, likewise. [...]"

You had sufficient information to understand my position. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. I lack belief in all gods, therefore I am an atheist. It's not that complicated. 

It's ok to be wrong. It's not ok to be corrected and pretend you were right all along.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - In reply to my post which said this ....


You then responded to the above with this ....

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.

1)  You did mention the word "evidence" as seen in the image of the discussion above, although you did qualify it as being "insufficient", rather than "absent".  I apologise for that slight misrepresentation.  I'll be more careful next time.  Nevertheless it changes not and rebuts not the outcome of my statement rebutting your definition of yourself as an "atheist".  

2)  Your own admission of not believing there are no gods, and not believing there are gods is an agnostic position and not an atheist one as defined by scholars and not defined by me.  I merely accept that. 

3)  Your argument that the definition of atheism which I posited on this page is now the definition of how, "someone who is not an atheist feels atheism should be defined" is simply a made up croc by you to dodge your own definition of yourself, which is identified by scholars as an agnostic position.  

It is how scholars define it and have defined it for centuries, namely that to not have a position either way is the   A G N O S T I C   position.  It has nowt  to do with me, so subsequently, there is no "arrogance" and no "presumption" here by me, but my simply deferring to scholarly definition.  If you don't like it, go argue with them.  Btw, they gave you this original label.  I never did.  I am simply making you aware of that.

Then you finished your post with this ....

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.

You began the word game.  I am demonstrating to you that your  game is  a word game, unrelated to factual scholarly definition of "atheism".  Face the facts.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote this in your post addressed to me ....

You had sufficient information to understand my position. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. I lack belief in all gods, therefore I am an atheist. It's not that complicated. 
It's ok to be wrong. It's not ok to be corrected and pretend you were right all along.

This image below, already shown to you in my previous post proves that I did not have sufficient information to accurately define your position at all.  Here is proof of that ....


You also wrote ....

It's ok to be wrong. It's not ok to be corrected and pretend you were right all along.

I agree with that statement.  I also believe that we should all practise what we preach.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - You wrote this in your post addressed to me ....

You had sufficient information to understand my position. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. I lack belief in all gods, therefore I am an atheist. It's not that complicated. 
It's ok to be wrong. It's not ok to be corrected and pretend you were right all along.

This image below, already shown to you in my previous post proves that I did not have sufficient information to accurately define your position at all.  Here is proof of that ....


You also wrote ....

It's ok to be wrong. It's not ok to be corrected and pretend you were right all along.

I agree with that statement.  I also believe that we should all practise what we preach.

Your "proof" doesn't prove what you think it does. Plus, it has already been addressed with another post. Have you not seen it?


Nonetheless, I've said my piece. 

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - LOL!  There we have it then, all in your last post - the inability to rebut by returning to the previous argument which has already been rebutted.  It is an old trick, my friend.  

Answer me this, why would one return to one's old argument, when it has already been rebutted?  Why not instead address the last arguments made in rebuttal?  You have left those arguments unrebutted, therefore left yourself open to ridicule for pretending the previous argument is a rebuttal of arguments which were not even made at that point.  I am still waiting for your rebuttal to my last argument, which proves that you initially advanced only half of your position and then later added a qualifer, which then gave cause for a re-definition of your position.  You can't deny that you added the second qualifier.  It is up there in black and white.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - LOL!  There we have it then, all in your last post - the inability to rebut by returning to the previous argument which has already been rebutted.  It is an old trick, my friend.  

Answer me this, why would one return to one's old argument, when it has already been rebutted?  Why not instead address the last arguments made in rebuttal?  You have left those arguments unrebutted, therefore left yourself open to ridicule for pretending the previous argument is a rebuttal of arguments which were not even made at that point.  I am still waiting for your rebuttal to my last argument, which proves that you initially advanced only half of your position and then later added a qualifer, which then gave cause for a re-definition of your position.  You can't deny that you added the second qualifier.  It is up there in black and white.

I have no idea what unrebutted arguments of yours or old arguments of mine you are referring to (my position has not changed) Feel free to repost, direct me to these items, or in any way make yourself more clear. Thanks in advance!

*edit- apparently you made a post addressing my previous rebuttal immediately after my reply to your @Dee post. I didn't see the notification for it. Apologies. I will address it as I find time. 

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

You left ALL of the below un-addressed?

Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?

"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."

Tell me something what Religious culture, is doing as you describe in the United States?
 
"Better hope opposing sects of Christianity never use the power of government to advance their religious views at the expense of your own."

What sects of Christianity are you lamenting over, that could wield such an influence via the power of the government, via your fictional hypothesis?

@SkepticalOne

Easy words to say, when utilizing the internet, to influence others through the individual use of your Atheist mindset, isn't it? 

"Pointing out flaws in your reasoning is not 'telling you what to do'. You are welcome to adjust your reasoning to match your claimed position (religious freedom) or not."

@SkepticalOne

I asked you these questions before:

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

And you reply with the below?

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

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

@SkepticalOne

Thank you for teaching me even further, through the lens of your standards. 

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

1)  You did mention the word "evidence" as seen in the image of the discussion above, although you did qualify it as being "insufficient", rather than "absent".  I apologise for that slight misrepresentation.  I'll be more careful next time.  Nevertheless it changes not and rebuts not the outcome of my statement rebutting your definition of yourself as an "atheist".  

2)  Your own admission of not believing there are no gods, and not believing there are gods is an agnostic position and not an atheist one as defined by scholars and not defined by me.  I merely accept that. 

3)  Your argument that the definition of atheism which I posited on this page is now the definition of how, "someone who is not an atheist feels atheism should be defined" is simply a made up croc by you to dodge your own definition of yourself, which is identified by scholars as an agnostic position.  

It is how scholars define it and have defined it for centuries, namely that to not have a position either way is the   A G N O S T I C   position.  It has nowt  to do with me, so subsequently, there is no "arrogance" and no "presumption" here by me, but my simply deferring to scholarly definition.  If you don't like it, go argue with them.  Btw, they gave you this original label.  I never did.  I am simply making you aware of that.

Then you finished your post with this ....

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.

You began the word game.  I am demonstrating to you that your  game is  a word game, unrelated to factual scholarly definition of "atheism".  Face the facts.

1. Apology accepted.

2. Theism/atheism addresses belief. Gnostic/agnostic addresses knowledge. I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms.

https://www.learnreligions.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040

3. You appeal to an old definition of agnosticism. Did you know "gay" didn't refer to homosexuals centuries ago? Does that bother you? Do you tell gay people that they are mislabeling themselves too? This one example defeats your definist argument. 

The meaning of words change and languages evolves. The only important thing is what is meant. I made that very clear for you.

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

You left ALL of the below un-addressed?

Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?

"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."

Tell me something what Religious culture, is doing as you describe in the United States?
 
"Better hope opposing sects of Christianity never use the power of government to advance their religious views at the expense of your own."

What sects of Christianity are you lamenting over, that could wield such an influence via the power of the government, via your fictional hypothesis?

@SkepticalOne

Easy words to say, when utilizing the internet, to influence others through the individual use of your Atheist mindset, isn't it? 

"Pointing out flaws in your reasoning is not 'telling you what to do'. You are welcome to adjust your reasoning to match your claimed position (religious freedom) or not."

@SkepticalOne

I asked you these questions before:

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

And you reply with the below?

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

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

@SkepticalOne

Thank you for teaching me even further, through the lens of your standards. 

Most of this appears to be non-sequitor or unimportant to the OP. The only thing worth rebutting has already been addressed, but I'll say it again for those in the back:

Atheists aren't concerned with prayer in school - they are concerned with prayer being coerced by schools officials in publically funded schools. 

Grafix

@SkepticalOne -  OK.  So you finally have addressed the issue I have been asking you to address - an accurate definition of what your position is.  Why in bleeding blazes did you take so long to make that simple statement?  ... that you are an agnostic atheist?  So many useless words spilt over vagaries and staunchly defending different positions, with sudden drops of new info', shifting the argument ea. time.

Well in deference to your claimed position and having never heard of an agnostic atheist, behoove anyone to explain it.  Subsequently, I did a Google search for it and this is what I found ...


It seems not too many others have any idea of what it means either, let alone any information on it.  We see but a single entry, a single lexicon willing to tackle it, which says an agnostic atheist is ...

[one] who personally believes there is no god(s) but also admits they have no real way of knowing the truth. 

So, if I may draw an understanding from this definition above, it is electing to choose atheism over agnosticism, but readily admitting there is insufficient evidence to really make a choice, just leaning more towards atheism for whatever reason, although not based on any sufficiency of evidence?  Please correct me if I am wrong here.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

You continue to educate me, on how you utilize your individual Atheist debate practices.

So thank you for remaining consistent with your unfair and unequal responses.

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

You left ALL of the below un-addressed?

Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?

"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."

Tell me something what Religious culture, is doing as you describe in the United States?
 
"Better hope opposing sects of Christianity never use the power of government to advance their religious views at the expense of your own."

What sects of Christianity are you lamenting over, that could wield such an influence via the power of the government, via your fictional hypothesis?

@SkepticalOne

Easy words to say, when utilizing the internet, to influence others through the individual use of your Atheist mindset, isn't it? 

"Pointing out flaws in your reasoning is not 'telling you what to do'. You are welcome to adjust your reasoning to match your claimed position (religious freedom) or not."

@SkepticalOne

I asked you these questions before:

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

And you reply with the below?

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

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

@SkepticalOne

Thank you for teaching me even further, through the lens of your standards. 

"Most of this appears to be non-sequitor or unimportant to the OP. The only thing worth rebutting has already been addressed, but I'll say it again for those in the back:

Atheists aren't concerned with prayer in school - they are concerned with prayer being coerced by schools officials in publically funded schools."

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

***OK.  So you finally have addressed the issue I have been asking you to address - an accurate definition of what your position is.  Why in bleeding blazes did you take so long to make that simple statement?  ... that you are an agnostic atheist? **(

The OP is about atheists. An agnostic atheist is an atheist. It is not my fault the OP didn't make any distinction between types of atheists. It's almost like he (and you) didn't know there was subsets of atheists. How ironic is it that someone making claims of atheism doesn't really know all that much about atheism!

If you have questions about my personal views beyond what I've already submitted in this thread, we can discuss it another time. For the purposes of this thread, my provided positions are sufficient.

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.

"@TKDB

Are your narratives not unique?

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

****You continue to educate me, on how you utilize your individual Atheist debate practices.

****So thank you for remaining consistent with your unfair and unequal responses.

Well, I'm sorry if you feel my responses are unfair.

Tell you what, you pick your best single argument (instead of 5 or 6) and I'll respond in-depth. If you continue the gish gallop, I'll not respond.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ...

The OP is about atheists. An agnostic atheist is an atheist. It is not my fault the OP didn't make any distinction between types of atheists. It's almost like he (and you) didn't know there was subsets of atheists. 

Yes, the OP is about atheists, so the obvious starting point is to define what exactly makes an atheist an atheist and what is atheism.  That's just common sense and is precisely what we have been discussing.  It seems, according to my search results, that very few, not even the experts in lexicography acknowledge the existence of your so-called "sub-sets", so forgive me for being as ignorant as the experts.

 Then you smugly write ....

How ironic is it that someone making claims of atheism doesn't really know all that much about atheism!

Gee.  If I took everyone's word for everything, without testing it, you would call me a fool.  But if I don't just take your word for it, you try to make out that I am one.  Has it escaped your notice that I am seeking an answer from you, rather than dismissing your opinion?

If you have questions about my personal views beyond what I've already submitted in this thread, we can discuss it another time. For the purposes of this thread, my provided positions are sufficient.

No I am not interested and never was really interested in any personal adherences.  You introduced that all by your lonesome.  I would prefer to discuss the definitions objectively, without involving personal attestations.  They always introduce the mucky business of "feewings", (feelings) and serve only to distort factual and scholarly definitions with emotions.  However, I will continue to ask you to answer the question I already put to you in my previous post, which you failed to answer, except to state again that an agnostic atheist is an atheist.  UH DOH.  I think we all grasp that basic fact.  I seek to clarify that, having already asked it.  Here is the same question, again ...

So, if I may draw an understanding from this definition above, it is electing to choose atheism over agnosticism, but readily admitting there is insufficient evidence to really make a choice, just leaning more towards atheism for whatever reason, although not based on any sufficiency of evidence?  Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Dee

@Grafix

***(I normally don't bother responding to your posts, because you invariably wind up getting very aggressively personal and always off-topic.  

Says the guy who spends his entire day calling everyone a commie , , satanist or government shill hilarious 

***Another reason is that you refuse to use the very excellent features of this board, when quoting anyone.   Instead you choose to use your little line of asterisks, which has more than once caused others to misunderstand that (a) you are even quoting someone else and (b) others to also misunderstand the origin of the quote.  

Incorrect it’s only confused you which is maybe something you need to address ?

***Further, you spread your text out like a child, taking up huge space on the page, just to draw attention to your posts.  

Unlike you who type a novel of unrelated gibberish to every question that’s asked of you as part of your avoidance strategy 

***In a word, everything you seem to do and say is based on self-gratification. 

In a word ??? Ha, Ha after you posting a novel to have another rant.

Self gratification....hilarious I ignore most your rants yet you have continued daily with the same debunked nonsense on the one thread for 6 weeks now , would that qualify under “self gratification “?

****Sadly, now I have, like you, descended into the gutter of criticising another poster on a personal level.  I apologise, but it is why I ignore your posts as a standing rule, on most occasions.  

You’ve got that the wrong way round it’s I who totally ignore you , here you are stalking .....again 

***If you are prepared to alter your approach I am more than happy to conduct a civil discussion with you, but it must also be based on F A C T S and be ON-TOPIC, which even this post is not, due to YOUR post.

Facts are an alien concept to you as you deny such 

***Now to this claim made by you, quoting me with your line of asterisks and then your denial of any event ... 

At last he’s getting to the point zzzzzzzzzzz

**** The "event" is the post in which @SkepticalOne revealed the other half of his definition concerning his own views to which you immediately made a post addressed to me crowing how wrong I was.  Well yeah, I admit I only defined half of the position of @SkepticalOne because he had only given me half of his position to go on, just as that is all you, likewise, had to go on.  Then he revealed more.  After you crowed I commented thus....

Oh dear another wall of text can you get to the point sometime this year? You’re terribly boring 

**** Then you launch into this

Still waiting ......

***I have never debated with you what your conclusions, beliefs, position on the God thing is.  

Well yes you have you’ve made claims regards how Atheists think I corrected you accept it and move on 

**N E V E R  to the extent of never being interested in what you think or have to say as a general rule.  

Your capital letters suggest differently as does your long winded response that as usual only demonstrates your lack of education and general ignorance 

****The post you are rebutting at the top of your rebuttal is my post on the views held by @SkepticalOne and never has been nor ever was about Y O U.

It’s a debate site , you couldn’t answer a simple question like always if you don’t want others interjecting to correct you go find a private debate where you can preach without objection 

.  

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

"Tell you what, you pick your best single argument (instead of 5 or 6) and I'll respond in-depth. If you continue the gish gallop, I'll not respond."

You don't have anything for the below, and your above comment clearly speaks, to that fact?


Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?

"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."

Tell me something what Religious culture, is doing as you describe in the United States?
@SkepticalOne

Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?

"Most of this appears to be non-sequitor or unimportant to the OP. The only thing worth rebutting has already been addressed, but I'll say it again for those in the back: 

Atheists aren't concerned with prayer in school - they are concerned with prayer being coerced by schools officials in publicly funded schools."

@SkepticalOne The most constructive answer, to your point of logic, is an Atheist Public School system?

(This way your point of concern, remains uninterrupted?)

Instead of some of the Atheists, apparently pushing their individual values unto the non Atheist Public School system?

Take a look at this article:

An Atheist Public School system, could solve the situations talked about in the article, couldn't it?


https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/11/19/atheists-sue-tn-school-district-for-constantly-pushing-christianity-on-kids/

"Atheists Sue TN School District for Constantly Pushing Christianity on Kids"

 NOVEMBER 19, 2019

"The ACLU and its Tennessee chapter are suing the Smith County School System in Nashville, Tennessee over its longstanding illegal promotion of Christianity."

TKDB

@piloteer

"Are your narratives not unique?"

My narratives are pro Freedom of Religion, for any Religion, pro Atheist, pro Child, pro Adoption, pro Family, pro Community, and pro Humanity.

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

"Tell you what, you pick your best single argument (instead of 5 or 6) and I'll respond in-depth. If you continue the gish gallop, I'll not respond."

You don't have anything for the below, and your above comment clearly speaks, to that fact?


Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?

"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."

Tell me something what Religious culture, is doing as you describe in the United States?
@SkepticalOne

Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?

"Most of this appears to be non-sequitor or unimportant to the OP. The only thing worth rebutting has already been addressed, but I'll say it again for those in the back: 

Atheists aren't concerned with prayer in school - they are concerned with prayer being coerced by schools officials in publicly funded schools."

@SkepticalOne The most constructive answer, to your point of logic, is an Atheist Public School system?

(This way your point of concern, remains uninterrupted?)

Instead of some of the Atheists, apparently pushing their individual values unto the non Atheist Public School system?

Take a look at this article:

An Atheist Public School system, could solve the situations talked about in the article, couldn't it?


https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/11/19/atheists-sue-tn-school-district-for-constantly-pushing-christianity-on-kids/

"Atheists Sue TN School District for Constantly Pushing Christianity on Kids"

 NOVEMBER 19, 2019

"The ACLU and its Tennessee chapter are suing the Smith County School System in Nashville, Tennessee over its longstanding illegal promotion of Christianity."

What's the single argument?

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

This is you toying with the debate:

"What's the single argument?"



@SkepticalOne

You don't have anything for the below, and your above comment clearly speaks, to that fact?

Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?

"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."

Tell me something what Religious culture, is doing as you describe in the United States?
@SkepticalOne

Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?

"Most of this appears to be non-sequitor or unimportant to the OP. The only thing worth rebutting has already been addressed, but I'll say it again for those in the back: 

Atheists aren't concerned with prayer in school - they are concerned with prayer being coerced by schools officials in publicly funded schools."

@SkepticalOne The most constructive answer, to your point of logic, is an Atheist Public School system?

(This way your point of concern, remains uninterrupted?)

Instead of some of the Atheists, apparently pushing their individual values unto the non Atheist Public School system?

Take a look at this article:

An Atheist Public School system, could solve the situations talked about in the article, couldn't it?


https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/11/19/atheists-sue-tn-school-district-for-constantly-pushing-christianity-on-kids/

"Atheists Sue TN School District for Constantly Pushing Christianity on Kids"

 NOVEMBER 19, 2019

"The ACLU and its Tennessee chapter are suing the Smith County School System in Nashville, Tennessee over its longstanding illegal promotion of Christianity."

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

This is how I understand your argument:

1) 'Atheists want prayer out of public schools; so
2) they should make an atheist public school system'.

Feel free to correct if needed. Here is my response:

1) Atheists do not want prayer out of public schools. So this premise is false. Proponents of religious freedom (which isn't limited to atheists) want prayer coerced by school officials out of schools. This means that students can pray all they like, but teachers and administrators have no place guiding or insisting on prayer. 

2) I assume you define atheists as those who believe there is no god which describes a minority of atheists. Nonetheless, this understanding of atheism could be viewed as a religion, and an "atheist public school system" would be government endorsed religion. This would clearly not be separating religion and state. It would be infringing on the religious freedom of students and taxpayers. This is not what atheists want -at least, not any atheists I'm aware of.

In short, you've started with something that isn't true, and have extrapolated that to something that is absurd and grossly misguided per what proponents of church/state separation would prefer (including atheists).

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

So if I went to a non Atheist Public School, in your neighborhood, and said a prayer, in front of some students, my prayer said inside of a non Atheist Public School, isn't going to get backlash from any Atheist who takes any offense to a harmless prayer said in front of those same students?

I guarantee you, that that Public prayer said in a Public School, wouldn't likely have some sort of a pro Atheist cause, movement, or group, or crowd, would be after me with a lawsuit wouldn't they?

Because the Separation of Church and State supporters, just can't have a harmless prayer said inside of a Public School right?

@SkepticalOne

The below is true, because I've yet to see you deny it?

Apparently there appears to be an anti Religious component, with maybe any Atheist, to utilize the Separation of Church and State law, to keep any Religious culture on its heels, while the anti Religious culture, is the very same culture that is doing the counter balancing?

"It's no surprise you're against a separation of church and state."

Tell me something what Religious culture, is doing as you describe in the United States SkepticalOne?


"In short, you've started with something that isn't true, and have extrapolated that to something that is absurd and grossly misguided per what proponents of church/state separation would prefer (including atheists)."

And the simplest overall answer to you is still this:

@SkepticalOne The most constructive answer, to your point of logic, is an Atheist Public School system?

(This way your point of concern, remains uninterrupted?)

Instead of some of the Atheists, apparently pushing their individual values unto the non Atheist Public School system? 

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

So if I went to a non Atheist Public School, in your neighborhood, and said a prayer, in front of some students, my prayer said inside of a non Atheist Public School, isn't going to get backlash from any Atheist who takes any offense to a harmless prayer said in front of those same students?

I guarantee you, that that Public prayer said in a Public School, wouldn't likely have some sort of a pro Atheist cause, movement, or group, or crowd, would be after me with a lawsuit wouldn't they?

Because the Separation of Church and State supporters, just can't have a harmless prayer said inside of a Public School.

If you were removed from a public school, it wouldn't be because you were praying in front of students. More likely, it would be because you seem unhinged and dangerous. I mean, to purposefully interact with school children during school hours a background check is required (at least in my area it is). You can't just show up uninvited - not even for prayer.

As to your suggestion that atheists would get bent because of prayer in school...are you aware there are religious clubs in schools. I bet there will be prayers in those clubs - this bothers me none. Are you aware there is "meet at the pole" events in public schools where groups of religious people have voluntary student-led prayer? This bothers me none. 

Suffice to say, it seems as though you are much more interested in exposing a captive audience to your religious views than prayer in schools. Voluntary prayer is allowed - indoctrination is not. Context matters.