Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

You have a way of toying with a debate, thus using it as a way to platform your Atheist debate standards.

The below is what is becoming a standard debate tactic with you.


"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.,

I'm noticing what YOU'RE choosing to lament over, versus what you're choosing to Atheistically toy with.

"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."

Because you're still tight lipped on the below with ZERO commentary yet, and I'm wondering from a REAL WORLD education perspective, why you're avoiding addressing the below?

@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? 

@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

I've addressed things multiple times for you. If you're unsatisfied with the responses, then you need to do more than copy pasta. Explain what part of my explanation you found lacking and why.

I suspect you are merely trying to draw attention away from other refuted points, but there is no need for this. My goal is not to attack you, but to knock down bad ideas that you or anyone (including myself) might hold.

To be honest, some of the questions you copy and paste over and over weren't that clear the first time, and repeating them word for word doesn't provide new information or clarity. Try expressing your point in a new way if you feel they are not being addressed.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

"Watch: Trump makes announcement on prayer policies in public schools"

Might you challenge the POTUS, and the Right to Pray?

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Just say it?
Yes or no?

The truth is below, and you aren't going to give it any lip service, because you have an Atheist platform to maintain?

I get it, and it's a verbally adequate way of you, to continue to remain Atheistically silent over the truth, because it benefits your Atheist stance?
I understand.


@SkepticalOne, Yes, or No?

(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."

@SkepticalOne

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

@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

Your Atheist management platform, is grossly self evident:

"I've addressed things multiple times for you. If you're unsatisfied with the responses, then you need to do more than copy pasta. Explain what part of my explanation you found lacking and why.

I suspect you are merely trying to draw attention away from other refuted points, but there is no need for this. My goal is not to attack you, but to knock down bad ideas that you or anyone (including myself) might hold.

To be honest, some of the questions you copy and paste over and over weren't that clear the first time, and repeating them word for word doesn't provide new information or clarity. Try expressing your point in a new way if you feel they are not being addressed."

More of your Atheist toying, I guess? 

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

Go ahead and Challenge the POTUS?

Actually, Trump is challenging SCOTUS and the Constitution. We will have to wait and see where this goes.

Given that Trump is probably the most immoral and ethically-challenged president we have ever had, this is pure and unadulterated pandering to a gullible and credulous base, and not something he finds personally important. 

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

I agree with his challenge:

"Actually, Trump is challenging SCOTUS and the Constitution. We will have to wait and see where this goes."

Freedom of Speech, should include the freedom to Pray anywhere, shouldn't it?

On a scale of 1-10, how harmful do you view prayer?

I've been to many Religious buildings, and have heard, and witnessed hundreds of prayers, and not any of those prayers was harmful.

Let's go to YouTube, and find a Video, where Public prayer, was causing physical harm to anyone?

But I've seen video's where some Atheists, are going off in public, over Religion in general, and they look sad, because of how they are publicly expressing themselves.

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

I agree with his challenge:

"Actually, Trump is challenging SCOTUS and the Constitution. We will have to wait and see where this goes."

Freedom of Speech, should include the freedom to Pray anywhere, shouldn't it?

On a scale of 1-10, how harmful do you view prayer?

I've been to many Religious buildings, and have heard, and witnessed hundreds of prayers, and not any of those prayers was harmful.

Let's go to YouTube, and find a Video, where Public prayer, was causing physical harm to anyone?

But I've seen video's where some Atheists, are going off in public, over Religion in general, and they look sad, because of how they are publicly expressing themselves.

I guess you're not able to process an atheist saying prayer isn't harmful (because I've said that a few times). It is indoctrination and religion being pushed with the weight of government that I (and many theists) object to. 

Carry on, good sir, and may the facts never impede your regress...er....um..progress.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne Do you mean your attempts to garner attention for your Theist platform, by using me to do just that?

And when does any Theist say a prayer?

Why would any Theist say a prayer, if they're Anti Religious to start with?

"I guess you're not able to process an atheist saying prayer isn't harmful (because I've said that a few times). It is indoctrination and religion being pushed with the weight of government that I (and many theists) object to. 

Carry on, good sir, and may the facts never impede your regress...er....um..progress."

@SkepticalOne Where's your evidence to support your claim in regards to Religion and Indoctrination, being pushed with the Weight of the United States government itself?

Do you have any Youtube video evidence, where any Religious individuals, confessed to any Theist before a news media outlet camera, and can support your Claims?

"Atheists Interrupt Christian Prayer at SCOTUS"

@SkepticalOne, Watch the video, and show me, where any Atheist was harmed by the prayer said in Public, around them?

@SkepticalOne

Just say it?
Yes or no?

The truth is below, and you aren't going to give it any lip service, because you have a Theist platform to maintain?

I get it, and it's a verbally adequate way of you, to continue to remain Theistically silent over the truth, because it benefits your Atheist stance?
I understand.


@SkepticalOne, Yes, or No?

(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."

@SkepticalOne

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

@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

Person A: Where's you evidence?! *posts video refuting his own position*

Person B: *shakes head*

piloteer

TKDB said:

@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.

But apparently anti-relativism? For the sake of bringing this discussion to even further depths, would you please educate us on your feelings of abortion in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother or child are in danger? If you're up to it, could you also please elaborate on your feelings of gay marriage?   

Dee

@piloteer

Oh dear you’ve asked @TKDB a couple of questions , he never answers questions he’s the resident Sea Lion here he never defends his position watch and see.......

He admitted spanking his kids a while back but reports anyone who asks him “did you spank your kids”

I think his reply to you will be the standard “You’re off topic “ or “ for harrasssment “ 

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - OK, so your image defines an agnostic atheist as one who "does not believe in God but does not claim to know". 



My question still stands because it appears to me to actually be an oxymoron, which means a contradiction in terms.  The contradiction I see is that to claim to not believe in the existence of any God or gods is a positive conclusion to believe that no God or Gods exist.  To then claim in the same breath to not really know however,  begs the question then on what basis of logic is the conclusion reached that no God or gods exist, when one does not really know for sure?  In my reckoning that's just not  logical, let alone possible. We can only be either an agnostic or an atheist, but not both, which is possibly why I could not find this "sub-set" in any reputable lexicon.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ...

I guess you're not able to process an atheist saying prayer isn't harmful (because I've said that a few times).

I find it difficult to believe that an atheist would say a prayer at all.  That's an oxymoron, but even if an atheist found himself praying, how on earth could that be construed as harmful?  Then you wrote ...

 It is indoctrination and religion being pushed with the weight of government that I (and many theists) object to. 

How is government "pushing" anything?  It is not instructing teachers to lead prayer, or including it in the curricula or syllabus and would hardly be permitting the teacher to do so in the classroom in lesson time.  It is merely giving the children and teachers the right to pray and express their faith openly in public and anywhere, including on government property outside  of lesson time..  That is an inalienable right and ALL of our inalienable rights are protected by the Constitution.  The teacher could even lead prayers on campus in the lunch hour, inviting any children to attend, who so CHOSE  to.  The fact that past governments have prevented this in various ways, is a violation of that inalienable right, a violation  of the Constitution. Trump is merely restoring this Constitutional right.  

You also wrote ...

Actually, Trump is challenging SCOTUS and the Constitution. We will have to wait and see where this goes.

How is protecting the inalienable right to pray challenging the Constitution?  The Constitution protects  our inalienable rights and Trump is restoring the inalienable right to pray in public,wherever, in accord with the Constitution.  What are you afraid of?  I see your attitude as being exactly what you are accusing Trump of being - bullying from the pulpit -  but it is not he who it is being oppressive, but rather it is you, attempting to curtail a freedom everyone is entitled to, as per the Constitution..

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

You're hiding behind mockery and ridicule, to let it do your debating for you?


@Grafix check out the below questions that he refuses to discuss.



SkepticalOne
Is fearful of answering this simple questions.

(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."

@SkepticalOne

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

@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?)  

TKDB

@Dee

Tell me something Dee, have you personally witnessed anyone being personally harmed by a prayer, to the point to where they needed medical attention?

Or saw the person, who said a prayer, being arrested for causing harm to another, because they said a prayer?

I'm sure that there's evidence to that in your own country right?

TKDB

@piloteer

Your off topic commentary?

(Good for you, you know how to utilize your Atheist consistency from one forum to another? 

"But apparently anti-relativism?
For the sake of bringing this discussion to even further depths, would you please educate us on your feelings of abortion in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother or child are in danger?

If you're up to it, could you also please elaborate on your feelings of gay marriage?")

The above is off topic, but the below is on topic: 

@piloteer

Can you respond to the questions below, because another individual seems to refuse to do so?

(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."

@SkepticalOne

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

@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

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - OK, so your image defines an agnostic atheist as one who "does not believe in God but does not claim to know". 



My question still stands because it appears to me to actually be an oxymoron, which means a contradiction in terms.  The contradiction I see is that to claim to not believe in the existence of any God or gods is a positive conclusion to believe that no God or Gods exist.  To then claim in the same breath to not really know however,  begs the question then on what basis of logic is the conclusion reached that no God or gods exist, when one does not really know for sure?  In my reckoning that's just not  logical, let alone possible. We can only be either an agnostic or an atheist, but not both, which is possibly why I could not find this "sub-set" in any reputable lexicon.

"I dont believe in gods" is not a knowledge claim. Thus, "I think there is insufficient knowledge to determine the existence of gods" is complimentary, not dissonant. 

Grafix

@TKDB - Yes, the concept that there is even a Constitutional law or Statute which requires a separation between Church and State is actually fake history, an invented atheist anti-Christian narrative which has become so embedded in our culture, that people believe it is law.  It all stemmed from a letter one of the Founding Fathers wrote to a Church Minister, whose church and congregation were being bullied by Government over something.  I've forgotten over what exactly now and can't even remember which Founding Father wrote the letter, but in it he assured the clergyman that the rights which separated the State from the Church in the context of the First Amendment, would protect his Church and be upheld.  This has been abused by vested interests, although it does not say that any law existed concerning that separation, except as expressed in the First Amendment. 

To properly illustrate the point that there is no law which binds any separation of Church and State, we can go back to what the Founding Fathers did from day one of the very first sitting of the very first Congress and kept the practise of opening Congress with a prayer as part of their regular proceedings in the House ...

A public school system for Atheists could be construed as favoring a "religion" or anti-religion - amounts to the same thing under the First Amendment.  If Atheists don't like the freedom to express religion on school property, then they can do what the Christians have done, open their own private schools.  Being the bullies they are, they will always try to second the power of government to get what they want and thereby bully the populace into acceptance.  We saw the very same lobbying for  government to take control over marriage, enacting the Marriage Act, then it was divorce law, next it was gay marriage law and now they're trying to shove abortion laws down our necks with abortion clinics funded by taxpayers.  It's clearly wrong, morally and legally.  It's a violation of the Constitution, but that's how atheists and lefties work.  Cheat the law.
.

SkepticalOne

@ Grafix
I guess you're not able to process an atheist saying prayer isn't harmful (because I've said that a few times).

****"I find it difficult to believe that an atheist would say a prayer at all.  That's an oxymoron, but even if an atheist found himself praying, how on earth could that be construed as harmful? "

Don't be silly. Even missing punctuation, it's pretty clear I wasn't talking about making a prayer.

****How is government "pushing" anything?  It is not instructing teachers to lead prayer, or including it in the curricula or syllabus and would hardly be permitting the teacher to do so in the classroom in lesson time.  It is merely giving the children and teachers the right to pray and express their faith openly in public and anywhere, including on government property outside  of lesson time..  That is an inalienable right and ALL of our inalienable rights are protected by the Constitution.  The teacher could even lead prayers on campus in the lunch hour, inviting any children to attend, who so CHOSE  to.  The fact that past governments have prevented this in various ways, is a violation of that inalienable right, a violation  of the Constitution. Trump is merely restoring this Constitutional right.  

It's always funny to me how this is the Christian attitude toward open religious ceremony with other peoples children on with government resources...until the Satanists get involved. Then suddenly, 'let's shut that sh*t down - that's not what religious freedom is about!' 

****How is protecting the inalienable right to pray challenging the Constitution?  The Constitution protects  our inalienable rights and Trump is restoring the inalienable right to pray in public,wherever, in accord with the Constitution.  What are you afraid of?  I see your attitude as being exactly what you are accusing Trump of being - bullying from the pulpit -  but it is not he who it is being oppressive, but rather it is you, attempting to curtail a freedom everyone is entitled to, as per the Constitution..

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Your right to religious freedom doesn't overrule mine and vice versa. My children have a right to a religiously neutral education, and that harms no religion.

TKDB

@Grafix

@SkepticalOne

"Although Supreme Court rulings clarify many school-prayer issues, some areas of contention still exist. The establishment clause prohibits school officials from promoting or leading students in prayer. The free-exercise and free-speech clauses protect a student's right to engage in religious speech, including prayer.Sep 16, 2002

Freedom Forum Institute › topics › s...

School prayer | Freedom Forum Institute "

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@Grafix

@SkepticalOne

"Although Supreme Court rulings clarify many school-prayer issues, some areas of contention still exist. The establishment clause prohibits school officials from promoting or leading students in prayer. The free-exercise and free-speech clauses protect a student's right to engage in religious speech, including prayer.Sep 16, 2002

Freedom Forum Institute › topics › s...

School prayer | Freedom Forum Institute "

Yep. As I said.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

"Yep. As I said."


@SkepticalOne

And it's wrong,

It's sad when the Atheists, and Theists, went about utilizing the power of the SCOTUS to have their way with public prayer, at their say so?
(IE, That very same anti Religious component, that I've asked you to comment on, and you still refuse to?)

Because there IS NO HARM in a Public prayer inside of a school, or outside of a public school.

I think that the anti Religious carefully choose their anti Religious narratives, when expressing themselves before any court of law, because apparently their anti Religious narrative, is more important than a harmless prayer is?

Hence, the TRUTH behind this debate point, that both the Atheists, and Theists are in a sense pleading the 5th on?

@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."

@SkepticalOne

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

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - UH Duh, silly me, but punctuation might have avoided my misunderstanding.  You subsequently wrote ...

It's always funny to me how this is the Christian attitude toward open religious ceremony with other peoples children on with government resources...until the Satanists get involved. Then suddenly, 'let's shut that sh*t down - that's not what religious freedom is about!' 

Your hatred of God and Christians is affecting your ability to communicate effectively, subsequently your comment is somewhat incoherent, but I'll give it a shot.  Calm down. No-one is proposing your children be subjected to any government-funded anything of any kind related to religion. Surely you must know full well that they are not.  It is against the law, not even possible.  Instead of persisting with your misconception and heated anger, shaking your fist at God and sundry, R E A D what is put in front of you.  Teachers in class time can never engage the subject of religion.  O U T L A W E D.  Got it?  You're so riled up you are not listening.  I asked you to consider-

How is government "pushing" anything?  It is not instructing teachers to lead prayer, or including it in the curricula or syllabus and would hardly be permitting the teacher to do so in the classroom in lesson time. 

In observing the atheist lobby to prevent the freedom of prayer, I accused you of being the oppressor, rather than the oppressed.  You then responded with this .....

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of your nose. Your right to religious freedom doesn't overrule mine and vice versa. My children have a right to a religiously neutral education, and that harms no religion.

Whaaa?  No-one's rights are being "over-ruled".  The re-instating of rights which had previously been denied is all that is happening here.  Boy!  You people are off the planet.  I am beginning to think you are unhinged, after your cookie singularity bullsh*ite, your long-held cookie Big Bang buster and now this.  There is no other conclusion to draw.

Grafix

@TKDB - Yes, I realize where you are coming from and truly lament that schools are no longer what they were originally created for - to instruct children in how to grow into responsible, moral, just and knowledgeable adults, including instilling a moral fibre in their conscience.  The anti-Christian and atheist lobby put an end to the "moral fibre" part of that education in the 1960s.  I can recall every week in my primary years spent at a public school, before we were sent off to private boarding schools, that a religion lesson was held, every Wednesday.  It was merely time spent with the teacher leading Gospel readings and then explaining their purpose/meaning to us. 

However, with the multi-cultural society that we now live in - also part of the leftie, Marxist agenda to destroy our Christian base - I doubt it would be fair to have teacher-led Gospel readings or any other kind of religious instruction in the classroom today, for that reason and given the First Amendment protects the right of ALL religions.  So by making us multi-cultural, the leftie loons have socially engineered a tidy justification for writing the moral and just guidance out of the education curricula.  Satan is very devious. 

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - UH Duh, silly me, but punctuation might have avoided my misunderstanding.  You subsequently wrote ...

It's always funny to me how this is the Christian attitude toward open religious ceremony with other peoples children on with government resources...until the Satanists get involved. Then suddenly, 'let's shut that sh*t down - that's not what religious freedom is about!' 

Your hatred of God and Christians is affecting your ability to communicate effectively, subsequently your comment is somewhat incoherent, but I'll give it a shot, but calm down. No-one is proposing your children be subjected to any government-funded anything of any kind, not even religion. Surely you must know full well that they are not.  It is against the law, not even possible.  Instead of persisting with your misconception and heated anger, shaking your fist at God and sundry, R E A D what is put in front of you.  Teachers in class time can never engage the subject of religion.  O U T L A W E D.  Got it?  You are so all riled up you are not listening.  I asked you to consider ....

How is government "pushing" anything?  It is not instructing teachers to lead prayer, or including it in the curricula or syllabus and would hardly be permitting the teacher to do so in the classroom in lesson time. 

In observing the atheist lobby to prevent the freedom of prayer, I accused you of being the oppressor, rather than the oppressed.  You then responded with this .....

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of your nose. Your right to religious freedom doesn't overrule mine and vice versa. My children have a right to a religiously neutral education, and that harms no religion.

Whaaa?  No-one's rights are being "over-ruled".  The re-instating of rights which had previously been denied is all that is happening here.  Boy!  You people are off the planet.  I am beginning to think you are unhinged, after your cookie singularity bullsh*ite, your long-held cookie Big Bang buster and now this.  There is no other conclusion to draw.

You are entitled to your opinions about me, but they do nothing to support your arguments or refute mine. Religious freedom belongs to everyone, not just a privileged majority. It is clear that the majority knows this when what they once claimed was kosher becomes otherwise when religious adherents belonging to other faiths do the exact same thing. It is nonsensical to claim the minority religious view is the oppressor, while the majority enjoys privileges not extended to them. 

Besides, being outlawed doesn't mean it never happens. In my son's schools, I can cite multiple instances of "outlawed" activity occurring - from prayers by the coach on the football field to Bibles being handed out during school hours. That is why lawsuits are still happening - because the wall between church and state is continually being challenged by individuals who feel the law doesn't apply to their religion.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - quit harping on something where we have no argument.  I fully agree that religious freedom belongs to everyone.  Where have i said it does not?  Where have I made a single comment which suggests that I think it should not?  Where have I supported any kind of government-funding to prop up a religious teaching, discussion or narrative?  I have not, so climb down from your freakin' bloody cross and for the last time 

R  E  A  D      W  H  A  T      I  S      I  N      F  R  O  N  T      O  F       Y  O  U  !
.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - Just to reinforce my position - If you were following the FULL discussion, you would be reading not only those posts addressed to yourself.  Before your last comment, I had already posted this to TKDB ...

@TKDB - Yes, I realize where you are coming from and truly lament that schools are no longer what they were originally created for - to instruct children in how to grow into responsible, moral, just and knowledgeable adults, including instilling a moral fibre in their conscience.  The anti-Christian and atheist lobby put an end to the "moral fibre" part of that education in the 1960s.  I can recall every week in my primary years spent at a public school, before we were sent off to private boarding schools, that a religion lesson was held, every Wednesday.  It was merely time spent with the teacher leading Gospel readings and then explaining their purpose/meaning to us. 

However, with the multi-cultural society that we now live in - also part of the leftie, Marxist agenda to destroy our Christian base - I doubt it would be fair to have teacher-led Gospel readings or any other kind of religious instruction in the classroom today, for that reason and given that the First Amendment protects the right of ALL religions.  So by making us multi-cultural, the leftie loons have socially engineered a tidy justification for writing the moral and just guidance out of the education curricula.  Satan is very devious. 

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - quit harping on something where we have no argument.  I fully agree that religious freedom belongs to everyone.  Where have i said it does not?  Where have I made a single comment which suggests that I think it should not?  Where have I supported any kind of government-funding to prop up a religious teaching, discussion or narrative?  I have not, so climb down from your freakin' bloody cross and for the last time 

R  E  A  D      W  H  A  T      I  S      I  N      F  R  O  N  T      O  F       Y  O  U  !
.

Oh, I am reading what is in front of me. The very next post you address to me talks longingly of a time when Christianity was taught in schools - of course this is rightfully outlawed as it infringed upon non-Christians freedom of religion - then and now. 

What exactly am I missing? It seems you want to go back to that, which means you want to go back to government-funded religious teaching which favors one religion over others. Thus, my point regarding religious freedom belonging to everyone.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

"Yep. As I said."


@SkepticalOne

And it's wrong.

It's sad when the Atheists, and Theists, went about utilizing the power of the SCOTUS to have their way with public prayer, at their say so?
(IE, That very same anti Religious component, that I've asked you to comment on, and you still refuse to?)

Because there IS NO HARM in a Public prayer inside of a school, or outside of a public school.

I think that the anti Religious carefully choose their anti Religious narratives, when expressing themselves before any court of law, because apparently their anti Religious narrative, is more important than a harmless prayer is?

Hence, the TRUTH behind this debate point, that both the Atheists, and Theists are in a sense pleading the 5th on?

@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."

@SkepticalOne

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

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Again, you're wrong, Religious Freedom doesn't belong to everyone.

Because the Atheists, and the Theists used the SCOTUS, to in a sense to deprive, the Religious individuals in the United States, from the Right to say a harmless prayer anywhere they choose to, as the behest of the Atheists, and Theists groups in the U.S., and that's the factual TRUTH, since 1962.

"Religious freedom belongs to everyone, not just a privileged majority. It is clear that the majority knows this when what they once claimed was kosher becomes otherwise when religious adherents belonging to other faiths do the exact same thing. It is nonsensical to claim the minority religious view is the oppressor, while the majority enjoys privileges not extended to them."

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

Again, you're wrong, Religious Freedom doesn't belong to everyone.

Because the Atheists, and the Theists used the SCOTUS, to in a sense to deprive, the Religious individuals in the United States, from the Right to say a harmless prayer anywhere they choose to, as the behest of the Atheists, and Theists groups in the U.S., and that's the factual TRUTH, since 1962.

False. Everyone still has a right to say prayer anywhere they choose. They just don't have the right to encourage other people's children to pray with them or be a captive audience to it in their capacity as a government representative. Religious privilege has been taken away, not religious freedom.

Dee

@TKDB

3.2

piloteer

@TKDB

My question to you is in no way off topic, especially since it was you the moderator who brought up the topics of moral relativism, and abortion. I can show you the post where you mentioned it if you’d like? You directed those at me specially so your claim that I’m off topic is erroneous from front to back. I will gladly answer your question that was directed at me when you answer the simple questions I asked you.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Do you personally have any REAL WORLD evidence to support your pro Theist claim?

"False.
Everyone still has a right to say prayer anywhere they choose."

No they don't, because if there are any Atheists or Theists around to hear a Public prayer, you're not going to call out the Religious kids, or the Religious parents, or the Religious individuals, in general, for praying with an earshot of your own ear drums?

"They just don't have the right to encourage other people's children to pray with them or be a captive audience to it in their capacity as a government representative."

Where is your individual evidence, in which an Atheists kid's, or a Theists kids, had Religious individuals trying to encourage those same kid's, to Pray with them or be a captive audience to fit in their capacity as a government representative?
(@SkepticalOne, where is your evidence?)

Religious privilege has been taken away, not religious freedom.

Do you mean this Religious privilege? 

"The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilege is a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications (spoken or otherwise) between clergy and members of their congregation.

Wikipedia › wiki › Priest–penitent_...

Priest–penitent privilege - Wikipedia "

@SkepticalOne, Do you know what "Privilege" that you've unintentionally educated me on?

The use of Atheist privilege, and Theist privilege:

(Because the Atheists, and the Theists used the SCOTUS, to in a sense to deprive, the Religious individuals in the United States, from the Right to say a harmless prayer anywhere they choose to, as the behest of the Atheists, and Theists groups in the U.S., and that's the factual TRUTH, since 1962.)

The same claim that you made about Religion and the use of the United States Government? ( Exactly how legitimate is that theory of yours?)


Because in reality, in 1962, the Atheists, and the Theists, used the SCOTUS, in the same way, that you were theorizing about?

Right or wrong?

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

Do you personally have any REAL WORLD evidence to support your pro Theist claim?

"False.
Everyone still has a right to say prayer anywhere they choose."

No they don't, because if there are any Atheists or Theists around to hear a Public prayer, you're not going to call out the Religious kids, or the Religious parents, or the Religious individuals, in general, for praying with an earshot of your own ear drums?

"They just don't have the right to encourage other people's children to pray with them or be a captive audience to it in their capacity as a government representative."

Where is your individual evidence, in which an Atheists kid's, or a Theists kids, had Religious individuals trying to encourage those same kid's, to Pray with them or be a captive audience to fit in their capacity as a government representative?
(@SkepticalOne, where is your evidence?)

Religious privilege has been taken away, not religious freedom.

Do you mean this Religious privilege? 

"The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilege is a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications (spoken or otherwise) between clergy and members of their congregation.

Wikipedia › wiki › Priest–penitent_...

Priest–penitent privilege - Wikipedia "

@SkepticalOne, Do you know what "Privilege" that you've unintentionally educated me on?

The use of Atheist privilege, and Theist privilege:

(Because the Atheists, and the Theists used the SCOTUS, to in a sense to deprive, the Religious individuals in the United States, from the Right to say a harmless prayer anywhere they choose to, as the behest of the Atheists, and Theists groups in the U.S., and that's the factual TRUTH, since 1962.)

The same claim that you made about Religion and the use of the United States Government? ( Exactly how legitimate is that theory of yours?)


Because in reality, in 1962, the Atheists, and the Theists, used the SCOTUS, in the same way, that you were theorizing about?

Right or wrong?

I've answered many, many questions for you. I've been very patient and charitable in my attempts to address these questions. It seems you don't understand my responses. I don't see that changing. So, I'll bid you adieu for now.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

All you've done is educate me on your Theist Privileges and Rights.

"I've answered many, many questions for you. I've been very patient and charitable in my attempts to address these questions. It seems you don't understand my responses. I don't see that changing. So, I'll bid you adieu for now."

No you haven't, you've toyed with most of the questions, and used them as a platform for your Theist views?


And I stand by my points:

@SkepticalOne, Do you know what "Privilege" that you've unintentionally educated me on?

The use of Atheist privilege, and Theist privilege:

(Because the Atheists, and the Theists used the SCOTUS, to in a sense to deprive, the Religious individuals in the United States, from the Right to say a harmless prayer anywhere they choose to, as the behest of the Atheists, and Theists groups in the U.S., and that's the factual TRUTH, since 1962.)

The same claim that you made about Religion and the use of the United States Government? ( Exactly how legitimate is that theory of yours?)


Because in reality, in 1962, the Atheists, and the Theists, used the SCOTUS, in the same way, that you were theorizing about? 

And the answer is yes, that's exactly what happened.


And here is your Theist platform point:

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

(Your premier point: Better hope opposing sects of Christianity 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."


@SkepticalOne

The evidence is clear on what has occurred historically, versus theoretically.

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

***The evidence is clear on what has occurred historically, versus theoretically.

Indeed, and yet you think we should go back to that.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

***The evidence is clear on what has occurred historically, versus theoretically.

"Indeed, and yet you think we should go back to that."

Here's what happened:

The use of Atheist privilege, and Theist privilege:

(Because the Atheists, and the Theists used the SCOTUS, to in a sense to deprive, the Religious individuals in the United States, from the Right to say a harmless prayer anywhere they choose to, as the behest of the Atheists, and Theists groups in the U.S., and that's the factual TRUTH, since 1962.)

IE "Religious privilege has been taken away, not religious freedom."

@SkepticalOne

It's extraordinary how harmless prayer is.

And here's what didn't happen:

(Your premier point: Better hope opposing sects of Christianity 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."

@SkepticalOne

We don't have to, you proved that your Theory is but a fictional hypothesis, while history speaks for itself in reality.

Maybe what you mean, is that the Theist Privileges and Rights were amplified, while the Religious individuals, had their Privileges and Rights, in a sense, were diminished, to do what?

Hearing or witnessing a harmless prayer, being said around anyone, and causing zero harm to anyone, at the same time.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

"I dont believe in gods" is not a knowledge claim. Thus, "I think there is insufficient knowledge to determine the existence of gods" is complimentary, not dissonant. 

Yet again, you duck, dive and weave to avoid the actual question by completely omitting it from your answer.  What about the other half of your statement which goes beyond the simple statement of: "I don't believe in gods"?  Eh?  This half, the one we have been discussing for some days, namely: " I don't know if Gods do or don't exist"?  What about the agnostic half that you claimed?

How can you make both statements with any degree of logic?  You either do know they don't exist or you don't know.   This is where you allow leftie, looney, psycho ops of fake intellectualism to influence what you say, to the point of making dippy daft statements like these, while believing that they are somehow profound and clever.  

I understand that this is not ALL  your fault, that it is drummed so repetitively into the empty spaces of richard craniums, your responses are simply repetitive refrains on auto-pilot.  I get that.  But surely, when someone points it out to you, you could switch off the auto-pilot mechanism, just for five minutes.  We've been going at this for days.  Is there any likelihood that you can switch off the auto-pilot?  Maybe too far gone?.  That is a really serious problem then, and gives pause to wonder how much more we need to know about Marxism, because clearly common sense is not going to win this battle against its brainwashing megatron.

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

Lol, good work, you managed to make it all the way to political ideologies from a statement regarding non-belief! It's nice to see you have not succumbed to ANY biases whatsoever! 

I can see you don't need an interlocutor since you have your strawmen to play with. Carry on! 

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - A devious little denizen aren't thou in posting this ....

Oh, I am reading what is in front of me. The very next post you address to me talks longingly of a time when Christianity was taught in schools - of course this is rightfully outlawed as it infringed upon non-Christians freedom of religion - then and now. 

So, suddenly you get the point, when it suits your argument? Talk about deliberate, but transparent chicanery.  You just admitted you read this post below by me to TDKB, only AFTER   I had to repeat it and specifically address it to you, so No you weren't following the conversation that was already in font of you at all.  Of course, ignorant are you of the historical fact that the Founding Fathers set up an education system in schools which required  education in Gospel readings. Your ignorance is due to your acceptance of Marxist-revised fake history.  Here's the post you originally missed, merely demonstrating my values and my tolerance of the values of others  ....

Grafix wrote ...

@TKDB - Yes, I realize where you are coming from and truly lament that schools are no longer what they were originally created for - to instruct children in how to grow into responsible, moral, just and knowledgeable adults, including instilling a moral fibre in their conscience.  The anti-Christian and atheist lobby put an end to the "moral fibre" part of that education in the 1960s.  I can recall every week in my primary years spent at a public school, before we were sent off to private boarding schools, that a religion lesson was held, every Wednesday.  It was merely time spent with the teacher leading Gospel readings and then explaining their purpose/meaning to us. 

However, with the multi-cultural society that we now live in - also part of the leftie, Marxist agenda to destroy our Christian base - I doubt it would be fair to have teacher-led Gospel readings or any other kind of religious instruction in the classroom today, for that reason and given that the First Amendment protects the right of ALL religions.  So by making us multi-cultural, the leftie loons have socially engineered a  tidy justification for writing the moral and just guidance out of the education curricula.  Satan is very devious. 

ALL  of my posts clearly explain to you that there is no possibility for government-funded influence of religion in schools or anywhere to ever happen, that it's outlawed and is not what the POTUS new law is about at all, that it simply returns rights previously removed and takes no rights away.  How many times did I type that?  But still you harped that it was an infringement of, and an "over-rule" of your own rights.  

So then what do you do, all out of aces, with no argument to be had? Invent a new one with this ....

What exactly am I missing? It seems you want to go back to that, which means you want to go back to government-funded religious teaching which favors one religion over others. Thus, my point regarding religious freedom belonging to everyone.

You really do need to go out and get a job, if the only way you can get your rocks off is by inventing arguments where there are none.  This post of mine above shows my values.  It does not show any militant intolerance of the values of others at all, which you re trying to twist out of a pear into a pretzel here.  It actually CONFIRMS my respect for the values of others, but yet you can even find a problem with that. You people are all el Sicko and need to take stock of your brand of thought patterns. 

Next you'll be telling me I'm not entitled to my values, just because they're different from you own.  Well ... the reality is you actually said that without saying it in your above-quoted post.  We do understand where you're coming from - a totalitarian, Marxist dictatorial mentality.  You just can't accept  that I accept the right of others to have freedom of religion too, that we can even  have private religious schools.  For some reason you think you can't do the same, nor accept that I do accept other's values, while still entitled to my own privately, even though it's in black and white on this page. You don't do the same because you don't understand how to.  Good one Stalin.
.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne ; LOL!  Sooooo lame, mate. Let's follow the last couple of posts ...

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

"I dont believe in gods" is not a knowledge claim. Thus, "I think there is insufficient knowledge to determine the existence of gods" is complimentary, not dissonant. 

 [My response in part]

[....] What about the other half of your statement which goes beyond the simple statement of: "I don't believe in gods"?  Eh?  This half, the one we have been discussing for some days, namely: " I don't know if Gods do or don't exist"?  What about the agnostic half that you claimed?

How can you make both statements with any degree of logic?  You either do know they don't exist or you don't know.   This is where you allow leftie, looney, psycho ops of fake intellectualism to influence what you say, to the point of making dippy daft statements like these, while believing that they are somehow profound and clever. [...]  Is there any likelihood that you can switch off the auto-pilot?  Maybe too far gone?.  That ... gives pause to wonder how much more we need to know about Marxism, because clearly common sense is not going to win this battle against its brainwashing megatron.
. 

Now you reply with ...

Lol, good work, you managed to make it all the way to political ideologies from a statement regarding non-belief! It's nice to see you have not succumbed to ANY biases whatsoever!   I can see you don't need an interlocutor since you have your strawmen to play with. Carry on! 

Fleeing to the retort of last resort?  Textbook Alinsky, the famous psy op of complete role reversal pitched against the opponent, accusing him of what oneself is guilty?  Agreed, you  are playing with strawmen to justify a lunatic logic that is impossible to hold to, even by the most irrational of brains.

The atheistic illogical non-reasoning is governed solely by sentiment, by hateful emotion, which over-rules all possibility of logic and is a direct result of inculcation.  Again the same Alinsky psy op of role reversal is applied, when they accuse Christians of being indoctrinated, although Christians have strong supportive evidence of their God.  No matter, according to the Marxist tools, Christians are the ones who are indoctrinated and not the Marxist tools, like yourself.  Lenin told all of us that his Bolsheviks were merely "useful idiots".  His sea-passage to Russia from NY, was financed by the same oligarchic families financing Marxism today, as was his Revolution.

Think about this for a minute.  Atheists only ever target Christianity and its cousin, Semitism.  They never target Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism or any other religions.  Why not? Isn't that odd?  Even unbalanced.  These religions serve as no global threat to the Agenda of certain vested interests which seek to destroy Christianity and the Constitution, the two institutions which stand firmly in the way of that very Agenda. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. In your ignorant Marxist-schooled vacuum, you are completely unaware of this Agenda being run by your masters. Marxism is a politic of stealth.  It does not declare itself.  You trot along obediently lapping up its hogwash, peddling it and believing you are some enlightened "awoke" intellectual, because its likewise indoctrinated leftie professors, who believe the same about themselves, tell you that you are.

We have just witnessed the fall-out from this inculcation in the pages of this debate and evident too in others in these forums. Demonstrated is an unreasoned and dogged persistence that the new POTUS law somehow abridges your rights, even when explained over and over to you that it does not because it could not under U.S. law.  Have you switched off your auto-pilot, yet?

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

Of course, ignorant are you of the historical fact that the Founding Fathers set up an education system in schools which required  education in Gospel readings. 

I am ignorant of the Founders setting up a public education system with required Gospel reading. Point me to your source for this information.   (I hope it's not a Barton)

What exactly am I missing? It seems you want to go back to that, which means you want to go back to government-funded religious teaching which favors one religion over others. Thus, my point regarding religious freedom belonging to everyone.

You really do need to go out and get a job, if the only way you can get your rocks off is by inventing arguments where there are none.  This post of mine above shows my values.  It does not show any militant intolerance of the values of others at all, which you re trying to twist out of a pear into a pretzel here.  It actually CONFIRMS my respect for the values of others, but yet you can even find a problem with that. You people are all el Sicko and need to take stock of your brand of thought patterns. 

Next you'll be telling me I'm not entitled to my values, just because they're different from you own.  Well ... the reality is you actually said that without saying it in your above-quoted post.  We do understand where you're coming from - a totalitarian, Marxist dictatorial mentality.  You just can't accept  that I accept the right of others to have freedom of religion too, that we can even  have private religious schools.  For some reason you think you can't do the same, nor accept that I do accept other's values, while still entitled to my own privately, even though it's in black and white on this page. You don't do the same because you don't understand how to.  Good one Stalin.
.

I love the irony in claiming to respect the values of others while hurling 'el Sicko', "totalitarian", "dictatorial", "Marxist", and "Stalin" in my direction. Carry on with your strawman - I'm enjoying the show!

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

No comment?

***The evidence is clear on what has occurred historically, versus theoretically.

"Indeed, and yet you think we should go back to that."

Here's what happened:

The use of Atheist privilege, and Theist privilege:

(Because the Atheists, and the Theists used the SCOTUS, to in a sense to deprive, the Religious individuals in the United States, from the Right to say a harmless prayer anywhere they choose to, as the behest of the Atheists, and Theists groups in the U.S., and that's the factual TRUTH, since 1962.)

IE "Religious privilege has been taken away, not religious freedom."

@SkepticalOne

It's extraordinary how harmless prayer is.

And here's what didn't happen:

(Your premier point: Better hope opposing sects of Christianity 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."

@SkepticalOne

We don't have to, you proved that your Theory is but a fictional hypothesis, while history speaks for itself in reality.

Maybe what you mean, is that the Theist Privileges and Rights were amplified, while the Religious individuals, had their Privileges and Rights, in a sense, were diminished, to do what?

Hearing or witnessing a harmless prayer, being said around anyone, and causing zero harm to anyone, at the same time. 

Dee

@piloteer

Oh dear you seem to have triggered @TKDB he hates been asked questions because he cannot answer them instead he will claim “you’re off topic “ or flag you claiming you’re harrassing him which is why I and others totally ignore his repetitious bleatings and constant trolling 

TKDB

@Dee

Why don't you take your below grievances up with Aarong?


"@piloteer

Oh dear you seem to have triggered @TKDB he hates been asked questions because he cannot answer them instead he will claim “you’re off topic “ or flag you claiming you’re harassing him which is why I and others totally ignore his repetitious bleatings and constant trolling "

@Dee

I presented this earlier to you and others, and you and @Plaffelvohfen marked it, as a fallacy?


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.

Can you please participate equally and fairly in the debate? 


@Dee: Where is your individual evidence of me trolling on you specifically, or anyone else?

Please, I want to see your evidence?

And thank you for teaching me a new word, and yet I'm unsure of how it pertains to this specific forum?

"bleating

/ˈblēdiNG/

noun

1. the weak, wavering crying of a sheep, goat, or calf.

   "the plaintive bleating of sheep"

   • a weak, querulous, or foolish complaint.

     "plaintive bleating about subsidies"

Dee

@TKDB

piloteer

@TKDB

If you answer the question I ask you, I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have for me.   

TKDB

@piloteer

You can answer what you want.

"If you answer the question I ask you, I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have for me."

TKDB said:

@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.

"But apparently anti-relativism?

"For the sake of bringing this discussion to even further depths, would you please educate us on your feelings of abortion in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother or child are in danger?
If you're up to it, could you also please elaborate on your feelings of gay marriage?"

All of your above rhetoric is off topic, hence the question, are you refusing to debate the forum at hand?

piloteer

TKDB said:

@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?"

The final point of your supposed list of atheistic values clearly states moral relativism. This was addressed to me by you, and it was supposed to be used as a guide for the topics that are pertinent to this discussion. It was you who declared that moral relativism is indeed "on topic" for this discussion. This is an obvious attempt by you  to derail a civil discussion and only allow your own hand picked narrative to be expressed. Your last post, and this debate has been for trolling. Aarong has asked that me and another member of DI have an in depth discussion regarding the future of your allowance to remain on this site. There is no need for any further dialog between you and I, so don't feel like any further remarks from you will not be ignored. I would suggest you look into other debate sites.