Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?

TKDB

@piloteer

No, you brought your below highlighted words to this forum, not me.

"but apparently anti-relativism."

This is the theme of this forum:

"Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?"

And I will ask you this forum appropriate question:

Why are you refusing to DEBATE the specific theme of this forum?

"Anti Relativism" is not a part of this debate, regardless of how you view this forum through the individual scope of your rationality. 

ZeusAres42

I see you have tried to reduce the argument based on if Christan values are in allignment with US values to the consequent. However, the problem was stating that Atheism is a stance. A better way to reduce that argument to the consequences would have been to say "Are there any values not based on Christianity that are in allignment with the US values?"

In any case, both arguments boil down to one basic false dichotomy/False Dilemma (an either/or fallacy): "Either Christian values are in allignment with the US values or values not based on Christianity are in allignment with the US values." Here, readers have been given two opposing alternatives where more alternatives exist. 

There are lots of Christian values just as there are lots of values not based on Christianity and so it is reasonable to assume that there will be at least some Christian values that are in allignment with the US just as there will be values not based on Christianity or any religion for that matter in alignment with the US values also.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

The Atheist values favor the Atheist stance only.

While the Christianity values, they favor the family, the community, and humanity overall.

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

The Atheist values favor the Atheist stance only.

While the Christianity values, they favor the family, the community, and humanity overall.

@TKDB so you don't think an Atheist can value those things such as family, community, and humanity?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

I haven't a clue.

"@TKDB so you don't think an Atheist can value those things such as family, community, and humanity?"

My secondary education on Atheist values, was the very Public use of the Separation of Church and State, that was used to segregate prayer out of the United States public school system, that was implemented by the some of the Atheists in the U.S., back in 1962.

Or another way to view that Atheist value, the "Atheist Segregation," of prayer, out of the Public School system, that basically favored the Atheist stance, right?

Because prayer is harmless, being that I've heard hundreds of harmless prayers, and not one individual was ever physically harmed by those hundreds of prayers.

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

I haven't a clue.

"@TKDB so you don't think an Atheist can value those things such as family, community, and humanity?"

My secondary education on Atheist values, was the very Public use of the Separation of Church and State, that was used to segregate prayer out of the United States public school system, that was implemented by the some of the Atheists in the U.S., back in 1962.

Or another way to view that Atheist value, the "Atheist Segregation," of prayer, out of the Public School system, that basically favored the Atheist stance, right?

Because prayer is harmless, being that I've heard hundreds of harmless prayers, and not one individual was ever physically harmed by those hundreds of prayers.

@TKDB ;

I think what you might be talking about here is more to do with a strong form of secularism rather than simply being an atheist.

Strong Secularism

Some secularists go further; they want religion to be regarded as a private matter for the home and place of worship - and that the state should be blind to religion. They also seek to separate those bits of our present-day culture that originated in religion from the religions that inspired them.https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/secularism.shtml

While there may very well be some Atheists that strongly oppose all religion these are not representative of all the Atheists across the globe. They cannot represent all atheists because atheism isn't a universal stance.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Public, and private prayer is harmless, being that I've heard hundreds of harmless prayers, and not one individual was ever physically harmed by those hundreds of prayers.

Do you agree, or disagree?

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

For the most part, providing it isn't anything to do with extremism/grooming then generally speaking public or private prayer I would say it is harmless in and of itself.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - Your reply is now all of this below quoting me and yourself as follows ....

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. 

@SkepticalOne said: "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)"

SkepticalOne said:

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.

In reply to that, Grafix said:

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 right to their 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.
.

@SkepticalOne finally said: " 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!"

You're conflating my vehement criticism of dishonest tactics in debate with a disrespect for your right to your beliefs and values. There is a difference.  I'm attempting to point out that I'm not prepared to "wear" or put up with your duplicity, and where relevant used such language as "el Sicko", "totalitarian", "dictatorial", "Marxist" and "Stalin" to describe your style, wherever your approach, your attitude, mechanics and subterfuge demanded it.  If you debated honestly and stuck to the subject, it would not be necessary to call out your duplicitous style of argument of twisting pears into pretzels, inventing arguments that were not made and where none exist, etc.

I've never  expressed any dissension towards your right  to your beliefs at all. I don't have to accept your values, however. I abhor them.  Am only obliged to respect your right to them. You've royally given mine a bollocking.  Want a one-way street now, do we? That's the type of remark that attracts the well-deserved descriptors I've already hurled at you.  We've only discussed statements made by you, which I pointed out are a contradiction in terms, also discussed Einstein and Trump's new law. You claim it is an "over-rule" of your rights. I showed you that was not possible.  That's ALL  we've discussed, sprinkled with my calling you out for your deceptions. 

What is your response then?  To turn around and accuse me of supporting a re-introduction of religious lessons in schools, immediately following  the very post wherein I state the exact opposite,  just one example of your many duplicitous and scurrilous ruses, so I called you out again, with some colorful descriptors, because you do  persistently engage textbook Marxism from the totalitarian Socialist playbook whenever you don't have a rebuttal, just like this latest claim of yours.  To the letter it follows an Alinsky Rule from his playbook, "Rules For Radicals".  If you can't recognize your own politicking's methodology, then WOW!  I am speechless.

If you don't wish to be accused of what you are actually doing, then stop doing it  !!!  UH DUH !  Now you're trying to "virtue signal" (also from the Marxist playbook), and turn my harsh, well-aimed and well-deserved criticisms of your tactics, somehow against me.  Your tactics earned them, so quit crying like a baby.  If you can't take the heat in the kitchen, then get out of it.  Now you want to deny my right to criticize poor conduct. Totalitarian?

P.S.  The Founding Fathers most certainly did see to it that part of the education system was to provide moral guidance to students in schools, via scripture readings included in the curricula.  If you don't know our history, that is not my problem.  Go and research it before you open your mouth.  It is my strenuous belief that due to that removal, people hold views such as yours, which I personally believe will ultimately destroy the Western culture.  That takes us full circle, right to the crux of the topic title :  "Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?"  I believe such views will destroy our Western culture, so clearly I consider the answer is "NO".
.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

@ZeusAres42

"For the most part, providing it isn't anything to do with extremism/grooming then generally speaking public or private prayer I would say it is harmless in and of itself."

@ZeusAres42 Show me your evidence of any extremism, or grooming in regards to harmless prayer?

(I keep asking for any legitimate evidence, and I've yet to see any from and non religious individual?)

And I've personally witnessed hundreds of harmless prayers, in hospitals, churches, along with a plethora of other places, and I saw zero evidence of any extremist or grooming behavior going on behind the veil of a harmless prayer.

@Happy_Killbot

@ZeusAres42

I've never seen anyone arrested for saying a harmless prayer.

But what I have been educated on is how many, individuals have used various platforms to keep Religion, or prayer segregated from wherever it's been deemed necessary via their non Religious segregationist perceptions, or IE Atheist Privileges/ values.

"Prayer in Public Schools Is Held to Be Unconstitutional"

(Hugo Black was a Liberal on the Supreme Court, who helped to outlaw harmful prayer in School.)

"https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/prayer-public-schools-held-be-unconstitutional"

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

I just said that prayer in and of itself is harmless.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

You specifically elaborated on these two key points:

"For the most part, providing it isn't anything to do with extremism/grooming?"

Show me your evidence to support your extremist/ grooming narratives, in regards to prayer?


@ZeusAres42

"I just said that prayer in and of itself is harmless."

Yet you still have an issue with Religion in general still right?

Christianity is harmless.

Catholicism is harmless.

Islam is harmless.

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

You specifically elaborated on these two key points:

"For the most part, providing it isn't anything to do with extremism/grooming?"

Show me your evidence to support your extremist/ grooming narratives, in regards to prayer?


@ZeusAres42

"I just said that prayer in and of itself is harmless."

Yet you still have an issue with Religion in general still right?

Christianity is harmless.

Catholicism is harmless.

Islam is harmless.

The first point was probably a bit clumsy of me. However, the second point is what I meant; prayer in and of itself is harmless; it's not the prayer itself doing anything directly harmful.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Yet you still have an issue with Religion in general still right?

Christianity is harmless.

Catholicism is harmless.

Islam is harmless. 

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

Yet you still have an issue with Religion in general still right?

Christianity is harmless.

Catholicism is harmless.

Islam is harmless. 

Nope, that's not what I said. And nor, do I have an issue with religion in general.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Here are your positions:

"The first point was probably a bit clumsy of me. However, the second point is what I meant; prayer in and of itself is harmless; it's not the prayer itself doing anything directly harmful."

"For the most part, providing it isn't anything to do with extremism/grooming?"

And then I asked you this:


@ZeusAres42

Show me your evidence to support your extremist/ grooming narratives, in regards to prayer?

Yet you still have an issue with Religion in general still right?

Christianity is harmless.

Catholicism is harmless.

Islam is harmless. 


"Nope, that's not what I said. And nor, do I have an issue with religion in general.


I ask the question, in regards to the above Religions because harmless prayer, is synonymous with the above Religions.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - Your reply is now all of this below quoting me and yourself as follows ....

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. 

@SkepticalOne said: "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)"

SkepticalOne said:

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.

In reply to that, Grafix said:

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 right to their 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.
.

@SkepticalOne finally said: " 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!"

You're conflating my vehement criticism of dishonest tactics in debate with a disrespect for your right to your beliefs and values. There is a difference.  I'm attempting to point out that I'm not prepared to "wear" or put up with your duplicity, and where relevant used such language as "el Sicko", "totalitarian", "dictatorial", "Marxist" and "Stalin" to describe your style, wherever your approach, your attitude, mechanics and subterfuge demanded it.  If you debated honestly and stuck to the subject, it would not be necessary to call out your duplicitous style of argument of twisting pears into pretzels, inventing arguments that were not made and where none exist, etc.

I've never  expressed any dissension towards your right  to your beliefs at all. I don't have to accept your values, however. I abhor them.  Am only obliged to respect your right to them. You've royally given mine a bollocking.  Want a one-way street now, do we? That's the type of remark that attracts the well-deserved descriptors I've already hurled at you.  We've only discussed statements made by you, which I pointed out are a contradiction in terms, also discussed Einstein and Trump's new law. You claim it is an "over-rule" of your rights. I showed you that was not possible.  That's ALL  we've discussed, sprinkled with my calling you out for your deceptions. 

What is your response then?  To turn around and accuse me of supporting a re-introduction of religious lessons in schools, immediately following  the very post wherein I state the exact opposite,  just one example of your many duplicitous and scurrilous ruses, so I called you out again, with some colorful descriptors, because you do  persistently engage textbook Marxism from the totalitarian Socialist playbook whenever you don't have a rebuttal, just like this latest claim of yours.  To the letter it follows an Alinsky Rule from his playbook, "Rules For Radicals".  If you can't recognize your own politicking's methodology, then WOW!  I am speechless.

If you don't wish to be accused of what you are actually doing, then stop doing it  !!!  UH DUH !  Now you're trying to "virtue signal" (also from the Marxist playbook), and turn my harsh, well-aimed and well-deserved criticisms of your tactics, somehow against me.  Your tactics earned them, so quit crying like a baby.  If you can't take the heat in the kitchen, then get out of it.  Now you want to deny my right to criticize poor conduct. Totalitarian?

P.S.  The Founding Fathers most certainly did see to it that part of the education system was to provide moral guidance to students in schools, via scripture readings included in the curricula.  If you don't know our history, that is not my problem.  Go and research it before you open your mouth.  It is my strenuous belief that due to that removal, people hold views such as yours, which I personally believe will ultimately destroy the Western culture.  That takes us full circle, right to the crux of the topic title :  "Does the Atheist stance align with the United States values?"  I believe such views will destroy our Western culture, so clearly I consider the answer is "NO".
.

Summary of the above: projection and no substantiation of claims. 

I asked for your evidence, and you suggest I should look it up. That's not how it works. This is debate - support your claim or have it dismissed.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Christianity is harmless, isn't it?

Catholicism is harmless, isn't it?

Islam is harmless, isn't it?


I ask the questions, in regards to the above Religions because harmless prayer, is synonymous with the above Religions. 

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

@SkepticalOne

http://trentagiorni.tripod.com/articoli/us-199801-1a.htm

"The greatest slaughter of harmless people at prayer"

N e w s   R e p o r t    f r o m   C h i a p a sT h e   e n c o u n t e r   w i t h   J e s u s   C h r i s t   a n d   t h e   c r y   o f   t h e   p o o r

ACTEAL

The greatest slaughter
of harmless people at prayer

"A church is being built in Mexico on the site where 45 Indios were killed while praying. The killers' action followed a series of attacks, intimidation and bullying directed at this community by the army and the large landowners "

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

Christianity is harmless, isn't it?

Catholicism is harmless, isn't it?

Islam is harmless, isn't it?


I ask the questions, in regards to the above Religions because harmless prayer, is synonymous with the above Religions. 

I don't believe prayer is always harmless. Children dying because prayer was chosen over medical attention serves as stark evidence to the contrary.

And it doesn't follow that harmless prayer equates to harmless religious beliefs. For instance, the prayers of the 9/11 attackers were potentially harmless, while their actions most certainly weren't. 

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Where is your proof that prayer harmed those kids?

The truth is the actions of those individual parents, are solely responsible for what happens to their kids, and NOT harmless prayer.


"I don't believe prayer is always harmless. Children dying because prayer was chosen over medical attention serves as stark evidence to the contrary."

And the same truth can be said about the 9/11 Hijackers, they are solely responsible for their Terrorist actions and NOT harmless prayer.

Where is your proof that prayer harmed those 3000 plus US citizens, killed via 9/11?

"And it doesn't follow that harmless prayer equates to harmless religious beliefs. For instance, the prayers of the 9/11 attackers were potentially harmless, while their actions most certainly weren't."

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

Where is your proof that prayer harmed those kids?

The truth is the actions of those individual parents, are solely responsible for what happens to their kids, and NOT harmless prayer.


"I don't believe prayer is always harmless. Children dying because prayer was chosen over medical attention serves as stark evidence to the contrary."

And the same truth can be said about the 9/11 Hijackers, they are solely responsible for their Terrorist actions and NOT harmless prayer.

Where is your proof that prayer harmed those 3000 plus US citizens, killed via 9/11?

"And it doesn't follow that harmless prayer equates to harmless religious beliefs. For instance, the prayers of the 9/11 attackers were potentially harmless, while their actions most certainly weren't."

Prayer is an action. To say that the actions of parents are to blame for the death of a child and that those actions (prayer) are harmless is not a coherent view.

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

A Prayer is as harmless, as the very words that come out of your own mouth.

Has any Prayer ever been arrested for rape, murder, abortion, terrorism, and so on?

I'll answer that question for you, unless you have legitimate REAL WORLD evidence, that could be provided said, that states, since Jesus himself walked the earth, that YES, prayer has been arrested for harming humanity itself?

Because the REAL WORLD answer is NO, no Prayer has ever been arrested for the above crimes, since Jesus himself walked the earth.


"Prayer is an action."

"To say that the actions of parents are to blame for the death of a child and that those actions (prayer) are harmless is not a coherent view."

@SkepticalOne

My original comment is coherent, because there is no evidence to support your individually rationalized comment.