Book Burning

[Thorne]

At no time is this more apparent to me than when I study the history and chemistry and physics of our planet and people, from its beginings during what we so far believe to be in the big bang to the present.

Allow me to speculate: you study these sciences and feel that certain things would not be possible without God? But I study these same things and say, "Where is this god?" I see no evidence for any kind of supernatural intervention in this universe. I see many coincidences, and many things which we might not yet understand, but that does not mean God, to me. What I do see are people figuratively tossing a coin into the air, drawing a circle around the coin when it lands, then claiming that it's impossible for that coin to have landed so precisely in that circle, therefore gods!

Just as precluding the existence of a god is by all standards of logic also just as likely to be "a bunch of hokum".

And for the umpteenth time I must say, I do not preclude the existence of gods. I only say that there is no definitive evidence for them. There is nothing one can point to and say, "There is God!" No one can definitively say that there are no gods. What I can say is that there is no evidence for gods.

I wonder if part of your path of intolereance is a pathological need to enforce your ideas as being the only "right" ones above all others becuse they are obviously too stupid to really have decided for themselves if they believe in anything you disagree with...much like the you accuse so many religions of doing?

I have no need, nor desire, to enforce anything! I don't really care what people choose to believe in. What I DO care about is those people who try to force their beliefs upon me and others, those who want to prevent atheists from holding public office, for example. Or those who want to force their morality on me, even though I find their morality offensive. Also, I do find it important that people understand the history of religious beliefs, learn how those beliefs have been manipulated to control entire populations and to keep religious leaders at the top of the heap.

Just like the atheists. Could it be that saving face and worrying about image are natural human responces?

Yes, these are natural human responses. So I would expect an organization which professes to be the voice of God on Earth would try to stand above such pettiness and try to be more "holy".

Nope I still follow Luthran values, I just was encouraged to study other faiths and spent more time on some than others as they apealed to me at different times...including as mentioned earlier a brief foray into the illogical depths of atheism (the faith of not having a belief in god).

And I respect that. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort coming to your faith. I don't think you are stupid because of that. It is those who do NOT study religion, who blindly accept the faith of their fathers, those who denigrate all other faiths but their own, simply because it IS their own.

I can't understand WHY you would choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But I can respect the fact that you have made a conscious choice.

The atheists simpley have no more ground to stand on with their cool aide than any other faith or belief system.

And once more I challenge you to explain how NOT believing in gods can be a faith. I do not BELIEVE there are no gods. I simply DON'T believe there are. If you can provide me with evidence, solid evidence, which can be tested, I'll be happy to change my mind. All I've ever seen from most theists are self-confirming anecdotes and demands that I "open my mind to accepting God". Whatever that means.

Calling everyone who doesnt believe in your way of thinking stupid without any more proof than the people your accusing of being dumbies imho makes one in large part a pot calling a kettle black.

And yet again I deny that I am saying everyone who believes is stupid. If that were so then I would have to call my parents stupid. They believe. But they do not BLINDLY believe. They have studied, and modified their beliefs to more closely conform to reality. I still think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid. Just as I don't believe you, or leo9, or so many others who have really learned of their faith, are stupid. I do think you are wrong, but not stupid. And I'm just as sure that you think I am wrong. And hopefully NOT stupid.

Most atheists, and I place myself among them, are not interested in destroying people's faith. They are only interested in preventing those people from infiltrating those faiths into our governments, schools, and work places. They are interested in being just as respected for their NON-beliefs as those believers want to be respected FOR their beliefs. They want a person who has been properly elected to be able to fill the office he was elected to fill without having to go to court because he happens to be an atheist. They want to be able to advertise atheist groups and meetings, just as churches advertise their meetings, without having to go to court to force businesses to place those advertisements. In short, we want to be treated as equals in society, without having to bow our heads and pray at the beginning of every activity. We want theists to keep faith in their hearts and religion in their churches, where it belongs.

[denuseri]

Allow me to speculate: you study these sciences and feel that certain things would not be possible without God? But I study these same things and say, "Where is this god?" I see no evidence for any kind of supernatural intervention in this universe. I see many coincidences, and many things which we might not yet understand, but that does not mean God, to me. What I do see are people figuratively tossing a coin into the air, drawing a circle around the coin when it lands, then claiming that it's impossible for that coin to have landed so precisely in that circle, therefore gods!

And what I see with atheists is the same thing coin and all.

And for the umpteenth time I must say, I do not preclude the existence of gods. I only say that there is no definitive evidence for them. There is nothing one can point to and say, "There is God!" No one can definitively say that there are no gods. What I can say is that there is no evidence for gods.

So your not really an aethiest now? Your agnostic?

I have no need, nor desire, to enforce anything!

Your arguments do not sound any different from the people you call idots for blindly following any faith.

I don't really care what people choose to believe in.

Then why do you constantly attack them for their beliefs?

What I DO care about is those people who try to force their beliefs upon me and others, (like you would do on everyone else if you were in power?) those who want to prevent atheists from holding public office, for example. Or those who want to force their morality on me, even though I find their morality offensive. Also, I do find it important that people understand the history of religious beliefs, learn how those beliefs have been manipulated to control entire populations and to keep religious leaders at the top of the heap.

Better also keep in mind how the aethist belief system was forced on entire populations of religious followers against their will too then, and manipulated to keep those same corrupt leaders at the tops of the heap.

Yes, these are natural human responses. So I would expect an organization which professes to be the voice of God on Earth would try to stand above such pettiness and try to be more "holy".

And the communists used the same exact kind of lofty rehtoric conserning aethism and look what happened.

And I respect that. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort coming to your faith. I don't think you are stupid (and yet you ussually manage to say I am in the same breath and then try to break from the argument by catagorizing me different from the rst of those who have a faith or following a religious organization...its sophistry 101) because of that. It is those who do NOT study religion, who blindly accept the faith of their fathers, those who denigrate all other faiths but their own, simply because it IS their own.

You do realize you do the same thing every time you make statments about unicorns and flying fairy dust and equate it to religion dont you? Then sophistacally suggest that if one believes in such one has to be stupid, and when called on that revert to saying "well only if they blindly follow it then" yet ...that doesnt in any practical way change that your still saying the same thing or worse about we who made a studied decision on the matter...though as thir pointed out, no one who is human really follows their faith blindly anyways.

I can't understand WHY you would choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But I can respect the fact that you have made a conscious choice.

And I cant understand why you would choose to believe in aethism when there is also no evidence that it is the one true way eaither lol.

If you respect we who have faith in a belief system so much (religion , philosophy what have you) then why dont you show it for a change instead of making the same statements of intolerance against us?

And once more I challenge you to explain how NOT believing in gods can be a faith.

I do every time we have this debate you just choose to not see the obvious.

I do not BELIEVE there are no gods.

So then you believe there are gods or a god? lol Tell me which god or gods do you believe in then?

I simply DON'T believe there are.

lol ok which is it, you believe or you dont?

If you can provide me with evidence, solid evidence, which can be tested, I'll be happy to change my mind.

Hummm, looks up at the other two posts before this set and sighs...looks to me sugar that you still need to make you mind up to begin with.

All I've ever seen from most theists are self-confirming anecdotes and demands that I "open my mind to accepting God". Whatever that means.

Not me, all I am doing is asking you to acept that others may not share the same belief system as you and that no matter what we personally may think of those said beliefs (like aethism for instance), it doesnt mean we cannot be tollerant and live together and work for the betterment of our species as a whole together or even one day find harmony in acceptance of each other as having different beliefs.

And yet again I deny that I am saying everyone who believes is stupid. If that were so then I would have to call my parents stupid. They believe. But they do not BLINDLY believe. They have studied, and modified their beliefs to more closely conform to reality. I still think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid. Just as I don't believe you, or leo9, or so many others who have really learned of their faith, are stupid. I do think you are wrong, but not stupid. And I'm just as sure that you think I am wrong. And hopefully NOT stupid.

Illogical at times maby, especially when it comes to discussions conserning religion and wether or not belief in aethism constitutes a belief..I mean you do have faith that aethisum is right dont you? Despite a complete lack of evidence to support your beliefs. That there really is not a god or gods? I know you must be flip flopping somewhere at least subconsiously since you apeared to have vacilated in your beilefs right in those very set of posts once allready.

Most atheists, and I place myself among them, are not interested in destroying people's faith.

Then why do you spend so much effort trying to do so?

They are only interested in preventing those people from infiltrating those faiths into our governments, schools, and work places.

And replacing them with your own.

They are interested in being just as respected for their NON-beliefs as those believers want to be respected FOR their beliefs.

We already legally have that in the USA.

They want a person who has been properly elected to be able to fill the office he was elected to fill without having to go to court because he happens to be an atheist. They want to be able to advertise atheist groups and meetings, just as churches advertise their meetings, without having to go to court to force businesses to place those advertisements. In short, we want to be treated as equals in society, without having to bow our heads and pray at the beginning of every activity. We want theists to keep faith in their hearts and religion in their churches, where it belongs.

So you wish to take a page from Stalin's book and take away the people of faith's right to freee speach and assembly? That way you will never have to see another church service or god forbid someone cross themselves or pray?

[Thorne]

And what I see with atheists is the same thing coin and all.

That's probably because you cannot seem to comprehend the idea that people CAN live without faith of any kind! You refuse to accept the idea that atheism is NOT a belief system, but simply a LACK of belief in gods. You try to take basic principles of religious faith and translate them onto atheists because you feel they must have some kind of faith. As this exchange shows:

I do not BELIEVE there are no gods.
So then you believe there are gods or a god? lol Tell me which god or gods do you believe in then?
I simply DON'T believe there are.
lol ok which is it, you believe or you dont?

Let me try to clarify. You seem to be implying that atheists are saying, "I believe that there are no gods." What we are actually saying is, "I do not believe that gods exist." Can you not see the difference in those two statements? If not then any discussion is useless, as you are arguing from a false premise.

And replacing them with your own.

This too is a false premise. I do not want to replace them with anything but the truth, as demonstrated by science and history. Christians in Texas, among other places, are still trying to get Creationism (sometimes masked as Intelligent Design) placed into biology classes, claiming it has equal validity with evolution. Yet evolution has massive amounts of evidence, has been tested and tested and retested, and continues to be tested. Creationism? All they have is "God did it!" How is that equal to evolution? Even the Catholic Church, for all its faults, has accepted evolution as true. Creationism is a religious doctrine which has no place in a science class. Evolution is science. So which group is trying to force their beliefs on someone?

So you wish to take a page from Stalin's book and take away the people of faith's right to freee speach and assembly? That way you will never have to see another church service or god forbid someone cross themselves or pray?[/B]

Why is it you always want to bring up Stalin, or Hitler? Why not Torquemada, or Cromwell? Stalin wasn't trying to replace religion with atheism, but with worship of Stalin! A state religion, which he could control.

And no, I do NOT want to take people's faith away from them. I simply want that faith maintained where it belongs: in their churches, in their homes, in their hearts. Not in the government and not in the science class.

I don't have a problem with people praying in public, as long as they don't interfere with those who don't wish to pray. But it is illegal for government officials to begin an official meeting with a public prayer. It is illegal for the law to ban non-Christians from holding public office. Yet the state of North Carolina, and possibly others, still have laws banning atheists from taking public office.

[denuseri]

Let me try to clarify. You seem to be implying that atheists are saying, "I believe that there are no gods." What we are actually saying is, "I do not believe that gods exist." Can you not see the difference in those two statements?

Lets see...."I believe that there are no gods" = A belief in there being no gods, yes?

and "I do not believe that gods exist" = A belief that gods do not exist, yes?

Both statments belay a "belief" in there not being any gods in existance do they not?

Both statements are conserning one's belief in something else. No premise missed there.

The only premise thats missed is you refusing to acknowledge that your belief system of aethism has no more validity to it than anyone elses belief system involving some other religion from each other's perspective.

How much faith you have in it and why you have faith in it... is another thing.





Why is it you always want to bring up Stalin, or Hitler? Why not Torquemada, or Cromwell? Stalin wasn't trying to replace religion with atheism, but with worship of Stalin! A state religion, which he could control.

Then why did he and the other communisits before him call it aethism sugar? Last time I checked he didnt have anyone praying to him in any church. The Communist's were pretty clear about their belief system being one of Aethism.

And no, I do NOT want to take people's faith away from them.

Then maby you might want to be more clear in your statments conserning such things, cuase all I hear is a lot of the same rehtoric used by Stalin and the other aethists of his day in his country where they did that very thing.

I simply want that faith maintained where it belongs: in their churches, in their homes, in their hearts. Not in the government and not in the science class.

Hummm, I seem to remeber a little freedom of speach cluase there in our constitution. Whats wrong with presenting all beliefs and letting the students decide for themselves huh?

I don't have a problem with people praying in public, as long as they don't interfere with those who don't wish to pray. But it is illegal for government officials to begin an official meeting with a public prayer. It is illegal for the law to ban non-Christians from holding public office. Yet the state of North Carolina, and possibly others, still have laws banning atheists from taking public office.

Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Next you will be on about anyone but a professed aethiest holding office. There are no federal laws banning an aethist from office are there? You cannot expect to run for an office anyways without the support of the voting constituents. If there are enough aethists in the state in question to support you I am sure you can get it changed.

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

Is that what you want for America?

[Thorne]

Lets see...."I believe that there are no gods" = A belief in there being no gods, yes?

Exactly.

and "I do not believe that gods exist" = A belief that gods do not exist, yes?

Wrong! "I do not believe that gods exist" = A LACK of belief in gods! NOT a belief in the lack of gods.

The only premise thats missed is you refusing to acknowledge that your belief system of aethism has no more validity to it than anyone elses belief system involving some other religion from each other's perspective.

How much faith you have in it and why you have faith in it... is another thing.

So you're claiming that atheism is a belief in the lack of belief of gods? That makes no sense. Is the lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system? What about the lack of belief in unicorns? Is that a belief system, too? No, all of these are LACKS of belief. Or to be more precise, an understanding of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of those things.

And how can I have faith in atheism, since there is nothing there to have faith in?

Hummm, I seem to remeber a little freedom of speach cluase there in our constitution. Whats wrong with presenting all beliefs and letting the students decide for themselves huh?

Certainly! But in a comparative religion class, not a science class. Would you want Evolution taught during religion courses? Perhaps we can teach History during Phys Ed! How about Sex Ed during Driver's Ed? Each topic has it's place. There is no place for religion in science classes, unless you can provide scientific evidence for your religion.

[B]Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Depends on the meeting. A private club? No problem. A religious group? Be my guest. A county board of education? That's a problem. If you only permit one type of prayer you are promoting a specific religion. But how many fundamentalist Baptists, for example, would allow a Muslim prayer to open their school board meeting? Or a Pagan prayer (or whatever they use)? Why haven't we seen any voodoo priestesses giving the convocation for Congress? But if you cannot accommodate ALL faiths (or lack thereof), it is illegal to accommodate ANY!

[B]Next you will be on about anyone but a professed aethiest holding office. There are no federal laws banning an aethist from office are there? You cannot expect to run for an office anyways without the support of the voting constituents. If there are enough aethists in the state in question to support you I am sure you can get it changed.

Recently there was an election in Delaware, I believe (I can't find a link to the story, sorry) in which an atheist WAS elected. Local Christian groups dragged up an old state law which prohibited atheists from holding public office. Yes, the law was overturned by Federal courts, but there should never have been a question to begin with. And of course, the taxpayers had to pay for the costs of getting things straightened out. But since the churches do not pay taxes, they didn't have to worry about that!

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

Why not? I can ridicule those who believe in leprechauns, can't I? How about those who believe in faeries? I can even ridicule those who believe in homeopathy? Why can't I ridicule those who's superstitions include gods?

Is that what you want for America?

What I want is an American population that understands the difference between evidence and wishful thinking. I don't claim that we cannot have any religions (though the loss of them wouldn't upset me in the least.) Just keep your religion where it belongs, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

[denuseri]

Exactly.


Wrong! "I do not believe that gods exist" = A LACK of belief in gods! NOT a belief in the lack of gods.

If you do not believe that gods exist then you must believe that they do, or you believe yourself to be unsure on the matter...which is it?

So you're claiming that atheism is a belief in the lack of belief of gods?

No, I am saying that aethesim is a belief that gods do not exist.

That makes no sense. Is the lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system?

Just use some basic logic and I am sure you will figure it out hon.



What about the lack of belief in unicorns? Is that a belief system, too?

Yep it's perfectly acceptable to blieve that unicorns and or santa do not exist if you want too, though recently we have found evidence of how goats were made to look like them.

No, all of these are LACKS of belief. Or to be more precise, an understanding of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of those things.

In other words believeing that they do not exist. lol

And how can I have faith in atheism, since there is nothing there to have faith in?

You have faith that the things the aetheist scientists and sections of the media are telling you about it dont you? I am pretty sure you dont run out to the local mad aetheist scientiest lab and grab up a bunch of stuff to prove every scientific experiemnt ever made for yourself ...now do you? No of course not, that would be silly...instead...you have faith that what they are postulating is in fact what they are telling you. You believe them to be right.

Certainly! But in a comparative religion class, not a science class. Would you want Evolution taught during religion courses? Perhaps we can teach History during Phys Ed! How about Sex Ed during Driver's Ed? Each topic has it's place. There is no place for religion in science classes, unless you can provide scientific evidence for your religion.

No where would it be more appropriate to discuss such concepts in a classroom imho, especially since the one rose forth directly from the other via the philosophers, they should get it in history, science, math, social studies, etc etc. And not tuaght what to think, so much as how to think for themselves.

Depends on the meeting. A private club? No problem. A religious group? Be my guest. A county board of education? That's a problem. If you only permit one type of prayer you are promoting a specific religion. But how many fundamentalist Baptists, for example, would allow a Muslim prayer to open their school board meeting? Or a Pagan prayer (or whatever they use)? Why haven't we seen any voodoo priestesses giving the convocation for Congress? But if you cannot accommodate ALL faiths (or lack thereof), it is illegal to accommodate ANY!

Actually...it kinda says we must accomadate ALL!

And if the people want to have a betty davis apothieosis high priestess say her prayer instead of the one the Chatholic Priest was gomnna give, or make some sort of an arrangment for a voodoo priestess to get in on it too, thats fine...and should especially be fine for the aetheist becuase the aethiest believes that no such things as a god exist to begin with...so whats wrong with someone praying regardless of where or when?

Recently there was an election in Delaware, I believe (I can't find a link to the story, sorry) in which an atheist WAS elected. Local Christian groups dragged up an old state law which prohibited atheists from holding public office. Yes, the law was overturned by Federal courts, but there should never have been a question to begin with. And of course, the taxpayers had to pay for the costs of getting things straightened out. But since the churches do not pay taxes, they didn't have to worry about that!

See democracy and tolerance can work together!

Why not? I can ridicule those who believe in leprechauns, can't I? How about those who believe in faeries? I can even ridicule those who believe in homeopathy? Why can't I ridicule those who's superstitions include gods?

You do ridicule people all the time sugar...thats not in dispute here.

I was just saying that resorting to such sophistry when you also claim to have science and its Socratic principles on your side isnt helping your argument.

If anything it makes you look just like the people your making a claim against, even worse when they dont resort to mud slinging of the same kind to make their own points.

What I want is an American population that understands the difference between evidence and wishful thinking. I don't claim that we cannot have any religions (though the loss of them wouldn't upset me in the least.) Just keep your religion where it belongs, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

So you wish to get rid of freedom of speach then?

Or just restrict it further than the founding fathers intended?

Will aetheist beliefs also be rendered equally proscripted and made illegal to be exoused in all of the same places?

[Thorne]

If you do not believe that gods exist then you must believe that they do, or you believe yourself to be unsure on the matter...which is it?

This makes absolutely no sense. I do not believe in Santa Claus, therefore I must believe in him?

I think the basic problem here, as with most theists, is that they cannot comprehend the possibility that people CAN exist without a belief system. Just as I, an atheist, can't understand why people would WANT to believe in invisible, intangible beings, they cannot understand why I DON'T believe in them. 'Nuff said about that.

You have faith that the things the aetheist scientists and sections of the media are telling you about it dont you? ...you have faith that what they are postulating is in fact what they are telling you. You believe them to be right.

You call it belief. I call it trust. That is, I trust SOME scientists, those who have shown themselves to be worthy of such trust. I do not automatically trust ALL scientists, since scientists are people too, and people make mistakes, and people can be fooled, even by themselves.

The best example I can come up with is the Climate Change controversy. When this hypothesis was first put forward I was skeptical. Mainly because I did NOT trust those most vocal about it (Al Gore, primarily). But over the years I've seen enough evidence presented, seen enough opinions by scientists whose opinions I DO trust, to convince me that climate change is occurring, and the Earth is getting warmer. It's not a belief system, but an understanding of the evidence. And an understanding of the scientific method which has validated that evidence.

No where would it be more appropriate to discuss such concepts in a classroom imho, especially since the one rose forth directly from the other via the philosophers, they should get it in history, science, math, social studies, etc etc. And not tuaght what to think, so much as how to think for themselves.

Ah yes, let's let them think for themselves. A popular myth of theists, who generally do NOT want anyone to think for themselves, unless that thinking falls in with dogma. See this video to see how Creationists promote critical thinking! Then tell me that this kind of nonsense should be taught in biology class, or geology class, or history class.

Certainly religious organizations have contributed to the advancement of science in the past, and those contributions should be recognized. Every science course should include at least some study of the history of that science. Including the effects, both positive and negative, of religion upon that science. But claiming, for example, that Creationism is just as valid a scientific theory as Evolution, and should be taught as such in classes, is just silly!

So you wish to get rid of freedom of speach then?

Where have I said that? If anything, I am a proponent of free speech. For ALL, not just for theists.

Or just restrict it further than the founding fathers intended?

No, more like bring us back closer to the kind of secular government which the founding fathers DID intend. Freedom OF religion also implies freedom FROM religion.

[thir]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

I'd like to step in here, but this is something that I feel strongly about.
I would not feel threathened, but I would be very angry to be forced to participate in a prayer I do not want to participate. I felt like that before, and I feel it even more now, because I would be forced into a prayer in a faith I do not belong to. Let these people do their prayers before the meeting, and leaves others alone.

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

I cannot see how not wanting to be forced into the prayers of others is being intolerant it it the faith forcing itself on others.

To me the tolerance is where you leave others be, with what they do or do not believe in, in the puclic space, and in their jobs.

[leo9]

Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Look at it this way: would you object to people starting a meeting with the traditional Jewish prayer "I thank God for not having made me a woman"?

Or with a collective assertion of belief in Marxism and the eventual triumph of the Communist Party? Or with a declaration that Scientology is the only true way and this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Dianetics?

The point is, a prayer is an assertion of a belief system. If you happen to disagree with that belief system - and, moreover, you live in a country where it is constitutionally mandated that government should not be bound by any one belief system - are you not entitled to object to someone implicitly dedicating the proceedings to their chosen belief system?

[denuseri]

Look at it this way: would you object to people starting a meeting with the traditional Jewish prayer "I thank God for not having made me a woman"?

No, I have no issues with other jews praying, though I am very unfamiliar with the paticular prayer your talking about.

Or with a collective assertion of belief in Marxism and the eventual triumph of the Communist Party?

An actual pledge or assertion of belief and having a silent time for prayer before an event or meeting where each can pray in their own way to thier own gods are two very different things.

Or with a declaration that Scientology is the only true way and this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Dianetics?

Again what your proposing is very different from what happens when people are accepting of others faith's in addition to their own. A time for non-denominational prayer before a meeting or event is not a declaration of any one faith or belief system over another.

The point is, a prayer is an assertion of a belief system.

No the point of prayer is to communicate to one's god or gods. An Oath or a confession of one's faith via utterance of the "Apostle's Creed" for example are assertions of belief.

If you happen to disagree with that belief system - and, moreover, you live in a country where it is constitutionally mandated that government should not be bound by any one belief system - are you not entitled to object to someone implicitly dedicating the proceedings to their chosen belief system?

Freedom of speech means one can object until they are blue in the face, but it doesnt mean one can disrupt the proceedings of a local assembly of people or infringe on their rights to the same. If the individuals present at any meeting wish to pray they will anyways.

Again having a moment of prayer where each individual can pray to their god is not a "dedication" or an assertion of faith or any kind of branding whatsoever.

[Thorne]

Again having a moment of prayer where each individual can pray to their god is not a "dedication" or an assertion of faith or any kind of branding whatsoever.

But what we are talking about here is NOT just a "moment of silence" but the actual recitation of a prayer at the start of an official meeting. These are very seldom 'non-denominational", but even if they were they are illegal since they still single out non-believers. If you honestly believe, as you have repeatedly stated, that atheism is a religion then you would have to agree that saying ANY prayers to ANY gods is a slap in the face to atheists.

And we're not talking about private groups here, but official government agencies. Private groups can do whatever they please. Anyone who doesn't like it can leave the group and start one of their own. But people can't just up and start their own board of education, for example.