Atheism in the United States

I am not one to get hung up on things like this but I would have appreciated it if my opponent apologized for his previous forfeit. Nevertheless, the show must go on. Yes my point exactly is that the Declaration of Independence is outdated. You actually agree with this, as stated. I argue that to be against Atheism because of the Declaration is an invalid and substandard argument because it is outdated. I have discussed all this in the previous round. My opponent tries to make a case that if an argument is to be made against the declaration from the increase in Atheism then groups such as Nazism and Satanism would follow the same logic. I don't get the logic behind this argument. As the debate is dealing with Atheism in the US then in this instance it is only valid for us to make arguments on Atheism vs. The Declaration (the example you gave). However my point was that I do not feel it rational to be against atheism in America because of a very outdated Declaration where the world, beliefs and ideas were completely different. No point bringing up other groups or denominations as we are just talking about Atheism. You try to make a case that "the Declaration is the standing document that serves as the grounds for invalidating Atheism in the United States" however you yourself said that the Declaration is outdated: "I agree in that the Declaration of independence is very old and is in fact outdated" This is a contradiction of points. However you are essentially saying that you are against Atheism because of what the Declaration of Independence says. Pardon me but I feel that this reasoning is a little unfair. How can you agree that it is old and outdated but that what it says still must be valid? You are arguing that you are against Atheism in the US because of the law of the land. Again I feel that this is unfair reasoning. Does this mean that no matter what the law, you will be for it just because it is the law? If a law was passed that allowed pedophilia to take place and a person said that they were for it because it was the law and the law must be correct then people would see that as a very weak justification. It is the same principle here. Also using this logic would this mean that if Atheism was fully condoned in the US then you would condone it too? There is a big difference between making an argument based on personal views and making an argument based on "following the crowd", if you will. Again you contradict your arguments when you say that "The argument I address in this instance is that it's not fair to discriminate against people who have a different set of beliefs than the majority". The simple fact that you created this debate and that you are against Atheism in the US is discriminating against people who have a different set of beliefs than the majority i. e Atheists. Whether the Declaration, Bill of rights or the Constitution supports anyone's belief in a religion or not this is still discriminating against Atheists (people who have a different set of beliefs than the majority). Definition of Discrimination: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people Source: (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) We would all like to think that we are against discrimination however that is not how your argument is presented. Again there is know way of knowing if the US is "under God" or not. It is only under God on paper and like I said, such "paper" is becoming more and more outdated, especially as Atheism is increasing. Eventually the US will have to change it's basis if we are to see a consistent increase in Atheism over the many years to follow. Again the Declaration of Independence etc. was written in a time where Atheism was unheard of but now the times have changed. Thankfully Atheism is legal in the US but the president can pass certain laws or not so it is not as if Atheism must be shunned for eternity in the US. And of course in the future, this will most likely not be the case at all. Again the idea that Atheism is shunned is based on the majority. The nation's principles were written based on the majority e. g religion, in a time where Atheism was unheard of. Now we live in a modern society where different beliefs surround us everyday. We cannot keep living in the past and based all our opinions on outdated scripture rather than personal beliefs. I am not Pro Atheism in the US because of the fact that I happen to be Atheist myself. I am Pro Atheist because I am pro individually. Everyone should have a right to express and believe in what they want to and have a right not to be discriminated against. I am also Pro Religion because I am pro Freedom of expression and Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Rights: Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Source: (. http://www.un.org...) I will end my argument here as I feel I have sufficiently given my arguments.