It's official: atheistic fundamentalism exists.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Seeger

An atheists' moral convictions are considered his religion, essentially.

That's fine. My point is that this is not a necessary holding in order for atheists to be protected.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's fine. My point is that this is not a necessary holding in order for atheists to be protected.

Last year in my government class (which, sadly, included all people of well above average intelligence) nearly half the class objected that atheism wasn't protected under the 1st Amendment because it's not a religion and isn't "exercised." Things like that kind of freak me out and make me insist that atheism is a religion.

[Kuciwalker]

Atheists are the last group of people it is socially acceptable to discriminate against, even more so than Muslims.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how weak atheism is different then agnosticism. I mean, you can be an agnostic theist (in at least one definition that I have read, I would consider myself one), why not an agnostic atheist?

Jon Miller

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Last year in my government class (which, sadly, included all people of well above average intelligence) nearly half the class objected that atheism wasn't protected under the 1st Amendment because it's not a religion and isn't "exercised." Things like that kind of freak me out and make me insist that atheism is a religion.

So you decide whether atheism is a religion on grounds of political expediency? Methinks you're in the wrong discussion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Seeger

An atheists' moral convictions are considered his religion, essentially.

Does this mean Kantism (if that is his moral conviction) is a religious belief?

Basically, the response is then, that ALL philosophy ends up being a religion under that argument. And perhaps some feel that way.

Though in the Seeger case, you have the difference expounded on by KH about strong atheism and weak atheism. Seeger actually SAID that he considered his beliefs in man to be a 'religion'. That was a great deal of his argument.

Oh, and before I forget Neitszche

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't see how weak atheism is different then agnosticism.

They are?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tacc
Furthermore, you are straying from the common-sense definition of "religion". A moral system (and all humans have moral systems) need not be a religious system.

I don't believe that all humans have moral systems. Personally, I have a biological system which causes be to feel. This feelings tend to result in believes that I hold true. However, I try not to allow my biological system to create a moral system within me. I've become aware of the way I work, and the result is that I've turned away from many ways that I used to think.

[Jon Miller]

I have heard people maintain that they are... not sure who.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

That makes no logical sense.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By not making a law respecting an extablishment of religion, Congress is already prohibited from forcing a religion onto those who do not want one.

The "free exercise thereof" clause doesn't mean anything in this context. Expressing your lack of belief in God in covered under the speech clause.

In fact, I don't really understand what additional protection is given to anybody by the "free exercise thereof" clause. The first, third and fourth clauses are all that is required...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If I have no belief that animals are intelligent or self-aware, because of a lack of evidence to indicate their intelligence or consciousness, then make moral claims like "eating meat is OK" based on that, does that make my belief about animals a religion?

I wonder if the motive of you moral claim is not more based on your desire to eat meat.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't believe that all humans have moral systems. Personally, I have a biological system which causes be to feel. This feelings tend to result in believes that I hold true. However, I try not to allow my biological system to create a moral system within me. I've become aware of the way I work, and the result is that I've turned away from many ways that I used to think.

A human that does not have a moral system (that is, a human that does not make positive or negative value determinations about the world) does nothing, rots, and dies.
Most humans, and all humans that actively work to live, operate under some moral system.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't see how weak atheism is different then agnosticism. I mean, you can be an agnostic theist (in at least one definition that I have read, I would consider myself one), why not an agnostic atheist?

To paraphrase my religion teacher in grade 10, "agnosticism implies the existence of a drive to discover religious truth".

You can be an agnostic atheist, but it implies that you believe that there is a true religion.

I have seen nothing which leads me to believe that any of the world's religions are any better than something I could come up with by myself in an afternoon, or that I need to have a religion. I am thus not an agnostic.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
You say tomato, I say tomaato.

Or something like that.

Anyway, it's a Cybershy thread

-Arrian

It was great when it devolved into personal insults

Too bad the discussion resumed

[Kuciwalker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

In the modern interpretation they have substantial overlap. Previously, not so much.