It's official: atheistic fundamentalism exists.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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

Whether the desire to eat meat came first or the desire to have such a moral system came first is not particularly relevant.

Too bad the discussion resumed

You are an idiot. Go back to surrendering to Germany plz, frenchie.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


They are?

Yes, actually. See my post above.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

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...

One'd think it prevents the state from prohibiting religious rites and observances.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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

Then you're an idiot.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

One'd think it prevents the state from prohibiting religious rites and observances.

Free speech. "Speech" is broadly defined...

[Arrian]

KH,

I don't believe in God/gods, but concede that there could potentially be some type of higher power "out there." Perhaps an absentee creator, perhaps something else. I just don't know.

Doesn't that qualify as "agnostic atheist" or something like it? That is, I don't buy into any established religion, but I do not competely reject the possibility of a higher power?

Or is that the definition of "weak atheism?" edit: yup, nevermind, that's it all right.

-Arrian

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Arrian

Doesn't that qualify as "agnostic atheist" or something like it? That is, I don't buy into any established religion, but I do not competely reject the possibility of a higher power?

Sounds like the definition of "weak atheist".

[Arrian]

Yeah, I just DanSed it.

Huzzah! I am weak!

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian
KH,

I don't believe in God/gods, but concede that there could potentially be some type of higher power "out there." Perhaps an absentee creator, perhaps something else. I just don't know.

Doesn't that qualify as "agnostic atheist" or something like it? That is, I don't buy into any established religion, but I do not competely reject the possibility of a higher power?

Or is that the definition of "weak atheism?"

-Arrian

In my view, weak atheism.

There is a large difference between not outright rejecting the notion that some undetermined religion might be correct and the belief that some religion must be correct while not being sure of which one it is.

The first is weak atheism. The second is agnosticism. Theist agnosticism implies that you are fairly convinced that a true religion exists and involves a deity (Abrahamic religions, Hinduism etc). Weak atheistic agnosticism implies that you are fairly convinced that a true religion exists, and have not yet made up your mind whether or not it involves a deity. Strong atheistic agnosticism is a weird one. Depending on how inclusive you are in your rejection of divine or supernatural entities it may or may not exist and be logically consistent. If you only reject divine entities then you might still hold out hope for Shinto or Buddhism. If you reject even that level of supernaturalism then you might have painted yourself into a corner...

[KrazyHorse]

For what it's worth, I am a weak atheist non-agnostic. My wife is a theist hovering between agnosticism and non-denominational Christianity.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tacc


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.

How in the world did you get to this statement?

[Jon Miller]

" a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

I don't really see how this implies the believe in the existence of God. Using this I would define myself as an Agnostic Christian.

But I could conceive of an agnostic atheist. How would such a thing be different then a weak atheist? Or do you not think such a thing could exist? If so, why?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Other definitions:

2 a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3 of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4 asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

It seems that at least one definition goes against your definition KH. And I haven't seen one that is exactly yours.

JM

[Jon Miller]

By the way, since you list yourself as nonAgnostic.

How would you experimentally test for the existence of God? (Abrahamic or otherwise)

I can't think of an experimental test for Merlin... much less God.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Uh, Jon, did you read my post? I think that atheistic agnostics exist.

But in my view (and, incidentally, that of most theologians) agnosticism is not simply an uncertainty about spiritual truth. It is combined with a sincere belief that there is spiritual truth and a desire to discover it. Your dictionary definition does not convey the full sense of the word as it has come to be used theologically and philosophically.