It's official: atheistic fundamentalism exists.

[Last Conformist]

FWIW, I don't think I've come across KH's definition before.

[Jon Miller]

I hadn't read that one yet.

JM

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Kidicious


How in the world did you get to this statement?

Rich coming from you
One must make the moral determination that ones own existence is worth preserving in order to take steps to ensure it continues (eating, sleeping, etc).
One must make the moral determination that some action is worth undertaking (either extrinsically or intrinsically) in order to then undertake that action.

If nothing in the world is good or bad, then there is no motivation to do anything in the world, and thus a person would do nothing.

[Kidlicious]

Tacc,

If I esperience a felling as a result of an action. I attribute that to my biological system. I don't create a code of morality based on that feeling, because I have no reason to universalize it, and I'm sure that the resulting code would be personally biased. How then will I rot and die, having not created a code of morality?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tacc


Rich coming from you
One must make the moral determination that ones own existence is worth preserving in order to take steps to ensure it continues (eating, sleeping, etc).
One must make the moral determination that some action is worth undertaking (either extrinsically or intrinsically) in order to then undertake that action.

If nothing in the world is good or bad, then there is no motivation to do anything in the world, and thus a person would do nothing.

That's nonsense. I need no moral judgements to survive. I simply have biological impulses that motivate me to do so.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
By the way, since you list yourself as nonAgnostic.

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

Non-agnosticism does not mean, to me, the belief that God does not exist.

I simply have no evidence. And to me, that relegates God to the same level of believability as anything else for which I have no evidence. The more attributes or powers you choose to give to your hypothetical God, the more evidence I would need to believe in it. For instance, if you tell me that God is omnipotent, that's a fairly big claim. Or that God created the Universe. Or that we have immortal souls which God will sit in judgment of.

The nonexistence of anything without a predicted level of measurability is a negative claim. Unless you tell me that God exists and has some attribute I could measure then of course I can't disprove the existence of God. But neither do I believe that your God exists, or even that any god must exist. It's all a bunch of nonsense until I see some evidence.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
FWIW, I don't think I've come across KH's definition before.

That's because you've never taken a religion class from a Jesuit with a PhD in theology before.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Tacc,

If I esperience a felling as a result of an action.

But you undertook the action in order to fulfill some intrinsic value determination

I attribute that to my biological system. I don't create a code of morality based on that feeling, because I have no reason to universalize it, and I'm sure that the resulting code would be personally biased. How then will I rot and die, having not created a code of morality?

For individual actions, it may or may not particularly matter. If you were to make absolutely no moral determinatiions whatsoever, that would necessarily then mean that you did not value your own existence, and thus would not take actions to preserve it, and hence you would rot and die.
If you preserve your own life, then you fail at rejecting morality entirely.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think it is logically possible to attain scientific evidence of the standard Abrahamic God. Which is the reason why I am would classify myself as agnostic, despite beleiving in God.

What I don't understand is how someone can require scientific evidence to beleive in things, yet be a nonagnostic atheist. Unless you have the additional beleif that it is possible to know everything in the universe.. which seems like a much more extraordinary beleif then that there exists God.

JM

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's nonsense. I need no moral judgements to survive. I simply have biological impulses that motivate me to do so.

You are a being that is capable of an extremely high level of abstract thinking, and thus your actions will be filtered through that. A person may have a biological impulse to simply rape another, but for most people their moral system would forbid such a thing. A person may have a biological impulse to eat, but their moral system may tell them not to, etc.

And it is often the case that moral systems simply develop to justify biological impulses - hedonism is a "primitive" system in this respect and because it is so basic people often confuse it for "amorality".

In certain rare cases a human may not be capable of high level abstraction and thus may indeed operate on biological impulses alone, but this is not true for the vast majority of humans (indeed, humans became human due to the emergence of this ability).

In some other instances, a person loses the value determination that their own existence is good, etc and thus either do not take steps to secure it or may take steps to end it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tacc


But you undertook the action in order to fulfill some intrinsic value determination

No, i did it for a feeling or to avoid a feeling.

For individual actions, it may or may not particularly matter. If you were to make absolutely no moral determinatiions whatsoever, that would necessarily then mean that you did not value your own existence, and thus would not take actions to preserve it, and hence you would rot and die.
If you preserve your own life, then you fail at rejecting morality entirely.

Again, I preserve myself because I have biological impluses that motivate me. And why should I value my existance. For what other purpose than to feel good.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by 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

Again, quoting the dictionary is fairly useless.

Most definitions given in it are common use definitions rather than those developed for precision by "experts".

Atheism and agnosticism, as commonly defined there are simply broad ranges on a spectrum, and have significant overlap.

They are pretty useless when it comes to actual theological discussions, which is why you see slightly different definitions used there.

Given the very fine nature of the current discussion (whether or not atheism is a religion depends entirely, in my view, on your exact definition of atheism) I thought it appropriate to use the most precise definitions I've seen.

If you want to define it your way, then I am an agnostic. But again, that tells you virtually nothing about my position.

[Nubclear]

No, i did it for a feeling or to avoid a feeling.

Yes, a person will not actualise some value-determination X unless they gain a benefit, and these benefits are reduced to feelings. Perhaps I value socialism because it makes me feel good inside, or perhaps I value it because it makes me more popular, or whatnot.

For what other purpose than to feel good.

Oh? Why does it matter if you feel good?

[Nubclear]

If you have GTalk or MSN, feel free to PM me with an address.

[Robert]

1. Nihilism is a form of atheism. I've said countless times already that I don't claim that all atheists are alike.

2. atheism should imho be treated in the same way as other religions indeed.

3. I'm against the freedom of religion btw. Here in Holland people claim in the name of their religion that they can torture goats, trow gays from towers, etc. I don't see how someone who claims to be religious can do more then someone who claims to be not religious. I am supporting freedom of speech and freedom of gathering. Those two basic rights make the need for freedom of religion absolute.