I think that atheists and agnostics belong to the same "church." Neither places any faith in the existence of a deity. And only a fool would deny the existence of "God" if there was irrefutable, uncontestable and absolute (rather than interpretive) evidence of "His" existence. Therefore, if there existed such incontrovertible evidence, then I think that everyone would fall into line. Until such time, there are just varying degrees of belief and disbelief. Presently, I think of myself as an atheist. Before that, I considered myself to be an agnostic. Before that I was a believer in God. My life has been no different as either an atheist or an agnostic. In fact, for all intents and purposes, they are effectively the same. I am guessing that there are atheists who present themselves as agnostics because it may be more politically correct. But really, what is the difference? Neither accepts a deity. You either do or you do not.
By that definition, everything is "practice" in one form or another. If so, then does not the term "practice" lose its meaning? What is the absence of practice?
Actually, I'm just taken aback that there is any perceived need for such rulings. So much for separation of "religion" and state, eh?
The agnostic has no faith in God, no faith in non God. The agnostict doesn't practice faith where God or non God is concerned. The theist has faith in God. The atheist has faith in non God. (GG is the classic example of an atheist, as he consistently prounces and practices his faith that there is no God.) Just as there are positive numbers and negative numbers, there is also a condition in which there are no numbers, a state of neither positve or negative...the state of nothing, i.e. zero. Think of theists as positive numbers, atheists as negative numbers, and agnostics a 100% neutral...a big fat zero. _____________________________ "And only a fool would deny the existence of "God" if there was irrefutable, uncontestable and absolute (rather than interpretive) evidence of "His" existence. Therefore, if there existed such incontrovertible evidence, then I think that everyone would fall into line. Until such time, there are just varying degrees of belief and disbelief." Perhaps true Agnostics would state that there cannot possibly be a proof of God's existence, nor a proof of God's non existence, as God by their concept is beyond intellectual and sensually based proofs. As a consequence, they would have a position intellectually that God is beyond proof or disproof, and as such they cannot practice belief or disbelief in the concept of God. If someone concludes there is no way to know something, then there is no way to reasonably hold a belief either positive or negative....just fully neutral would be an intellectually honest position. While they don't accept God, they don't reject God either. The theist accepts God, the atheist rejects God. You don't sound very neutral to me, so I would count you as an atheist.
of course i recognize the principal....... but then i commented on the dynamic of the specific. i know that is difficult for some so maybe in the future i will keep it on a 3rd grade level. geezzzzzzz what i found humorous was that gg got his panties all bunched up because the priciple he is defending this time is protecting satanism. many would argue that satanism really wouldn't be covered by the first amendment at all. i would guess that GG thinks that wicca is just some kind of nature worship with fairies and love spells.
There is a need, as it provides equal protection under the law, and tries to prevent persecution of Atheists by Theists. You probably know that legal decisions of this kind have more of an impact going forward than they do on any given case in which the legal opinion was rendered. I am fully against Theists persecution of Atheists, or Wiccans, or any other group who has a belief of non belief that differs from others. It is really none of anyone's business. The state has non business legislating or ruling on someone's religious or non religious beliefs. They do however, have a right and an obligation to rule on the actions of a person or groups if those actions are destructive to society, and they can make certain actions illegal if they are harmful to others. Some religion may believe in sacrificing a virgin to an Earth god who lives in a volcano, and it is fine with me if they hold that belief...but it is not okay if they act on that belief. As is always the case, we need to protect the complete freedom of belief, and punish and reward on the basis of actions.
Point taken. Isn't it ironic that laws have to be in place so that those who preach brotherly love will not persecute those with whom they disagree?
Rat: >what i found humorous was that gg got his panties >all bunched up because the principle he is defending >this time is protecting satanism. You just perfectly demonstrated how you DON'T recognize the principle, but are instead focusing on the specific. Inherent to the principle GG is defending is the concept that there is no "this time". "This time" carries an implication of uniqueness that GG is clearly against. GG has consistently ask that the principle be applied *every time* and as such his actions are an example of the very principle. >i know that is difficult for some so maybe in the future >i will keep it on a 3rd grade level. geezzzzzzz Dream big Rat -- with study and hard work you can make it to the 4th grade level where you may even learn the intricacies of capital letters. JB