Should atheism be recognised?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by S.A.M., Mar 9, 2009.

?

Should atheism be recognised?

  1. Yes, I want to be recognised for the stuff I don't believe in

    4 vote(s)
    44.4%
  2. No, its stupid to have a category for NOT believing in something

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Got better things to think about

    5 vote(s)
    55.6%
  4. My opinion, which is better than yours, is given in a post below

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Why does a negative position need to be recognised?

    Do we have clubs of people who don't believe in UFOs, a festival for those who don't celebrate Christmas, a book for those who don't collect stamps?

    Why even have a separate category for atheism?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Some prominent atheist leaders have argued exactly the same thing; that's it's silly to have a special label for people who don't believe in gods, as if lack of belief was itself some sort of belief system.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Which leaders?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Sam Harris, for one:
    http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
    Edit: Although it's not clear to me what you mean by "recognized".
     
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What do you mean by 'recognized' ?
    I want my position to be accepted, that's all. I don't need labels.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
  10. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    The word is useful insofar that if there were no neutral world for the concept (and 'atheist' is not neutral everywhere, but it's close enough), a more politicized word would be chosen.

    But what exactly do you mean by 'recognized'? It's a philosophical position (an ontological one, to be exact) and it ought to be recognized as such. Why wouldn't it be?
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    So is being a non-astrologer
     
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Why have a category for people who believe in one book but not others?
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,164
    I've always wondered about that, but you can't talk sense to theists about some things.
     
  14. mustafhakofi I sa'id so Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    599
    It doesn't, it's merely a label, atheist is more what your are from a theist perspective, without god.
    Don't you need to define what is negative, I would regard theism as negative/unnatural, accepting reality via an imagined concept, is totally negative. The positive/natural position would be atheism.
     
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,781
    What about people that don't believe in abortions?
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    You mean the pro-life brigade?
     
  17. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,781
    Exactly, why do they need to recognize their negative position?
     
  18. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624

    Sam, while I see your point, I have to disagree on this premise:

    If that stupid ass, 'how the hell do you believe that crap' Scientology can become officially recognized, why not athiesm?
    If those freakin racist KKK and White Supremacists can be officially recognized, then so can athiesm.
    You gunna sit there and tell me that the KKK/White supremacy groups aren't negative?

    Equal rights Sam. Stop being so damn discriminatory. <--That right there is why the 'negative position' needs to be recognized.
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Do you hold the same position about non-astrologers and non-stamp collectors?

    What about the non-book reading clubs?

    Is their position a valid one?
     
  20. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Yes, in a sense. And here's why.
    Can you, Sam or anyone else on this board answer me this (with a rational, common sense answer):

    What makes <insert your religion here> anymore believable than any other religion, or non-religion?

    And concerning non-astrologers and non-stamp collectors, there isn't an official title for those guys like there is for non theists.

    Ultimately it makes no difference to me, as I'm not quite an athiest. And even if they came to recognize agnosticism, it wouldn't affect me in the least. But, if you're going to allow all those preposterous thiestic religions recognition, why not the non believers.
    What makes theists better than non theists.
    Sam, be careful when you go to dismount that high horse that you seem to be on. Should I bring an apple next time for it to snack on?
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Because its not a negative position. They are protesting for the right to life. And against the murder of the unborn.
     
  22. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Now you're just making shit up as you go along to suit your own agenda.
    Go ahead and twist the words in your context up as you see fit.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Just exchange religion with anything from history/sociology/psychology/culture/language/grammar/colour preference/sexual orientation etc in this insert

    <insert your religion here>

    These are positions held, not positions refuted. Their basis is not that we don't believe this, but it is we believe this.

    Okay, tell me why they are anti-abortion.
     

Share This Page