Should atheism be recognised?

[S.A.M.]

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?

 

[Nasor]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

Which leaders?

 

[Nasor]

Sam Harris, for one:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted. Tonight, I’d like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.

My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

Edit: Although it's not clear to me what you mean by "recognized".

 

[Enmos]

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?

What do you mean by 'recognized' ?
I want my position to be accepted, that's all. I don't need labels.

 

[S.A.M.]

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".

That would cover it

We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.”

 

[Tyler]

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?

 

[S.A.M.]

So is being a non-astrologer

 

[(Q)]

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?

Why have a category for people who believe in one book but not others?

 

[iceaura]

Why does a negative position need to be recognised?

I've always wondered about that, but you can't talk sense to theists about some things.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Why does a negative position need to be recognised?

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.

 

[spidergoat]

What about people that don't believe in abortions?

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean the pro-life brigade?

 

[spidergoat]

Exactly, why do they need to recognize their negative position?

 

[mikenostic]

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?

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

If that stupid ass, 'how the hell do you believe that crap' Scientology can become officially recognized, why not athiesm?

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?

 

[mikenostic]

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?

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?

 

[S.A.M.]

Exactly, why do they need to recognize their negative position?

Because its not a negative position. They are protesting for the right to life. And against the murder of the unborn.

 

[mikenostic]

Because its not a negative position. They are protesting for the right to life. And against the murder of the unborn.

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

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.

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.

Okay, tell me why they are anti-abortion.