heheHave you tried ?
one thing you don't have to do in india (or at least most of the parts I visited) is try to get someone to tell you their opinion of something.
From tea stalls to train stations, its a national pastime
Should atheism be recognised?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
one thing you don't have to do in india (or at least most of the parts I visited) is try to get someone to tell you their opinion of something.
From tea stalls to train stations, its a national pastime
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Maybe I misunderstood him. Explain ?
assuming he doesn't have the ability to read other people's minds without them knowing about it ....
We disagree, but I don't want to argue over the usage of the word.
That is the Voice of Experience speaking, eh?
Atheists are recognised as such because they declare themselves, otherwise they have no category.
And atheist must invent their own moral code?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You mean like I may declare that I like cats over dogs when asked ? :bugeye:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, they learn them from their environment and adopt some along the way that they agree with.
Secular law is based on moral codes for example.
if we were interested in determining the validity of dog-haters or cat-lovers as a category, why not?
Even becomes more pertinent if you claim to know tons of cat-lovers/dog-haters ..... (assuming of course, telepathy is not your forte)
And if you examine the category of dog-haters/cat-lovers you would find social conventions that demand obedience/defiance in order to be meaningful terms
(for instance if you said you preferred cats over dogs yet you had a policy of not allowing cat's on the premises, yet had two dozen dobermans residing in your lounge room, a discrepancy between your assertions and actions would be apparent)
Last edited:
It still seems that the atheist is free to devise his/her own moral construct, based on their personal experience. Again, there's no code of ethics for an atheist--unless you wish to invent some. :shrug:
Same as anyone else.SAM said:
The atheist will likely (unless sociopathic) have the same moral code as others raised in the given society and /or religion, for the same reasons.bowser said:
Anyone is free to devise their own moral construct - theistic belief, at least, is no obstacle to anything. Gods, being creations of the human imagination, have as much flexibility in their influence as any other imaginary entity. Turn the other cheek, kill all the Jews, the gods have wide ranges.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
As iceaura pointed out, the same as everyone else. You categorised yourself as a Muslim by declaring yourself a Muslim. An atheist can do the same if they so choose. The same goes for a vegetarian, someone who loves cats or dogs (eg. cat or dog lover), smokers, etc.. I could go on but you get my drift...
And they need to be recognised and categorised because of....?
well not antistampafarians or unufologists
You might disagree with emnos's position then
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2189352&postcount=171
in order to exist
that's why you can't really term antistampafarians and nonufologists as the same as atheists
I yet have to meet a 'religiously tolerant' atheist.
At best, they strike me as passive aggressive.
You don't see how 'not believing in any God' requires that one believe a number of other things?
For example, believing that 'man is the highest moral instance (because God is not)', or that 'morality is relative' (which are just a spin-offs of 'man is the highest moral instance')?
The most morally superior nations it seems are the secular ones. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=3&ref=us&pagewanted=all
So invented or not they seem to have better morals than the theists, don't you think.
No, you're wrong. Being a non-astrologer is not an ontological position. It is not occupying a certain job. If you were to say "not-believing-in-the-existence-of-stars", then you would be right, such a person would be taking an ontological position. But I've yet to meet many people of such a sort.
If there were millions of such people, I would guarantee you we would have a name for them. Probably multiple names; both offensive and unoffensive, as we do for atheists.
All ontological positions in philosophy have a name. Whether or not they are denying the existence of something (that seems obviously to exist), or asserting the existence of something (that is difficult to prove), or taking a more neutral stance (neither denying something that seemingly obviously exists, nor asserting the existence of something impossible to prove empirically and extremely difficult to 'prove' logically). All of these have names.
I'm not sure why you've singled out atheism as the one ontological position in philosophy that doesn't deserve a name. Though my guess is that it's because - as always - you can only look at something through the lens of religion.
It's an ontological question, Sam, and therefore the proper property (at least in part) of philosophy. All ontological positions have been named, even those with many, many fewer adherents than atheism.
What about this is difficult for you?
Not at all. One could believe that the natural universe has a moral code embedded in it (whatever the hell that means); this is commonly known as an offshoot of "new-age philosophy". Or you could believe that there is a natural biological ethic, as has been argued in the last 10 years by a number of (I personally think insane) philosophers.
Moreover, you've completely contradicted yourself.
Morality is subjective implies that it is not the case that man is the highest moral instance
This should be obvious. If morality is subjective then there is no moral scale, no ruler and no way to judge who is better or greater or worse or evil. In fact, if one is a moral relativist, then one also holds that there is no such objective thing as "good" or "evil. Therefore there is no such objective thing as "the highest moral instance".
Bells
Staff member
So to exist, we must be labeled?
Lets just say I never once announced by belief or disbelief in any deity on this forum or anywhere else for that matter. Would that mean I ceased to exist?
He's right though. One does not have to tell everyone of their 'religious stance' to be recognised or heard.