Should atheism be recognised?

[Bells]

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')?

I believe that grass is usually always green, unless the sun or fire burns it into a different colour. Is my belief in the colour of grass the result of my not believing in God? Or is it merely a statement of truth about something that can be clearly observed by one and all?

Why do we have to believe in "other things" if we don't believe in any God?

Theists have this distinct 'thing' about people needing to believe in something or other, as though not believing in any deity is somehow abnormal or goes against nature. Why is that?

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

Non believers in astrology exist and are present in each and every society. They just don't have a category, because ontological position on the effects of stars on human lives or not, they don't make enough noise about it to be recognised as such.

 

[Enmos]

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:

No there is a code for everyone, society makes it.

 

[Enmos]

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)

So if I ask someone on the street "Do you believe in God ?" and he says "No", he is acting out the requirement of atheism to declare himself an atheist ?

:crazy:

 

[S.A.M.]

Umm yeah?

 

[Enmos]

Umm yeah?

Yea ?? :bugeye:
What a complete and utter nonsense.


As a side note, he could just as easily be agnostic..

 

[S.A.M.]

Not if he doesn't believe in God.

An agnostic has no position on God.

 

[Enmos]

An agnostic has no position on God.

No positive position then either. So he does not believe in God.

 

[Cellar_Door]

Can I ask, what exactly is the point of this thread?

 

[Enmos]

Can I ask, what exactly is the point of this thread?

Good question.

 

[S.A.M.]

No positive position then either. So he does not believe in God.

An absence of both positions is not confirmation of one. Please be logical.

 

[Enmos]

An absence of both positions is not confirmation of one. Please be logical.

The position is not whether or not you believe in God. The position is whether or not you can know if God exists or not.
If you believe you cannot have a favorite color, you don't have one.

 

[S.A.M.]

If youre blind and have a favorite colour, thats an agnostic atheist.

 

[Enmos]

If youre blind and have a favorite colour, thats an agnostic atheist.

So how does a blind man go from blind to not blind ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

It shouldn't need to be recognised, and for the most part it isn't.
What is recognised is a belief in something by people who are atheist.

jan.

 

[Tyler]

Non believers in astrology exist and are present in each and every society. They just don't have a category, because ontological position on the effects of stars on human lives or not, they don't make enough noise about it to be recognised as such.

I apologize. For some reason I read "astronomy" rather than "astrology".

Believing stars affect our lives is not an ontological position. One can be a believer in astrology and still not add anything unique to their ontology. As such, it is not an individual and unique ontological position, nor is it well defined.

Do you understand ontology? An "ontological position" (preferably one unique and well-defined) is one that holds a certain number of things exist and a certain other number do not.

You may have confused this with the epistemological positions, which posit whether or not knowledge can be attained on a given subject. "Agnosticism" is an epistemological position - it states that one can never answer (or, at least at this time in history we cannot answer) the question of whether or not a god or multiple gods exist.

It is very easy to be both an atheist and an agnostic. In fact, from a realist philosophy point of view, it is the most neutral and undemanding position to take in that it requires no further arguments past the basis of realist philosophy.

Ontologically Atheist means that in the grand scope of all the things Person X believes to exist, god is not in there. They are not part of the Set Of All Things Person X Believes To Exist.
Epistemologically Agnostic means that Person X believes that it is impossible to prove a god or gods do or do not exist.

These two claims sit in perfect harmony with each other. If you change the word "god" to, well, just about anything else, it becomes very clear why this is so.


Ontologically Without-Belief-In-Aliens means that in the grand scope of all the things Person X believes to exist, aliens are not in there. They are not part of the Set Of All Things Person X Believes To Exist.
Epistemologically Without-Knowledge-Of-Aliens means that Person X believes that it is impossible to prove aliens do or do not exist.

I would say this is probably what 90% of the educated world believes towards aliens. We have no proof, have not seen any evidence, and so they are not part of our ontology. Speaking about epistemology, we can easily see that with today's current technology, and with the given massive size of the universe, it is impossible for us to answer the question of alien existence conclusively.

Do you understand now? I know it's difficult. Frankly, most people who identify themselves as "atheists" or "agnostics" do not actually understand this question or the difference between ontology and epistemology.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like I said, you can be blind and still have a favourite colour.

 

[Tyler]

I'm not sure what you're indicating.

Sam I've given you what I believe is a very thorough and complete explanation of why being an atheist and an agnostic at the same time is perfectly reasonable. One is about ontology and the other about epistemology. If you'd like further explanation I can try to do so, but I think it's pretty clear in the above.

If for some reason I can't imagine you disagree that ontology and epistemology are different, or that they don't exist, then I guess you could try to debate that. But you'd be coming up against about 2,300 years of philosophy (much of it, I might add, done by Arab people during the European dark ages). I can't recall a single philosopher - Western or Arab - who didn't distinguish between the two.

I think I've shown you the respect of laying out a clear case. I'd appreciate it if you extended the same respect. Otherwise, this is really just an exercise in your own ego.

 

[Tyler]

Sam

Agnosticism does not preclude religious belief; that is to say, an agnostic can be a theist or an atheist, but can be 'agnostically' so. Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,[2] using 'agnostic' in the sense of 'noncommittal'.[3][dubious – discuss] However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion. Some authors assert that it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic[4] and some nontheists self-identify as agnostic atheists.
--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I don't like using wikipedia, but I'm too tired to type of Daniel Dennett or Bertrand Russell. Anyway, both of those books are back in Canada right now!

* Agnostic atheism

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]

* Agnostic theism (also called "religious" or "spiritual agnosticism")

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

Whether or not you understand all this is irrelevant. Agnostic is a statement on epistemology. Atheist is a statement on ontology. They are distinct and different. Your lack of willingness to acknowledge the distinction between theories of existence (ontology) and theories of knowledge (epistemology) is just kind of strange.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not at all. The fact that you cannot see colour [knowledge] should in no way preclude your having a favorite [existence]. Belief is distinct from evidence.