Should atheism be recognised?

Should atheism be recognised?

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

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • No, its stupid to have a category for NOT believing in something

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Got better things to think about

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • My opinion, which is better than yours, is given in a post below

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
That's beside the point. Religion is more important than stamp collecting because it deals with basic issues of life, rather than simply being a method of payment for package delivery. Atheists are concerned about religion because religious people want their religion to influence certain aspects of my life. I agree with your sentiment about religion being a personal thing that no group should be able to interfere with.
 
Nor do we need theists telling us what we should and shouldn't believe, how we should and shouldn't act.
Trust me, there are a lot of stupid ass laws down here in the back asswards south due to Christianity crap.

Why should people be recognized for something they believe in anymore than somone for what they don't believe in?

Sam, you make no sense when you talk about politics or religion.

That's beside the point. Religion is more important than stamp collecting because it deals with basic issues of life, rather than simply being a method of payment for package delivery. Atheists are concerned about religion because religious people want their religion to influence certain aspects of my life. I agree with your sentiment about religion being a personal thing that no group should be able to interfere with.



According to this thread here, it sucks to be a minority and they should just STFU and live with it.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2188745#post2188745

What do you think of that?
 
Only our laws do uphold atheists' rights. It's necessary sometimes to fight for proper enforcement.
 
It actually is, but few of them recognize it. It is in their interest to keep religion separate from government, for the preservation of both.
 
So how does one reconcile a ban on religious expression with freedom to practice religion?

Giving atheists "freedom" essentially ends up with atheists interfering with the freedom of religion.

So why would I as a theist, even want to recognise them?

I would rather be free to practise my religion even if it is obstructive to them, than have them be free to be obstructive to me.
 
Last edited:
So how does one reconcile a ban on religious expression with freedom to practice religion?
What?

Giving atheists "freedom" essentially ends up with atheists interfering with the freedom of religion.
Giving theists too much 'freedom' essentially ends up with thiests interfering with the religion of freedom.
Should I list all the bass ackwards Christian redneck/hick laws that are enstated down here?

So why would I as a theist, even want to recognise them?
Right back at ya, Toots.

I would rather be free to practise my religion even if it is obstructive to them, than have them be free to be obstructive to me.
Fuck that. You can walk your ass right into oncoming traffic for that statement.
You've just said that you think you are entitled to less obstruction because of what you believe than others because they don't beleive.
You really, really need to get off your high horse, STFU and stop making stupid ass threads like this.
 
Fuck that. You can walk your ass right into oncoming traffic for that statement.

Thats exactly my opinion of atheists who think they have the right to put their beliefs before mine.
 
I would rather be free to practise my religion even if it is obstructive to them, than have them be free to be obstructive to me.

So, Muslims can do whatever they want, but no one else can. Hilarious.

It's little wonder no one takes you seriously, Sam.
 
Thats exactly my opinion of atheists who think they have the right to put their beliefs before mine.

You started it with this statement, bud:
I would rather be free to practise my religion even if it is obstructive to them, than have them be free to be obstructive to me.

You make initial statements like that disrespecting non-believers, then you'll get it right back.

Don't start no shit. Won't be no shit.

And you might want to start addressing this issue anyway:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29585222/?GT1=43001
 
You started it with this statement, bud:


You make initial statements like that disrespecting non-believers, then you'll get it right back.

Disrespecting non-believers? If they don't respect me, why should I respect them? Or even recognise them?
Don't start no shit. Won't be no shit.

And you might want to start addressing this issue anyway:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29585222/?GT1=43001
I don't have to see that news article. The dead bodies littered from Palestine to Afghanistan are sufficient.
 
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?

Atheism is a negative position only in name. "Not believing in God or gods" implies a number of specific ethical, philosophical, social, practical, scientific and possibly other stances. Although atheists will often claim that there is great variety among atheists and that the only thing they really have in common is their "lack of belief in God or gods", there is much less variety among atheists.

Atheism is against particular theistic tenets; the atheist tenets may vary depending on the particular theistic tenets they are trying to oppose.
But generally, self-declared atheists directly or indirectly assert tenets to the effect of:

1. Human reason is the highest there is.
2. The goal of human life is the happiness of humans, whereby the happiness of other beings, be they animals, plants or God, is subordinate to human happiness and may be sacrificed for it if humans see such is necessary in order for humans to be happy.
3. Happiness is to be found exclusively in what humans do or refrain from doing, but not by intervention from other beings or forces.
4. Man is the final and highest moral instance.


Seen this way, the above examples of tenets are definitely a position, a position also distinctly different from humanism (even though somewhat similar). As such, I find it easy to understand that atheists wish to be recognized as a separate category.
 
Atheism is a negative position only in name. "Not believing in God or gods" implies a number of specific ethical, philosophical, social, practical, scientific and possibly other stances. Although atheists will often claim that there is great variety among atheists and that the only thing they really have in common is their "lack of belief in God or gods", there is much less variety among atheists.

Atheism is against particular theistic tenets; the atheist tenets may vary depending on the particular theistic tenets they are trying to oppose.
But generally, self-declared atheists directly or indirectly assert tenets to the effect of:

1. Human reason is the highest there is.
2. The goal of human life is the happiness of humans, whereby the happiness of other beings, be they animals, plants or God, is subordinate to human happiness and may be sacrificed for it if humans see such is necessary in order for humans to be happy.
3. Happiness is to be found exclusively in what humans do or refrain from doing, but not by intervention from other beings or forces.
4. Man is the final and highest moral instance.


Seen this way, the above examples of tenets are definitely a position, a position also distinctly different from humanism (even though somewhat similar). As such, I find it easy to understand that atheists wish to be recognized as a separate category.

Is there a book of scripture somewhere? Or have you decided what all atheists believe?
 
P.S.
Atheism is a position similarly as, for instance, 'antisemitism' is a position.
 
Back
Top