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
Bowser said:
Or we can say "moderately secular" countries. Anyway, what was your point regarding western countries invading Muslim countries. Certainly your not blaming atheism...?
Click to expand...

I was responding to mikenostic's point that most Americans have no religion.

Enmos said:
:confused:

For the same reason a theist would care..
Why would an atheist have a religious marriage ? Unless he/she is a hypocrite of course :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hmm a theist would care because of religious obligations.

An atheist who is also a hypocrite would care because of religious obligations? Is that your point?:confused:
 
S.A.M. said:
Hmm a theist would care because of religious obligations.

An atheist who is also a hypocrite would care because of religious obligations? Is that your point?:confused:
Click to expand...

Are you being intentionally obtuse ?

If an atheist agrees to have religious marriage, he's a hypocrite.
 
Not necessarily. An atheist friend of mine had a full church wedding with a devout Catholic friend. He wanted to, because he thought it was more grand than a court wedding. If she was Hindu or Muslim, he would have had a Hindu or Muslim wedding. Made no difference to him. She on the other hand would not have considered any other type of wedding as a marriage.

She wanted a small wedding, he wanted all the bells and whistles. They did it the way he wanted it.
 
Enmos said:
Are you being intentionally obtuse ?

If an atheist agrees to have religious marriage, he's a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I always thought an atheist was free to do as he/she pleases, without restrictions. :shrug:
 
Bowser said:
I always thought an atheist was free to do as he/she pleases, without restrictions. :shrug:
Click to expand...

:bugeye:

Why do you think so ?? Are atheists free to ignore the law ?

If you meant that atheists are free to choose a religious marriage, I agree. But they would be a hypocrite for doing so. No self-respecting atheist swears on the bible and kneels for God.
 
Does it matter what he swears on? Will it make a difference to his wedding vows?
 
Enmos said:
It would make him or her a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I think its irrelevant. Your vows are as good as your intention to keep them.


Orleander said:
There is no way an atheist had a Catholic wedding. What church did they get married in?
Click to expand...

In India. Its not a problem there. My best friend [Catholic] married a Hindu guy in a full church wedding. I was bridesmaid. :p
 
The poll was comprised of questions which are flame-baiting/trolling in nature. Poll closed. PM with questions concerns.
 
Enmos said:
:bugeye:

Why do you think so ?? Are atheists free to ignore the law ?

If you meant that atheists are free to choose a religious marriage, I agree. But they would be a hypocrite for doing so. No self-respecting atheist swears on the bible.
Click to expand...

I think some do ignore the law, depending on their circumstances. Swearing on the bible doesn't make you a believer or commit you to a life of religious dictates. It's meaningless as far as the atheist is concerned, and might be required in many situations. Christmas is fun, but most of its religious content is missing, yet we still celebrate it. An example.
 
S.A.M. said:
Give me an example from Indian society. The western analogies are beyond me.
Click to expand...
I think that the religious fabric of India is so rich that atheism can only find voice if it interlopes with theism.

You find this a lot in the political/religious melding of many issues leading up to independence.

For instance I recall how India's #2 (and arya samaj advocate ....can't remember his name now) was visiting a temple to take darshan yet he insisted on keeping his shoes on (arya samaj only give credence to the original 4 vedas, so all other corollaries like puranas, pancaratras etc that deal exclusively with the practical application of these 4 vedas ... that include such things as taking shoes off before entering a place of worship .. are neglected). Anyway, the crowd that had gathered to take darshan of the politician taking darshan physically grabbed his legs to prevent him from entering.

Compare this to when the ex-president Clinton (who is not jewish) wore one of those little hats when visiting a synagogue. (he didn't have a requirement to defy the standing custom of the jews, much less wantonly display disrespect for their customs).

In short, you can spot atheism according to the value of its social voice.
 
lightgigantic said:
I think that the religious fabric of India is so rich that atheism can only find voice if it interlopes with theism.

You find this a lot in the political/religious melding of many issues leading up to independence.

For instance I recall how India's #2 (and arya samaj advocate ....can't remember his name now) was visiting a temple to take darshan yet he insisted on keeping his shoes on (arya samaj only give credence to the original 4 vedas, so all other corollaries like puranas, pancaratras etc that deal exclusively with the practical application of these 4 vedas ... that include such things as taking shoes off before entering a place of worship .. are neglected). Anyway, the crowd that had gathered to take darshan of the politician taking darshan physically grabbed his legs to prevent him from entering.

Compare this to when the ex-president Clinton (who is not jewish) wore one of those little hats when visiting a synagogue. (he didn't have a requirement to defy the standing custom of the jews, much less wantonly display disrespect for their customs).

In short, you can spot atheism according to the value of its social voice.
Click to expand...

Hmm, so in either case, what is the role of having a label for atheists?

e.g. you could easily envision a Muslim orthodox doing the same to another Muslim for entering the mosque with shoes.

So how does labeling the shoe wearer as an atheist change anything?

Also, by wearing a kippah, Clinton did not embrace Judaism. He merely respected the conventions of Jews. Why does either of them have to be an atheist? If the Jewish rabbi had forced Clinton to remove a cross he was wearing, how would that be different from your Arya Samaji episode.
 
What would make any other book or paper more appropriate to swear on? His wife is a Catholic and he swore for her.
 
Good thing you're not the Catholic married to him then. And that he cares more about what she wants than what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top