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
Enmos said:
No, it makes you a hypocrite.
How come you and SAM don't see that ?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any atheist dictum that defines individual actions for those who assumes the label. I suppose that if you are a zealot, then it's all very serious business, but I don't see it requiring that much enthusiasm. I think you can participate in quaint rituals without being consumed by the underlying implications.
 
S.A.M. said:
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.
Click to expand...

Atheism has a requirement for social voice. If you take away the voice, you take away the category.

Its not sufficient for atheism to deem there is no god. It requires social behavior in line with that value.
That behavior can range from the moderate to the extreme, but it still has the same requirement.
Generally you analyze a social body according to the conventions it upholds or defies, Atheism has the requirement to defy the conventions of religion (whether that be in a voice of moderation or extremism). If you take away that requirement, you take away the category

Taking one's shoes off in India is customary for a majority of people's own dwellings, what to speak of places of worship. As you no doubt are aware, there are many things on the streets of india that find themselves on the underside of one's shoes that make this a good idea. Taking one's shoes off is not so much an "orthodox" requirement but a normative one ... particularly in the context of hinduism. Refusing to take off one's shoes before entering a temple is almost the equivalent of spitting on the altar in a church. Demanding the removal of religious paraphernalia (like a crucifixion necklace) makes demands on the religious conventions of others. This is different from the demand that one be obedient to a convention (particularly a convention that would deem one as not being offensive ... its not like clinton demanded that he would only come in if he could spit in the premises) in a particular context (there wasn't the requirement that clinton wear a little hat for the rest of his life, for instance)

Does this make sense?
 
Enmos said:
No.
Click to expand...
you don't agree that atheism demands a social voice?

What's your perspective on the famous dawkins funded bus ad campaign?
images
 
That campaign wasn't funded by Dawkins, rather it was funded by the British Humanist Association which ran a fund drive to purchase the ad space.

Moreover, the public service ad is asserting that there probably is no god.
 
Enmos said:
Are you suggesting that atheists have no morals or ethics ?
Click to expand...

Not at all, but I would suggest that those ethics are not stringently defined by any one source. Its one requirement is that there is an absence of belief in a deity or supernatural hierarchy. There's no requirement that you assume a rigid precept. As far as I'm concerned, the atheist is free to explore cultural diversity without sacrificing his/her core belief.
 
SkinWalker said:
That campaign wasn't funded by Dawkins, rather it was funded by the British Humanist Association which ran a fund drive to purchase the ad space.
Click to expand...
Dawkins agreeing to meet them dollar for dollar raised to a certain amount didn't lend major financial/social credibility to the endeavour?

Moreover, the public service ad is asserting that there probably is no god.
Click to expand...
yup

in 2 ft letters in public spaces in many different locations

;)
 
Bowser said:
Not at all, but I would suggest that those ethics are not stringently defined by any one source. Its one requirement is that there is an absence of belief in a deity or supernatural hierarchy. There's no requirement that you assume a rigid precept. As far as I'm concerned, the atheist is free to explore cultural diversity without sacrificing his/her core belief.
Click to expand...

Agreed, except for the fact that atheists don't have a core belief.
Do you agree that swearing on the bible or kneeling before God would be a hypocritical thing for an atheist to do ?
 
lightgigantic said:
Dawkins agreeing to meet them dollar for dollar raised to a certain amount didn't lend major financial/social credibility to the endeavour
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I didn't know that. Good for Dawkins and better for the British Humanists.[/quote]

in 2 ft letters in public spaces in many different locations
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with that is there?
 
lightgigantic said:
yup

they insist with their body, mind and/or words
Click to expand...

That certainly fits the evidence. Everytime they form a group, hold television conferences, write books against God, take out public ads, sue against the word God in some public place, they get more recognition.

In India, you barely know they exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top