Should atheism be recognised?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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:

 

Umm yeah?

 

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


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

 

Not if he doesn't believe in God.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An agnostic has no position on God.

 

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

 

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

 

Good question.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Sam

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!

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.

 

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.