On Atheism

[Guest Palace Chan]

By some definitions, I have seen that an Atheist is one who does not believe the tale of god.

I used to refer to myself as an Atheist but I'm starting to think that by that definition, proclaiming

you do not believe in the stories of xians seems rather debasing, demeaning, and even offensive

because it lowers yourself to the level where you take a position on a topic which is simply so

ridiculous that taking a side in it is akin to debating the existence of frosty the snowman

(although, quite frankly, frosty here has a little less of an outrageous tale than an omniscient super

powerful universal super being - and thus isn't AS silly as the stories of the xians).

 

I find it a little more comforting thus to refer to myself as Irreligious and about as apathetic to

xian stories as one would usually be to finding an extra marshmallow or two in a box of lucky charms.

[Insanity personified]

if you have an aversion to the term "atheist" you can simply refer to yourself as a non-theist like I do

[The-Captain]

I don't see it as being any different then "irreligious". Thats taking a position on the subject too.

[ShackledNoMore]

Or you could simply refer to yourself as "sane" or "rational."

[florduh]

"Irreligious" can mean you believe in a god, but do not belong to a religion. "Atheist" clearly indicates a lack of belief in a god.

 

Just semantics I guess, but words do have accepted meanings.

[Guest lenbitme]

I use the term atheist because everyone knows what it means, and I don't have to explain my stance (too often). However, it also gives me a certain opposition to the faith that I -like-. Christians will either avoid me or try to convert me, and it's nice to either not be bothered or when I am, to be able to express my views. Still, the second reason isn't as important to me as the first. I refer to myself also as irreligious because I don't want people to hear 'anti-religious', because obviously -all- atheists MUST be ANTI-religion. That's how many of my friends took it initially. To be truthful, I am mostly anti-religion, however I happen to have a boyfriend who is very spiritual in his wiccan faith and I have found I am partial to that, as well as Buddhism. So, I don't want to give off that vibe.

 

As complicated as my post became, I guess I really didn't have a point except to share with you why the term atheist doesn't bother me. In fact, it kind of empowers me to feel like I am not alone in my thinking. I am part of a group of people, albeit diverse, who share the same core non-belief. Maybe that's seen as a bad reason, but it works for me.

 

Wow, this was pointless.

[Andy]

My only problem with the term atheist is that it only tells you what I don't believe in. Well guess what, I'm also NOT a 72 year old lady from Brazil. If anyone asks me I would prefer to tell them what I do believe in. A word like secular humanism is more useful, or perhaps naturalistic pantheism if I want to confuse someone.

[R. S. Martin]

Or you could simply refer to yourself as "sane" or "rational."

 

Maybe I've spent too much time on Christian forums lately, but wouldn't either of those terms (sane or rational) be fighting words? It's the William Lane Craig people I've been with and they pride themselves on being logical and rational. They're anything and everything but. However, they will fight nail and claw to prove their point. My point is, if one wants to tell such a person, "I'm not religious, I'm sane/rational," one might better be prepared to take a stand.

 

I personally find the anti-atheist arguments easier to deal with than their new-fangled and sophisticated "religion/god is rational" arguments. For one example of Craig's style of arguments, see this debate Was Jesus Bodily Raised From the Dead, Craig vs Crossley. It's about an hour long. You can also get a quick overview of his philosophy if you look at the Cosmological Arguments his fans argue for on his forums. When they're backed in to a corner they will say, "WLC says so."

 

Craig himself begins with the premis that "God exists" is a legitimate presupposition for doing science and history. He sits on the Discovery Institute. His people actually believe the crap he teaches them. He sounds totally convincing.

 

All this to say that they honestly think they are sane and rational and I fear if we want to claim the same we've got a fight ahead of us.

 

Palace Chan said:

 

By some definitions, I have seen that an Atheist is one who does not believe the tale of god.

I used to refer to myself as an Atheist but I'm starting to think that by that definition, proclaiming

you do not believe in the stories of xians seems rather debasing, demeaning, and even offensive

because it lowers yourself to the level where you take a position on a topic which is simply so

ridiculous

 

I don't know what works for you but for myself I think I need to just figure out who and what I am regardless of who or what the xians are. With them being the dominant culture we can't help but be reactionary to some degree. But I am like you in that I want to be aware of not just going for the polar opposite by virtue of being "not them."

 

Internet Infidels has some scholarly literature on atheism, both classical and contemporary, that might provide some ideas for you to work with. Austin Cline provides a slightly different perspective that I like reading sometimes. Here's a blurb:

 

Austin Cline has been actively involved in educating people about atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism on the Internet for over 10 years.

 

I find him easy to read. Internet Infidels tend to be more scholarly and heavier reading, more in the line of philosophy, in case that is your "cup of tea."

[Vomit Comet]

I guess "atheist" has more of a charge to it here in America. In Europe if you say you're an "atheist" everyone goes "yeah... and?" Of course, in places like Italy if you say you're Catholic it's like "you and everyone else, pal." Here in America it's like being GLBT or a registered Communist.

[upstarter]

The term atheist has no particular emotional punch here on the West Coast of Canada either. I only use the term to describe myself if I'm specifically asked about my religious beliefs. Then I don't mind atheist, because it does describe my religious beliefs. If someone was asking me if I believed in the toothfairy I guess I'd say I was afairyist. In fact the subject of fairies and the subject of religion come up about the same amount here... which is to say, not much.

 

I consider myself a secular humanist, but since that requires more explanation than I usually want to give (and likely more than the person asking wants to hear), I usually steer clear of the term.

 

Heather

[florduh]

I don't seek to find a universally understood label for myself. Since I don't believe in any gods, I am by definition, an atheist.

 

When leaving a religious background we sometimes tend to think in the old familiar ways. We aren't comfortable without structured beliefs, tenets, dogma, and a clear identity as a Calvinist, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, etc.

 

The term "atheist" is sometimes seen as a negative. The word isn't meant to encompass everything you DO believe, it simply says you don't believe in gods. It is descriptive and explanatory of your position as opposed to a "theist" who does believe in a god.

 

True Believers™ will not understand or accept someone living outside of their belief system regardless of how you label yourself.

[MathGeek]

I think "atheist" is divisive as is "anarchistic". It is a fringe belief that will never be totally accepted by the mainstream of humanity. To call oneself any thing that immediately imagines "without God" in the mind of the believer is heresy. It is inconceivable, unbelievable and downright uncouth in some cases.

 

I say call yourself what you want. You are allowed to, but remember that all labels have connotations.

[OldApostate]

I hardly ever refer to myself as an atheist anymore because I don't define myself in any other area by what I don't believe. I regard not believing as a default position where there's no evidence for something. In other words, a lack of belief is neutral in the absence of evidence, so I don't need to define that position as oppositional to a belief position.

 

I don't find the word offensive or anything, and I recognize that I fall into the category of atheist because I don't hold a god belief. I just feel a bit silly defining myself that way, when I don't define myself in terms of not believing in little green men or any other unsupported belief.

 

I usually just refer to myself as nonreligious, if the topic comes up.

[Legion]

My only problem with the term atheist is that it only tells you what I don't believe in. Well guess what, I'm also NOT a 72 year old lady from Brazil. If anyone asks me I would prefer to tell them what I do believe in. A word like secular humanism is more useful, or perhaps naturalistic pantheism if I want to confuse someone.

I think this was well said Andy. This is pretty much my take on the thing too. And because I DO believe in causes and effects, necessity, and natural law I suspect that a label of naturalist might best fit me. But it is the rare situation where I feel a need to label myself at all.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm partial to the label "spiritual atheist" myself personally because while it shows I don't believe in god, at the same time it describes how I still believe it's possible to be spiritual without god.

[Piprus]

How to describe oneself if one is non-xian in today's USA is a real challenge sometimes. I like OldApostates approach of "non-religious". It leaves the bible-bangers with little to go with against you. If asked, you can simply opt out by saying you don't follow any doctrines. Evangelos are often befuddled by that, because they often don't know a doctrine from a dowsing stick.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm partial to the label "spiritual atheist" myself personally because while it shows I don't believe in god, at the same time it describes how I still believe it's possible to be spiritual without god. For other alternative labels, how about the label yoist? http://yoism.org/

[par4dcourse]

I've used "non-religious" to avoid confrontation, and atheist when I'm up for a tussle. Like the others, I've found that "non-religious" confuses the hell out of the evangelicals, and "atheist" keeps the JW's away from my door. The look on their faces as they quickly retreat is priceless, like they've just seen the devil.

[Guest Palace Chan]

I hardly ever refer to myself as an atheist anymore because I don't define myself in any other area by what I don't believe. I regard not believing as a default position where there's no evidence for something. In other words, a lack of belief is neutral in the absence of evidence, so I don't need to define that position as oppositional to a belief position.

 

I don't find the word offensive or anything, and I recognize that I fall into the category of atheist because I don't hold a god belief. I just feel a bit silly defining myself that way, when I don't define myself in terms of not believing in little green men or any other unsupported belief.

 

I usually just refer to myself as nonreligious, if the topic comes up.

 

 

You have an excellent point! I should not even have to worry about Atheism versus Apathetic Irreligion - I do not use a

specific term to categorize myself because i do not believe in the tooth fairy - so why should i use one because i do not

believe in religion ?

[R. S. Martin]

I've used "non-religious" to avoid confrontation, and atheist when I'm up for a tussle. Like the others, I've found that "non-religious" confuses the hell out of the evangelicals, and "atheist" keeps the JW's away from my door. The look on their faces as they quickly retreat is priceless, like they've just seen the devil.

 

Slightly off-topic here but why do the JWs take that attitude toward atheists? Wouldn't their appetite be whetted when they meet an atheist? I mean, aren't atheists or the ungodly the very people for whom they are on the look-out?

[R. S. Martin]

The question I get asked is "What church do you go to now [that you no longer are Old Order Mennonite]?" I tell people I don't go to church. Normally they are so shocked they don't know what more to say. Not that religion comes up very often.

[Amethyst]

The problem is that in America, religious folks have given the term Atheist negative connotations. After all, they have been told multiple times that we are evil baby killers and such. But it simply means one who does not believe in a deity. I refer to myself as not religious because many people will jump down your throat if you use the Atheist term. If someone wishes to discuss religion further and its apparent they want to try and convert me, I tell them that subject is not one I care to discuss and leave it at that.

[par4dcourse]

I've used "non-religious" to avoid confrontation, and atheist when I'm up for a tussle. Like the others, I've found that "non-religious" confuses the hell out of the evangelicals, and "atheist" keeps the JW's away from my door. The look on their faces as they quickly retreat is priceless, like they've just seen the devil.

 

Slightly off-topic here but why do the JWs take that attitude toward atheists? Wouldn't their appetite be whetted when they meet an atheist? I mean, aren't atheists or the ungodly the very people for whom they are on the look-out?

The Watchtower society tells 'em what to read, do, say, and associate with. Contact with an avowed atheist is verbotten. Afraid they might start thinking, or worse.

Should be some ex JW's on the site to go where my limited knowledge can't.

[Asimov]

By some definitions, I have seen that an Atheist is one who does not believe the tale of god.

I used to refer to myself as an Atheist but I'm starting to think that by that definition, proclaiming

you do not believe in the stories of xians seems rather debasing, demeaning, and even offensive

because it lowers yourself to the level where you take a position on a topic which is simply so

ridiculous that taking a side in it is akin to debating the existence of frosty the snowman

(although, quite frankly, frosty here has a little less of an outrageous tale than an omniscient super

powerful universal super being - and thus isn't AS silly as the stories of the xians).

 

I find it a little more comforting thus to refer to myself as Irreligious and about as apathetic to

xian stories as one would usually be to finding an extra marshmallow or two in a box of lucky charms.

 

By the simple fact of being aware of the concept of God and rejecting that concept as unbelievable, you are taking a position. I don't know what the problem is.

[Andy]

The problem is that in America, religious folks have given the term Atheist negative connotations. After all, they have been told multiple times that we are evil baby killers and such. But it simply means one who does not believe in a deity. I refer to myself as not religious because many people will jump down your throat if you use the Atheist term. If someone wishes to discuss religion further and its apparent they want to try and convert me, I tell them that subject is not one I care to discuss and leave it at that.

This doesn't bother me as much. The only way to change that stereotype is to use the word proudly and prove that we're not immoral and everything. If you go to a different word, eventually that will become a stereotype as well.