Alternative Terms For Atheism?

[Cousin Ricky]

Disclaimer: This article discusses one type of ex-Christian, namely atheists. It is not intended to imply that all ex-Christians are atheists. That said, other ex-Christians, and even ✝Authentic Christian Believers✝, are welcome to join the discussion. (However, any Christians who comment should remember that this is not the Lion’s Den.)
 

---

 
On the Magic Sandwich Show’s 2014 webathon for Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the subject of avoidance of the word “atheist” came up. David Silverman stressed the need for people with no belief in any gods to realize that they are atheists. He mentioned that even some major atheist organizations, such as the Secular Coalition of America, avoid using the term, and said that this is “wrong.” While I agree that encouraging atheists to use the word “atheist” is important to detoxify the term, I strongly disagree that using those other terms is necessarily wrong.
 
Each word has its specific meaning(s) and its place.

• Atheist speaks only to whether or not someone believes in one or more gods. An atheist is anyone who does not answer “yes” to the question “Is there a god?” No other information is conveyed.
• Agnostic relates to one’s approach to knowledge. The word atheist does not specify whether or not one is absolutely sure that there are no gods.
• Freethinker relates to how one forms beliefs and opinions. The word atheist does not indicate one's way of thinking.
• Skeptic relates to suspicion of a claim. In the context of explicit atheism, it relates to one’s approach to verifying claims. The word atheist does not convey how one concluded that there are no gods.
• Methodological naturalist relates to one’s approach to gaining knowledge. It is a generalization of skeptic (in the latter, narrower sense mentioned above). The word atheist does not convey how one concluded that there are no gods.
• Metaphysical naturalist relates to how one views the makeup and processes of the universe. This is not in any way implied by the word atheist.
• Bright is a redundant neologism that means exactly the same thing as metaphysical naturalist. In its favor, it has fewer syllables.
• Secular describes one’s relationship to religion or religious institutions. There are atheists who are not secular and secularists who are not atheists. Examples of the former include Scientologists, many Buddhists, and (in a different sense of non-secular) S.E. Cupp. Examples of the latter include President John F. Kennedy, Reverend Barry W. Lynn, and most of America’s founding fathers. The word atheist conveys insufficient information on this matter.
• Humanist relates to one’s approach to ethics. The word atheist does not imply an ethical system.
• Non-theist (noun) is a redundant term that means exactly the same thing as atheist, and whose only function seems to be to avoid the A-word.
• Non-theistic (adjective), on the other hand seems to describe more (imply less) than atheistic does. For example, I would describe science or secular government as non-theistic, but not as atheistic.

While I do not agree with using these alternative terms soley to avoid the A-word (outside specific situations where using the A-word might not be safe), this does not mean that these other terms don’t have their place.

[sdelsolray]

Interesting post.  None should be surprised with the variety and depth of words, language and semantics.

[Orbit]

I appreciate all the words, but think that "atheist" is best.

[mymistake]

I see non-believer didn't make the list.  I'm thinking of using that term, should the need arise, because I don't want the be tarred and feathered by an angry mob.

[par4dcourse]

I'm good with atheist. Under duress, I say "not the religious type" and escape while the enquirers figure out what type I AM.

[Neverlandrut]

I don't think we should avoid the word "athiest" because of other people's prejudice, but I do understand people avoiding using it around certain people to help creat a better understanding of their position.

 

In regards to whether or not one actually is an atheist, in the strict definition of the word, it goes like this:

 

God either exists or he does not exist. This a true dichotomy. It is either one or the other. So, when faced with the claim that a god exists, you either believe the claim, or you do not. There is no inbetween. Before one hears any case for the claim, the default position is non-belief. To make logical sense of anything in our universe and any claims made about those things, we must assume something is false until it is demonstrated to be true. Imagine if we accepted all claims true until they were proven false! We would live our lives filled with contradictions because many non-supported claims contradict each other, and thus cannot all be true. In summary, theism and atheism are "yes" / "no" assumed answers to the question "Does god exist?"

 

Agnosticism is a "no" answer to the question "is it possible to obtain knowledge of X?" X = god in this case. This is not an answer to "Does god exist?" Agnosticism is compatable with both theism and atheism. It is possible to believe in god while also believing it is impossible to know he exists. Many theists are not aware that they are actually agnostic theists.

 

For the sake of accuracy in description, everyone who has been introduced to the concept of god is either a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism is not a valid answer in the strict sense of the word.

 

Now, I understand that, socially, these words connotate different things to different people. I'm not implying that we should use the word "atheist" to the exclusion of all other descriptions. Use what you feel best describes you. But I would like to see people unashamedly admit that they are, by definition, atheists (if indeed they do not hold a belief in god).

[older]

I prefer not to call myself an atheist even though I am one. The reason for this is twofold. First, "atheist" describes what I am not rather than what I am. While I am not afraid to use it in the proper context, I would prefer to describe what I do believe rather than what I do not believe. I consider myself a secular humanist, believing in the inherent goodness of man.

 

The second reason is that the term "atheist" has been used by many people as a pejorative. The negative feelings about this term are so deep in many parts of our culture that I do not think they will ever be removed. It is also closely associated with some anti-Christian movements and activities that I am not part of.

 

As a general rule, I do not offer information about my beliefs. If someone asks me if I'm religious, I would say "I'm a secular humanist." If they asked me directly if I was an atheist, I would say, "Yes," but then I would add the secular humanist label and my description of what that means to me.

[florduh]

Alternative terms for an "apple"

 

Fruit of the malus domestica

 

A pome, of which we can eat the ripened ovary

 

One fruit with thousands of varieties

 

A food that can be eaten raw or cooked

 

In the case of the apple, all that other information obfuscates the simple reality that we are talking about something everybody understands by simply hearing its name, "apple."

 

In the case of the atheist, it's the same.

 

 

[Vigile]

I agree with Florduh.  Why hide from something that bothers others if it's you're true self?  It's their problem, not your's. 

[mymistake]

I agree with Florduh.  Why hide from something that bothers others if it's you're true self?  It's their problem, not your's. 

 

 

Clearly you guys have never seen my extended family circle the wagons.  You should have seen them jump into action last year when my cousin got herself an atheist boyfriend.

[Vigile]

Do the wagons not circle when you call yourself a free thinker or a bright? 

[★ Citsonga ★]

• Non-theist (noun) is a redundant term that means exactly the same thing as atheist, and whose only function seems to be to avoid the A-word.

 

That is technically true. However, it seems to me that the general public's perception of "atheist" is that it is a positive claim that no gods exist, so I think the use of "non-theist" as an alternative is meant to emphasize that it's simply a lack of belief rather than a positive claim.

[Ellinas]

Once more I am amazed.

 

"Atheist" is seen as a pejorative in the U.S...

 

I sort of knew that, but this thread has just brought it home to my rather addled brain once more.

 

Here, I think it's fair to say, it's just a word to label a particular outlook.  No better or worse than any other such label.  Therefore, my immediate reaction was "Why on earth would an atheist want to be called something else...?"

 

Seems to me you really do need to use this term as much as possible and to refuse any mealy-mouthed alternatives.  Otherwise, you are just in retreat before the conservative-Christian battlefront of your society

[★ Citsonga ★]

I see non-believer didn't make the list.  I'm thinking of using that term, should the need arise, because I don't want the be tarred and feathered by an angry mob.

 

Rationalist also isn't on the list. An article was linked in another thread that includes this interesting angle to look at:

 

Let me pause here on a tangent and explain why "rationalism" is a more acceptable term than atheism. As I have written before, "atheist" is derived from the ancient Greek adjective atheos, which means "without gods." Defining anybody or any movement as the negative of another is a bad start. I refuse to be defined as an absence of what somebody else supposedly has; I simply cannot be without something that does not exist. I am not lacking what someone else has. The idea is ridiculous. Calling me an atheist is like defining me as a man without a dragon tail, and then denying me my rights because I do not have a dragon tail. I cannot be absent something that is nothing but another's myth. I am a rationalist, and if others wish to believe in an invisible man in the sky with magical powers, we can label them arationalists.

 

I stand on a soap box about this because of the power of words to impact our perception. Atheism is a pejorative term in the eyes of believers because it is the negative of them (without something that others have), and with that inherent negativity comes implied permission to discriminate blatantly and openly.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/pray-to-jesus--or-else_b_5683013.html?utm_hp_ref=atheism

[buffettphan]

I like the Rationalist term too.  Of course, xtians believe they are the rational ones.  No matter how you cut it, in their eyes, they are the "right" ones (and f*ck the rest of us).

[Blood]

Once more I am amazed.

 

"Atheist" is seen as a pejorative in the U.S...

 

I sort of knew that, but this thread has just brought it home to my rather addled brain once more.

 

Here, I think it's fair to say, it's just a word to label a particular outlook.  No better or worse than any other such label.  Therefore, my immediate reaction was "Why on earth would an atheist want to be called something else...?"

 

Seems to me you really do need to use this term as much as possible and to refuse any mealy-mouthed alternatives.  Otherwise, you are just in retreat before the conservative-Christian battlefront of your society

 

Yes, there's no comparison between the religiosity of the USA and anywhere else in the world except Muslim countries. 

 

This is not just the impact of the holy rollers in the South on the culture at large. It is also very much the residue of the USA being on the "front line" of the Cold War for 50 years, in which citizens were bombarded with propaganda about the horrors of "atheistic communism" 24 hours a day. If the churchmen could agree on nothing else, they could certainly all get behind that. So the atheism = communism meme made it virtually impossible for someone to call themselves an "atheist" without being an outcast of society. 

 

The generation born in the 1980s and '90s is the first one to be (mostly) free of this influence, but the fundys still want it to be the 1950s, when they had so much power and influence, so they are desperate to retain this meme. It may never totally die here, actually.

[Cousin Ricky]

I see non-believer didn't make the list.  I'm thinking of using that term, should the need arise, because I don't want the be tarred and feathered by an angry mob.

 

That’s because I didn’t think of it. Still, non-believer doesn’t say what you don’t believe in; its precise definition depends on context. It has the same “negative” aspect as atheist, namely that it describes what you are not rather than what you are, only less precisely. Of course, that lack of precision is the very reason people use the term.

 

I agree with Florduh.  Why hide from something that bothers others if it's you're true self?  It's their problem, not your's. 

 

The problem is that they may make it your problem. In some countries, including parts of the USA, you can be ostracized, or even lose your job, your family, or your home. In Islamic countries, you can be killed.

 

Rationalist also isn't on the list. An article was linked in another thread that includes this interesting angle to look at:

 

Another term I forgot about. Rationalist relates to your thought process, not to the conclusions arrived at. The word atheist does not imply a thought process, and in fact, atheists are perfectly capable of being irrational.

[Vigile]

Once more I am amazed.

 

"Atheist" is seen as a pejorative in the U.S...

 

I sort of knew that, but this thread has just brought it home to my rather addled brain once more.

 

Here, I think it's fair to say, it's just a word to label a particular outlook.  No better or worse than any other such label.  Therefore, my immediate reaction was "Why on earth would an atheist want to be called something else...?"

 

Seems to me you really do need to use this term as much as possible and to refuse any mealy-mouthed alternatives.  Otherwise, you are just in retreat before the conservative-Christian battlefront of your society

 

Depends on where you live.  In the North West, it's almost a badge of honor for some. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

Rationalist also isn't on the list. An article was linked in another thread that includes this interesting angle to look at:

 

Another term I forgot about. Rationalist relates to your thought process, not to the conclusions arrived at. The word atheist does not imply a thought process, and in fact, atheists are perfectly capable of being irrational.

 

 

Indeed. I would argue that the thought process is more important than the conclusion, since anyone can jump to any conclusion without any good reason.

[Orbit]

 

 

Another term I forgot about. Rationalist relates to your thought process, not to the conclusions arrived at. The word atheist does not imply a thought process, and in fact, atheists are perfectly capable of being irrational.

 

Amen to that (/irony). I've come across atheists that are completely irrational on certain subjects. Gender is a big one.

[Blood]

That's the problem with the label "rationalist," though. It implies that you think of yourself as wholly rational at all times, even if you don't intend it as such. Obviously, people are going to laugh at how pretentious that sounds. 

[midniterider]

Maybe it's necessary in some cases to use another label or just not discuss religion at all. I rarely disclose my political affiliation or other hot topics with friends or acquaintances.

[violetbutterfly]

God either exists or he does not exist. This a true dichotomy. It is either one or the other. So, when faced with the claim that a god exists, you either believe the claim, or you do not. There is no inbetween.

I disagree. I'm a fence sitter. I haven't decided yet whether or not I believe a god exists. It's not a matter of proof, I'm not confident in my own opinion one way or another. I don't think the description of biblegod is accurate, but I'm also not confident that there is no higher being at all. I cannot say either yes I believe in a god or no I do not. This might be temporary, or I may feel this way the rest of my life. What does this make me?

 

ETA: I've seen that chart..it says an agnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god but isn't confident in that opinion and an agnostic theist is someone who does believe in a god but is not confident in that opinion, so in my case wouldn't agnostic be appropriate? I don't really lean one way or another. But for some reason there seems to be a dislike for the term agnostic, like it's a cop out.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

God either exists or he does not exist. This a true dichotomy. It is either one or the other. So, when faced with the claim that a god exists, you either believe the claim, or you do not. There is no inbetween.

I disagree. I'm a fence sitter. I haven't decided yet whether or not I believe a god exists. It's not a matter of proof, I'm not confident in my own opinion one way or another. I don't think the description of biblegod is accurate, but I'm also not confident that there is no higher being at all. I cannot say either yes I believe in a god or no I do not. This might be temporary, or I may feel this way the rest of my life. What does this make me?

Agnostic. Or, to put it another way, it's my user name spelled backwards.

 

Some would point out, though, that if you can't say you do believe in god, then you lack an actual god belief, which in turn makes you an atheist. That basically depends on how strictly one defines atheism.

[Fweethawt]

I prefer to be called when dinner is ready...