« more discussions

• 

  Is it appropriate to define oneself as an atheist?

  I ask this question because calling yourself is really defining what you dont believe in, as opposed to asserting a positive belief, anyway you can check out the reasons why I am atheist at http://relig-i-diculous.blogspot.com. You can also explore these links to my philosophy blogs where I enunciate the positive philosophy of my life.

  Andrew S started this discussion 8 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  David B 

  I claim one can NOT "define" oneself to others as an atheist. I often make the point that atheism is not an instance of some belief system, but rather than absence. To be an atheist means nothing other than that you don't believe in gods. While that may have some considerable influence in what sort of person you are, the mere term "atheist" does not give other people any clue about you beyond "disbelief".

  posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Ravish 

  I personally don't like the word atheist. The reason -- firstly it is coined by theists; secondly it doesn't convey a scientific outlook; and lastly it sounds negative.
  
  My proposition is the word -- Secular. Secular is a positive word; it is not coined by theists; and since secular means disregarding religion, it has a sense of scientific outlook in it though not convincingly enough.
  
  If there could be an even better word that secular, I would like to endorse it.
  
  However, since the word atheist has caught on, I don't mind being referred to as an atheist too.

  posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Jacob R 

  Well i like being called a atheist. it makes religious people leave me alone and gets the point across. if i say i don't have a belief system then people ask questions and thats takes to long to explain it all but if i simply say i am atheist then they under stand better.

  posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    meesh 

    I agree. It also carries a certain implication of leave it alone.

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    David B 

    You say "it makes religious people leave me alone". In my experience it's just as likely to have the opposite effect.
    
    What I find really funny is the reaction they have is often similar to if I had said "I'm depressed". It's a sympathetic response as if I've just confessed that I'm a lost soul or something when nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not confused, I'm not fearful of an after-life - I find all the major religions to be thoroughly lacking credibility and obviously instances not of god-made man, but man-made gods.
    
    I think this is just another example of common phenomenon of theistic (psychological) "projection" - i.e. they project how THEY would feel if they didn't believe, and project that onto atheists.

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  CharmaineZoe  

  I personally describe myself as a SASH - a sceptical atheistic secular humanist - which just about sums it up nicely :-)

  posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  show 3 replies

  • 

    Linda I 

    Ooo, I like that, CharmaineZoe. A SASH. I agree with many of the other posts here, that "atheist" is a word that infers negative stereotypes (as in, hateful, bitter, shallow), and it would be nice if we could come up with our label. I've learned not to say "agnostic," because to Xtians, that means you're on the fence and they're just the person to push you over into their camp, which is highly annoying.

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    CharmaineZoe  

    Thanks Linda, I toyed with the idea of calling myself a 'Bright' but somehow I just feel that has overtones of superiority, plus I didnt like the lightbulb symbol they use. That implies you have had flash of inspiration and the realisation of your 'brightness' came on all of a sudden. When in reality it has taken a long, long time to come to the conclusions I have. I too felt the word atheist has too much of a negative aspect to it and was looking for something that described myself a little more accurately and sympathetically. Maybe I should start a group for SASH's :-)

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Evilyn 

    Nice! I love the term SASH, you should start an organization :)

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  jkshurts 

  I have no problem calling myself an atheist. There's nothing negative about it, but I think that many people are embarrassed to say it around theists. The will say, "Oh I'm agnostic" or "I don't really practice one specific religion". I think there a natural fear of labeling one self with a term that we know will make some people not like us. I personally have found that the more people I tell I'm atheistic...the more "come out" and say "me too".

  posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    David B 

    I think we, as atheists, owe it to others and ourselves to come right out and say it. For centuries the word "atheist" has carried a sort of stigma. We need to "normalize" it. I think large numbers of people associate themselves with religion only because their whole lives they've been taught that not believing was no more acceptable than doing drugs or some such thing.
    
    It's not always easy. Some theists interpret "I'm an atheist" as "I think a central element of who you are is based on pure mythology." And of course, this is a reasonably accurate interpretation. I just say that I'm more infinitely persuaded by reason and evidence than by scripture, faith or tradition.

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. 

    Couldn't agree more!
    
    I'm an atheist & although for quite a while I didn't care to "define myself" as one, I feel that it is something we need to hold stedfast against our theist counterparts.
    Being an atheist doesn't describe me, but when people need labels like being a "Christian" or a "Muslim" or a "Hindu" & so on... then I do indeed claim myself to be an atheist (sometimes I even quote Douglas Adams & call myself a radical atheist) and am proud to do so!
    
    And for those of you looking for a better "word" without the negative stereotyping, how about "The Brights" ?

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Evilyn 

  I am torn because I hate that 'atheist' has such a negative connotation but how do we change that? Usually if I say I am Atheist I get a very negative response and the conversation quickly dies. When I have used Secular it seems to intrigue and often allows me the chance to state my opinions. It is just a shame that so often society is just too close minded to learn what we really are.

  posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    jkshurts 

    Just think of it as a way to weed out all of the closed minded people in your life!

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Evilyn 

    I'm in Utah, weeding out the closed minded people would leave me very lonely. Oh wait, maybe that's why I spend too much time online...

    posted 8 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  randem 

  I prefer the term "Radical Atheist" -- I believe it was proposed by Sam Harris -- as it conveys not only that I don't believe in any deity, but also that I'm not going to sit and listen to you tell me why I should. It conveys that I passionately believe in not believing. ;-)

  posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

  show 7 replies

  • 

    Jacob R 

    you are my new best friend randem =-)

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    David B 

    In my experience, that will backfire on you in that they (theists) will use that to define atheism as a "religion". Atheism is not a presence, it's an absence. If you are passionate about "not believing" then atheism transcends beyond mere "disbelief". One isn't generally passionate about "disbelief".
    
    I tell people I'm passionate about "freedom of religion". I'm not passionate about my atheism, just my right to not be ruled by theism.

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    randem 

    Yeah, I'm quite familiar with the "atheism is just another religion" argument, but it's a logical fallacy and if you can intelligently articulate that fact, their argument holds no water... in the same way that your statement comparing "disbelief" to "lack of belief" holds no water -- they're the same thing!
    
    And instead of being passionate about "freedom of religion", isn't it time that we started being passionate about "freedom FROM religion?"

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    David B 

    I'm a member of the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" (FFRF.org) but to be honest, I've never been comfortable with that name. I interpret it to imply that we have some right to be free of religious exposure rather than free of religious imposition.
    
    I tout myself as being passionate about freedom OF religion. To me, that suggests that I have common (rather than opposing) goals with theists. But I never waste an opportunity point out that the biggest threat to freedom of religion always COMES from "religion" and thus in the fight for freedom OF religion, the enemy is (ironically) usually religion itself.
    
    But I will go so far as to say that I agree with John Lennon, in that in the ideal world, there would be no religion. But that statement is just too shocking for theists so long as they believe religion is necessary for morality.
    
    To prove that there is morality without religion, i like to respond with a pun on the "When did you stop beating your wife?" trick question. I ask the theist, if God appeared in the sky and said he doesn't care if you act morally or not and there is no reward (heaven) nor punishment (hell) based on how you act... when would you START beating your wife?
    
    The idea is to demonstrate that the reason people act morally isn't limited to love nor fear of deities.

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Andrew S 

    I like David B's point. I think passionate atheists tend to have a personal interest in their self-righteousness, as if they are trying to recoup years of validation as an alienated atheist, so they can be just as 'passionate about an absence' as the theists are about their delusion.
    On the other hand I think freedom can not simply be considered at a political level. The ethics and epistemology of religion tell me religion is a threat to my freedom because a idiot is more prone to brute force than a person with a respect for objectivity and rationality. That is a very personal position as well, but I think are more rational one.

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    randem 

    I accept that what you say might be true of many atheists, but it is not a universal truth. I, for one, am a passionate atheist whose motivation is not self-righteousness, but rather because I perceive theism at large as a threat to my own well-being and to the advancement of society.
    
    I believe we are going pretty far off-topic for this thread, so I'm going to start a new one.

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. 

    "I prefer the term "Radical Atheist"
    
    I do too, and although I may be incorrect, but I think it was Douglas Adams who coined that term...
    
    "instead of being passionate about "freedom of religion", isn't it time that we started being passionate about "freedom FROM religion?""
    
    Hear Hear!!

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Brian S 

  i like the term naturalist, meaning you believe in all that is natural and inherently not what is unnatural or metaphysical.

  posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • Andrew S removed this reply 7 months ago.

  • 

    randem 

    The unfortunate consequence of a term like "naturalist" is that while it's intellectually more accurate and appropriate, the theists have tainted it with negative connotations. Taking the intellectual, or moral, "high ground" may be a superior choice, but unfortunately it will only be your own peers who recognize that.

    posted 7 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Maria Pilar A 

  For a long time I haven't defined myself, didn't care about religions, but somehow, after aaall those years of indoctrination and it being so ingrained on the culture where I've been raised, I still thought there had to be someone or something there... after a bit of more reading, more thinking and more working as a nurse... I knew what made more sense was the non-existence of a benign supreme being...
  So now, I do define myself as an atheist, and sometimes I do need to make it clear, that it doesn't make me a callous person or a bad person, and having to explain that can be annoying at times, but I feel there's a need to say it and proudly.

  posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

• To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top