I'm not an atheist

MooseJam

I don't believe in god of course because the notion is dafter than a brush , it's so obviously the correct belief to hold that I shouldn't be labeled for it, I don't believe there are pink elephants dancing ballet in my garden but I'm not labeled for that, I think the same should hold for the belief in god.

5uspect

Been reading Sam Harris then? :pac:

TerrorFirmer

religion has been and is a fundamental aspect of life within any society over the past few thousand years, so in that regard it's considerably more worthy of a label then those who express disbelief at dancing pink elephants.

biko

So you're not an atheist, good for you.
There is no need for you to label yourself if you don't want to.

Dades

MooseJam wrote: »

I think the same should hold for the belief in god.

I think food packaging should always state if there are onions involved, but hey you can't have everything.

pH

Yes it's all very clever, we don't need words to describe things we're not, and no there isn't a word for someone who doesn't believe in pink elephants. But when the absence is of note then we normally label it and give it a word.

Hence we have words for those who don't drink any alcohol, or have any hair, or never have sex, or have no money etc. If it's beliefs you're after we have words to describe people who don't believe the holocaust happened, and for example the word 'anarchist' is normally defined in terms of what an anarchist rejects or doesn't believe in.

So if you think there is an important distinction between describing someone as 'bald' and describing them as 'having no hair' then by all means knock yourself out, just remember we have lots of labels and words for things people are not, atheist is just one of them.

Galvasean

May I suggest coining the word 'apinkodanephas'?

velocirafter

i like to think of myself as an evolutionist rather than an athiest. i think there can be a stigma attached to the word athiest.

eoin5

velocirafter wrote: »

i like to think of myself as an evolutionist rather than an athiest. i think there can be a stigma attached to the word athiest.

You are what you are though. Embrace your non-belief. Become a happy atheist and let stigma be damned. Anything else is just confusing. There are plenty (most?) of theists who agree with the theory of evolution.

That is of course assuming you are in fact an atheist (you havent explicitly stated it so I may be jumping the gun).

Zillah

5uspect wrote: »

Been reading Sam Harris then? :pac:

"We don't need the word 'atheist' any more than we need a special word for people who don't believe in vampires or astrology."

Faulty memory may have made that more a paraphrasing than a quote.

Dave!

I'm a Bright

5uspect

I'm a human being!

cavedave

MooseJam
I don't believe there are pink elephants dancing .

Repent

Dades

I'm soylent green!

Tim Robbins

velocirafter wrote: »

i like to think of myself as an evolutionist rather than an athiest. i think there can be a stigma attached to the word athiest.

Yes there is huge stigma attached to that word.
I think people interpret it as:
1. You hate all religion
2. You are as vociferous, as evangelical, as fundamental, as annoying as a Bible Basher.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes there is huge stigma attached to that word.
I think people interpret it as:
1. You hate all religion
2. You are as vociferous, as evangelical, as fundamental, as annoying as a Bible Basher.

I didn't attach all that to the word 'atheist' - at least not until I began logging onto boards.ie

However, what you have described, Tim, pretty well describes a number of the posters here. It particularly applies to most of the more 'evangelical' atheists who frequent the Christianity board. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

lostexpectation

evolutionist that just as bad, that means your darwins/dawkins groupie (to some) that much more to life then evolution

seamus

As much as the next man, I abhore the need to put people into categories and say "You are this", but the word atheist is an accurate reflection of your belief.

Of course, as mentioned there is a certain sitgma associated with it - people assume that you're part of an actual, tangible organisation with an anti-religion agenda. This is as preposterous as saying that a person who can be described as a lesbian is part of an organisation with an anti-hetero agenda.

That we actually have a word for "atheism" I think is just indicative of the depth to which religion has ingrained itself into humanity. While I'll probably be shot for saying that atheism is something "new", the idea of being completely non-religious and being happily public about it, is something which is a new development in society. And it's growing. But because we're still at the point that theism is considered to be the default position, it's only natural to describe those who differ from the default. It's much the same as having a word for someone who cannot use their legs "paraplegic", but we have no word for someone who's normal (non-plegic?).

Rev Hellfire

It seems paranoia is alive and well in the atheist camp, the simple fact is the majority of people couldn’t care less if you’re a atheist or not its simply doesn’t matter.
Strikes me of a classic case of navel gazing imho.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It seems paranoia is alive and well in the atheist camp

How'd you figure that?

Asiaprod

Dades wrote: »

I'm soylent green!

I don't know anymore

MooseJam

I haven't been reading Sam Harris but it seems he has some sound ideas, there are some good points raised here so I don't feel as bad about being an atheist, looking on the bright side at least I'm not bald !

MooseJam

cavedave wrote: »

Repent

OMG I'm going to elephant hell amn't I

Mitch Connor

everyone is an atheist in some way - I just belive there is one less god then people who belive do.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

How'd you figure that?

Ohh I don't know...

velocirafter wrote: »

i like to think of myself as an evolutionist rather than an athiest. i think there can be a stigma attached to the word athiest.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes there is huge stigma attached to that word.
I think people interpret it as:
1. You hate all religion
2. You are as vociferous, as evangelical, as fundamental, as annoying as a Bible Basher.

lostexpectation wrote: »

evolutionist that just as bad, that means your darwins/dawkins groupie (to some) that much more to life then evolution

seamus wrote: »

Of course, as mentioned there is a certain sitgma associated with it - people assume that you're part of an actual, tangible organisation with an anti-religion agenda. This is as preposterous as saying that a person who can be described as a lesbian is part of an organisation with an anti-hetero agenda.

Next thing there'll be whispers of government agendas, people going missing and mysterious camps full of non-believers from which no one returns.

seamus

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Next thing there'll be whispers of government agendas, people going missing and mysterious camps full of non-believers from which no one returns.

Well it's easy to say, "There's nothing wrong", when you're in a luxury villa looking the other way.

The fact is, there *is* a stigma attached to atheism. It's not as bad in Europe as it is in the US, but it's there. There are people who will recoil in horror when someone mentions atheism. There are parents who will weep for their children when they "come out".
It's OK to be a "lapsed catholic" or say, "I'm not all that interested in religion", but to actually go out and "declare" your atheism is on a par with revealing that you like to secretly watch your mother getting undressed.

It's primarily because people actually have no idea what atheism is. It's managed to become attached to satanism as an "anti-religion" where people actively go out of their way to be immoral and depraved. If people were actually helped to understand that atheism isn't even a religion, it's just a viewpoint, the same as being a Fianna-Failer is a viewpoint, it would help to promote some rational discussion about religion.

Of course, all of the major religions have a vested interest in maintaining the existing falsehood, and nobody's going to campaign on behalf of atheists, rarely even atheists themselves

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Ohh I don't know...

Next thing there'll be whispers of government agendas, people going missing and mysterious camps full of non-believers from which no one returns.

It ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you!

Do you not think the term "atheist" is looked at in a negative light? Remember the study in the US that determined them as the most mistrusted minority?

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Do you not think the term "atheist" is looked at in a negative light? Remember the study in the US that determined them as the most mistrusted minority?

Yeah, I seem to recall Atheists were trusted on a comparable level to sexual deviants. Wowza.

JimiTime

It seems you are having some identity issues. Maybe you need someone to unite you all, give you a creed etc. Then there will be a breakaway group that believe that you have left your 'we are just A-Theist' roots and there will be great wars and book burnings, and men in silly hats.........Oh hang on a minute!

Seriously though, how you guys can say atheism is innocuous. Ha! At one stage Robindch was trying to say everyone was born atheist. Maybe he should scheck out this thread.

Dave!

I don't mind if ye don't believe in god, as long as you're not an atheist!

JimiTime

DaveMcG wrote: »

I don't mind if ye don't believe in god, as long as you're not an atheist!

LOL:D

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

Seriously though, how you guys can say atheism is innocuous.

What makes you think otherwise?

Dave!

JimiTime wrote: »

Seriously though, how you guys can say atheism is innocuous.

Because not all atheists are on this forum? Go check out the threads in AH about belief in god, you'll see lots of atheists, most of which don't post here. Because they don't care about religion, they just think it's bullsh*t.

How could that be any more innocuous?

lostexpectation

imagine a country where there are headlines in the papers atheist teachers can be refused etc etc

eoin5

The classification becomes the assumption becomes the implication becomes the person. The main parameters are knowledge, fear and open-mindness. It works the same for an athiest as for say a republican or a traveller.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

It ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you!

Do you not think the term "atheist" is looked at in a negative light?

I'd agree that it's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you, but here in dear old Ireland and Europe in general that is clearly not the case.

As for the term "atheist" I believe people in general don't associate a negative view with the word or those who profess to be atheist. The general populous really don't care one way or another, you may as well say I don't eat cabbage.

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

What makes you think otherwise?

Someone at one stage thought about it enough to say I am 'A-Theist'. Then many, many people since then have also thought strongly enough about it to label themselves as atheist. Its like the 'Not playing chess is a hobby' explaination. Nobody labels themselves as a 'non chess player'. There may well be people out there who simply don't think about it. However, to label oneself an atheist means that you have gone through a though process which comes out the other side with a label.

JimiTime

DaveMcG wrote: »

Because not all atheists are on this forum? Go check out the threads in AH about belief in god, you'll see lots of atheists, most of which don't post here. Because they don't care about religion, they just think it's bullsh*t.

How could that be any more innocuous?

I use the word innocuous in its 'signifigance' form. I'm not using it in its 'harm' form. Probably a better word to use, but can't think of one at the minute:o. It has been argued by robindch that we are all born atheist. however, atheism has signifigance in thought. It is a thought process resulting in a conclusion.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

Someone at one stage thought about it enough to say I am 'A-Theist'. Then many, many people since then have also thought strongly enough about it to label themselves as atheist. Its like the 'Not playing chess is a hobby' explaination. Nobody labels themselves as a 'non chess player'. There may well be people out there who simply don't think about it. However, to label oneself an atheist means that you have gone through a though process which comes out the other side with a label.

No we're all born atheists. Then institutions including parenthood imprint the hobby of praying to someone in the sky into our very being, some of us give up the hobby others don't.

markyedison

the word Atheist like Christian, Baptist, Quaker or Queer was originally an insulting term used to describe a group of people. Atheism predates any modern religion ( just like homosexuality) but the label itself and the ensuing stigma are products of christianity.

cheers, marky

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

Someone at one stage thought about it enough to say I am 'A-Theist'.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps at some stage someone decided, "God doesn't exist", and his religious friend, unable to comprehend this, "No religious belief" thing, came up with a title to confer upon him.

However, to label oneself an atheist means that you have gone through a though process which comes out the other side with a label.

However, that's only because you have otherwise had a label previously conferred upon you. So in order to otherwise discard this label, someone indeed has to have gone through the thought process. If a person wasn't given any religious tag from birth, you can bet they wouldn't even consider what "tag" to give themselves. The notion of applying a tag to nothing is preposterous, but in most countries it has to be done, purely because the de facto tag is one of the major religions.

In this country, the biggest thing I've found is that saying, "I'm not member of any religious organisation, I don't subscribe to any religious beliefs thus far put forward" has people looking at you with two heads. Some people simply won't accept this as an answer. So I can see how atheists may give themselves a label purely to satisfy the masses, all the while not actually giving it any particular thought.

Children are born atheist - they have no system of belief. They have barely any awareness, if any at all, so the idea that person believes in a God at birth is laughable. Yet the suggestion is met with derison. How so?

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As for the term "atheist" I believe people in general don't associate a negative view with the word or those who profess to be atheist. The general populous really don't care one way or another, you may as well say I don't eat cabbage.

My mother knows well I don't eat cabbage - and, although she may suspect I'm "lapsed", she'd be a lot more concerned if she thought I was 'atheist'. (And I'm many years left home!)

JimiTime wrote: »

However, to label oneself an atheist means that you have gone through a though process which comes out the other side with a label.

Hmmm, I don't know. Most people don't go about calling themselves mammals when they clearly are!

If nobody ever claimed a god existed the term atheist wouldn't exist. But, lets face it, most humans claim to believe in one diety or other; hence we become the exception rather than the rule, thereby aquiring a label.

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

Children are born atheist - they have no system of belief. They have barely any awareness, if any at all, so the idea that person believes in a God at birth is laughable. Yet the suggestion is met with derison. How so?

I'm not saying they are theist, but my arguement is that atheism is a thought process. So to say that a child is atheist, in reality terms, is wrong. Just like saying a child is born christian or muslim etc is wrong.

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

A baby neither disbelieves or denies.

Dades

Haven't heard it put like that before, but it makes sense.

Does that mean we need a new term for someone who has no concept of gods to disbelieve in? :pac:

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm, I don't know. Most people don't go about calling themselves mammals when they clearly are!

Precisely. Its innocuous to them. Atheism on the other hand, means that you have thought about it and said 'I am an atheist'. Mammal is what you are, atheist is what you are as a result of a thought process.

If nobody ever claimed a god existed the term atheist wouldn't exist. But, lets face it, most humans claim to believe in one diety or other; hence we become the exception rather than the rule, thereby aquiring a label.

But most of you give yourselves the label. You don't 'aquire' it. You take it. You don't believe that God has revealed himself, or indeed anything supernatural has taken place, so you are contradicting the history of humanity for whatever reasons, on the basis that you 'believe' that nothing supernatural can take place. So currently, you are the exception, but rather than it being this innocuous, 'Deity, whats that now' and someone than saying 'oh your an atheist. Its 'Deity is nonsense, theres no evidence etc etc'. I.E. A thought process.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

... so you are contradicting the history of humanity for whatever reasons, on the basis that you 'believe' that nothing supernatural can take place.....

Wha? Are you ******* serious!?!?!?!?

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Haven't heard it put like that before, but it makes sense.

Does that mean we need a new term for someone who has no concept of gods to disbelieve in? :pac:

Actually, has there ever been someone discovered, in a jungle or somewhere. You know the stories of a child raised by wolves and the like?

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I see what you're trying to say now, however even that line paints an atheist as someone who differs from the norm.

Society suggests that there *must* be two camps - that is, you either believe there is a God or you believe there isn't a God. Religious people in particular seem unable to comprehend the third possible position - someone who has never even considered the concept of God. Babies and children fall into this grouping.

I would say that "atheism" is an appropriate label for this group purely on the basis that (in my mind), atheism is not about rejecting or denying God (how can you reject or deny something that doesn't exist), rather it's about the absence of any deity in your everyday life.
If the concept of a deity has never occured to a person, then logically they fall into this grouping.

I have never considered atheism to be a set of beliefs, rather a total absence of any belief (which again would include those who don't understand the concept of belief), but I accept your argument particularly in terms of how strongly some people seem to feel about their atheism

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Wha? Are you ******* serious!?!?!?!?

Keep your hair on! Mans history is full of the supernatural. So the denying of it, goes against what our ancestors have reported. As I said, 'for whatever reasons'. Those reasons may be, you feel that science has shown you the folly of our ancestors and their ignorance etc. However, Atheism does deny what historically, people have reported. Unless of course you can proove that there was an ancient civilisation that were atheist?

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

....Mans history is full of the supernatural.....

Where?!?!?!

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

I see what you're trying to say now, however even that line paints an atheist as someone who differs from the norm.

Society suggests that there *must* be two camps - that is, you either believe there is a God or you believe there isn't a God. Religious people in particular seem unable to comprehend the third possible position - someone who has never even considered the concept of God. Babies and children fall into this grouping.

I would say that "atheism" is an appropriate label for this group purely on the basis that (in my mind), atheism is not about rejecting or denying God (how can you reject or deny something that doesn't exist), rather it's about the absence of any deity in your everyday life.
If the concept of a deity has never occured to a person, then logically they fall into this grouping.

I have never considered atheism to be a set of beliefs, rather a total absence of any belief (which again would include those who don't understand the concept of belief), but I accept your argument particularly in terms of how strongly some people seem to feel about their atheism

I'd have to say, there certainly does not seem to consensus on the word anyway. It seems to be different depending on who you talk to. Much like Christianity, Islam etc, Ironically enough.