What are we?

Kivaro

While I was responding to a post on another thread, I used the word "Atheist" a number of times, but is that really us?

Why are we pigeon-holed with a word that has a negative connotation for many? I know, I know, I shouldn't care what others think.
The word comes from ancient Greek, which means "Godless". I'm fine with that title, but I'm not fine with "non-believer", as I'm the opposite to a non-believer. I believe in many, many things ................... all of which are formed on the basis of logic, science, and rational thought.

I often use the phrase "Free Thinker" when describing my non-religious beliefs. This confuses non-rational thinkers religious people, but it also causes them to pause and think about the word (to my delight).

How about describing similar-thinking people to us as "The Enlightened", or is that too egotistical, or even medieval?
See my quandary?

I know, I know, I shouldn't care.

What say ye, oh enlightened ones?

Dave!

How about 'Brights'?

fitz0

How about just people? I don't like being given a label for what I don't partake in. I'm sure the a-stamp-collector analogy will be brought out in the thread but I think it's unnecessary. I don't associate with the word atheist any more that I do Catholic. I may have atheistic notions (almost said beliefs there) but being labelled an atheist is akin these days to being called Catholic, Protestant or Muslim. As much as we protest it, atheism is quickly becoming a cult in the classical sense, us against them (the religious). So I'm out, I won't be called one.

Tonyandthewhale

Dave! wrote: »

How about 'Brights'?

Dear god no. Atheists have a bad enough reputation for being 'smug' already, 'brights' is just about the worst label imaginable. You don't have to be bright to be atheist, it's not something to celebrate or slap yourself on the back for, it's not a coherent movement and it doesn't need re-branding, especially in such a super-smarmy guise as 'brights.'

Ew ew ew ew ewww.

HUNK

You'd want to be careful using any label to be honest due to widespread misconceptions people have.

UDP

Kivaro wrote: »

While I was responding to a post on another thread, I used the word "Atheist" a number of times, but is that really us?

Im me.

Unfortunately until religion loses its grip on society I have to describe my beliefs with regards deities against what society unfortunately, through indroctrination etc, considers the "norm".

I am without a god thus I am an atheist.

Some religious people are trying to take a dump on the word so that people are afraid to use it. I chose to educate people briefly and move on, hoping that eventually it will stick.

Maybe the religious are pausing for a second when you say "Free Thinker" while they imagine what your past life was like as an itinerant in jail. :pac:

Stercus Accidit

I use 'non-religious' as my best description, as 'atheist' is so surrounded by obfuscation these days.

What do you mean non-religious?

I am not religious.

I think it is nice and clear, so I like to use it if ever the topic comes up.

Turtwig

Screw this, I love this video so any excuse to post it again. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7DEw70LVWs

yellowfish

Dave! wrote: »

How about 'Brights'?

I think that term if it became popular would be one of the easiest dismissive terms the religious could use against us.
But the thing about it that bothers me the most is that you have to be particularly Bright to see the obvious, its patently untrue that spotting the obvious fallacy in faith requires anything more than a rudimentary understanding of logic and reasoned thought.

Hello by the way, I don't post here often.

Dave!

I was having a giggle, Brights is the worst attempt at branding in history

Stercus Accidit

Dave! wrote: »

I was having a giggle, Brights is the worst attempt at branding in history

Very susceptible to playground style rhyming insults too.

yellowfish

Dave! wrote: »

I was having a giggle, Brights is the worst attempt at branding in history

Who came up with it? (and why in dogs name) it certainly had a short life.

Sarky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H71VEV1c_XE

Dave!

yellowfish wrote: »

Who came up with it? (and why in dogs name) it certainly had a short life.

Dunno, but Richard Dawkins gave it support for a while, and Dan Denett too.

Galvasean

I'm Spartacus.

Gregor Samsa

Nullifidian is a word I like, but it's a bit too obscure to use in general conversation.

darjeeling

I've always thought the word 'infidel' has a nice sound to it.

Try using it next time you're asked your religion, only remember that the crucial thing is to say it as though you aren't taking the piss.

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm Spartacus.

Nice try, Brian.

al28283

Kivaro wrote: »

While I was responding to a post on another thread, I used the word "Atheist" a number of times, but is that really us?

Why are we pigeon-holed with a word that has a negative connotation for many? I know, I know, I shouldn't care what others think.
The word comes from ancient Greek, which means "Godless". I'm fine with that title, but I'm not fine with "non-believer", as I'm the opposite to a non-believer. I believe in many, many things ................... all of which are formed on the basis of logic, science, and rational thought.

I often use the phrase "Free Thinker" when describing my non-religious beliefs. This confuses non-rational thinkers religious people, but it also causes them to pause and think about the word (to my delight).

How about describing similar-thinking people to us as "The Enlightened", or is that too egotistical, or even medieval?
See my quandary?

I know, I know, I shouldn't care.

What say ye, oh enlightened ones?

Enlightened is the wrong word to describe what you are.
"We" are not a like minded group just because we don't believe in a god.

Personally I hate being considered in the same group as someone so egotistical, smug and condescendingly superior as you. You say free thinker, I say arsehole

doctoremma

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm Spartacus.

I am asparagus.

Littlehorny

I like the term Humanist as i only give a crap about my fellow human beings and dont waste time worrying about some ghost that will judge me after i die.

Kivaro

al28283 wrote: »

Personally I hate being considered in the same group as someone so egotistical, smug and condescendingly superior as you. You say free thinker, I say arsehole

Yikes! Sorry that you feel that way.

darjeeling wrote:

I've always thought the word 'infidel' has a nice sound to it.

That might work ........... in some countries. In others, I could lose limbs.

Galvasean wrote:

I'm Spartacus.

I think that this might catch on. We could call ourselves Spartacians.

But at the moment, secular humanist falls more in line with an apt description if I have to label myself.

Turtwig

al28283 wrote: »

Enlightened is the wrong word to describe what you are.
"We" are not a like minded group just because we don't believe in a god.

Personally I hate being considered in the same group as someone so egotistical, smug and condescendingly superior as you. You say free thinker, I say arsehole

The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to him/her.

Dades

al28283 wrote: »

Personally I hate being considered in the same group as someone so egotistical, smug and condescendingly superior as you. You say free thinker, I say arsehole

I'm not sure what leads you to think you can make those remarks here, but any more of that and you'll get more than a card.

al28283

Dades wrote: »

I'm not sure what leads you to think you can make those remarks here, but any more of that and you'll get more than a card.

meh, I stand by it

Turtwig

al28283 wrote: »

meh, I stand by it

marty1985

Kivaro wrote: »

I often use the phrase "Free Thinker" when describing my non-religious beliefs. This confuses non-rational thinkers religious people, but it also causes them to pause and think about the word (to my delight).

How about describing similar-thinking people to us as "The Enlightened", or is that too egotistical, or even medieval?
See my quandary?

Nothing's too egotistical for some

darjeeling

Kivaro wrote: »

That might work ........... in some countries. In others, I could lose limbs.

That's part of the reason for reviving the word 'infidel'. It jogs us into remembering where we've come from historically, and where others in the world still are.

But it's also a word that falls off the tongue more nicely than 'atheist', which isn't half so poetic.

Galvasean

I would describe myself as a 'materialist' but it gets too commonly confused with being 'materialistic' or someone who really likes clothes..

Sarky

I'm just this guy, you know?

sbsquarepants

fitz0 wrote: »

How about just people? I don't like being given a label for what I don't partake in. I'm sure the a-stamp-collector analogy will be brought out in the thread but I think it's unnecessary. I don't associate with the word atheist any more that I do Catholic. I may have atheistic notions (almost said beliefs there) but being labelled an atheist is akin these days to being called Catholic, Protestant or Muslim. As much as we protest it, atheism is quickly becoming a cult in the classical sense, us against them (the religious). So I'm out, I won't be called one.

It does seem a bit stupid to be defining any group of people by what they are not, rather than by what they are. If the only thing 2 people have in common is that they are "atheists" - then they have nothing in common!
Yes i am a non god worshipper, i'm also a non tinker, non tailor, non candlestick maker...........non murderer, non banana, non tea pot,.......im a non awful lot of things.
What i am is a much shorter, and much more telling list.

ShooterSF

phutyle wrote: »

Nullifidian is a word I like, but it's a bit too obscure to use in general conversation.

Carnisian Nullifidan does sound cool (and yes I have started using carnisian since that last thread because of how awesome it sounds)

However in any day to day talk where it does come up I use Atheist. I'm happy to correct people that misunderstand the word afterwards..

Undergod

I've got no problem with atheist - it's correct in the technical sense, and like ShooterSF, I'm happy to correct people if they make incorrect assumptions about my opinions. Also, it has some merit as a label given that it is still a minority position. I could also be described as agnostic.

I may occasionally tell people that I'm a Hellenic Neopagan, or a Gnostic Discordian.

recedite

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It does seem a bit stupid to be defining any group of people by what they are not, rather than by what they are.

But you are not defining them, only describing one aspect of them.
Like if you said "its dark outside" as opposed to "visual navigation is currently compromised outside due to an absence of light".

If more people with an absence of belief in god(s) self-identified simply as atheists, then the meaning of the word would be generally accepted at face value, and suddenly there would be a lot more atheists apparent.

Kivaro

recedite wrote: »

But you are not defining them, only describing one aspect of them.
Like if you said "its dark outside" as opposed to "visual navigation is currently compromised outside due to an absence of light".

If more people with an absence of belief in god(s) self-identified simply as atheists, then the meaning of the word would be generally accepted at face value, and suddenly there would be a lot more atheists apparent.

Most of us want to be individualistic but sometimes it's appropriate to be labelled (correctly).

Zombrex

Non-religous

\thread

Turtwig

Zombrex wrote: »

Non-religous

\thread

What about our buddhists friends? :pac:

Zombrex

Jernal wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

Non-religous

\thread

What about our buddhists friends? :pac:

They call themselves Buddhists

Turtwig

Zombrex wrote: »

They call themselves Buddhists

So, Non-Religious and Non-Buddhist?

Zombrex

Jernal wrote: »

So, Non-Religious and Non-Buddhist?

I think the first takes care of the second

Given that atheists relates specifically to deities it is often, to my mind, an inadequate description of my distance from religion, which the Buddhist point highlights. I no more want someone thinking I'm a Buddhist than a Catholic. Non-religious rules out all religious affiliations, where as atheist doesn't. I find it also has less confrontational connotations, and also avoids the usual nonsense of "Well isn't atheism just another religion". It would be hard to argue "Well isn't non-religion just another religion" with a straight face.

So like I said

\thread :pac:

ShooterSF

But can you be non-religion and still a theist or at least deist? You don't believe in religion but do believe in a god...

Zombrex

ShooterSF wrote: »

But can you be non-religion and still a theist or at least deist? You don't believe in religion but do believe in a god...

That would still make you religious, even if you are just making up your own religion.

Aswerty

Similarly to Zombrex I'd describe myself as non-religious although ignostic atheist would be the most apt label. I have no problem calling myself an atheist but have no wish to be considered part of a collective based on a non belief. Also I have no wish to group myself with atheistic religions such as Buddhism.

In terms of describing myself by what I am I'd have to go for secularist since secularism is something I support. Finally I'm anti-religious but as long as a secular government existed I'm happy with the religious doing what they want (as long as it's moral) in their private life.

I'm sure every other atheist has a different perspective and as such it really does show that atheism is just a shorthand for lack of/non belief in god. It really does irk me when someone tries to group atheists together for the purpose of claiming atheist believe this or atheists claim that.

condra

Everyone’s different and all, but personally, I’m proud for anyone to call me an atheist.

That is exactly what I am. Someone who does not believe in the existence of any supreme beings.

Likewise, I’ve no problem with anyone calling me a man, an Irish guy, a music lover, an omnivore, or whatever happens to be true.

Like others have mentioned in this thread, I don’t like anyone (including atheists) making assumptions about my politics, based on my lack of religion. Not all atheists are pro choice, liberal, multicultural, environmental, secular, humanist, etc etc....

Kivaro

This is playing in my mind as I read through the thread?


Brian: Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: Fcuk off.
Brian: What?
Reg: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea. Judean People's front, caw.
Francis: ****.
Brian: Can I join your group?
Reg: No. Piss off.

sephir0th

Non-religious.