must we call ourselves atheists?

ibstar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

After watching this I come to realize that maybe we Atheists/Agnostics shouldn't refer to ourselves by the branding that religious organizations name us. As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out, people that don't ski, don't refer to themselves as non-skiers etc.

Any thoughts from the boradsies?

bumper234

Non religious, unbeliever, anti fairy tale? take your pick

ibstar

bumper234 wrote: »

Non religious, unbeliever, anti fairy tale? take your pick

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Just call me Gimlet, son of Groin, Dwarf-lord of Geritol and Royal Inspector of Meats.

biko

There's no reason really to use the term but it's in common use and I don't think it has a particular good or bad connotation.

Dades

You can call yourself whatever you want, but I don't think you should not call yourself something because peoples' erroneous perceptions of what it means.

I do think some (religious) people still feel threatened by 'atheists', even though statistically they're less likely to have a crime perpetrated on them by one. :P

SebBerkovich

I'm Seb, but when i'm feeling fancy, i'm Sebastian.
Thats more than enough terms to describe me.

magicbastarder

ibstar wrote: »

As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out, people that don't ski, don't refer to themselves as non-skiers etc.

Any thoughts from the boradsies?

people who don't do something which is usually the norm usually end up with labels; it's just a fact of life. people who don't eat meat have a label, for example.

Penn

ibstar wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

After watching this I come to realize that maybe we Atheists/Agnostics shouldn't refer to ourselves by the branding that religious organizations name us. As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out, people that don't ski, don't refer to themselves as non-skiers etc.

Any thoughts from the boradsies?

The difference is, because the majority of people in the world have these labels, the minority need a label to differentiate themselves. "Non-religious" might still mean you believe in a god, but just that you don't worship or follow any particular one. It's too vague a term. "Atheist" is pretty clear in what it means. A person who does not believe in a god or gods.

"Religious" is a term about worship, not belief. "Theist" is the term about belief. So rather than "Theist" and "Non-Theist", it's "Theist" and "Atheist".

GarIT

I refuse to be called anything. Religion does not apply to me in any form and I have no problem making that clear to anyone who tries to say otherwise.

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

I refuse to be called anything.

you're an anominatist so.

Zombrex

In day to day conversation I call myself "non-religious" when the context of religion comes up (for example when I went into hospital recently and was asked my religion I said "no religion", not "atheist")

I don't have any issue with the term atheism, but I think non-religious is clearer in day to day conversation considering most of the time you are not discussing the epistemology issues of the claims of theism, you are discussing do you hold to any particular religious practices or requirements (eg in the hospital they are asking to see if I should be included in any Christian rituals such as holy communion).

Sofaspud

I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but this is one thing I disagree with him about.

Atheism isn't a "movement" or a description of a set of beliefs, it just means not a theist, as in not a believer in a god.
Tyson doesn't believe in a god, therefore he's an atheist.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

when I went into hospital recently and was asked my religion I said "no religion", not "atheist"

I tried that and was frequently woken from a morphine induced slumber by a priest flinging water and incantations at me. Great-grand Uncle went with atheist and no priest flung water or incantations at him. Next time I'm going with atheist.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I tried that and was frequently woken from a morphine induced slumber by a priest flinging water and incantations at me. Great-grand Uncle went with atheist and no priest flung water or incantations at him. Next time I'm going with atheist.

really? fortunately never had that problem. Might be to do with how preachy the hospital chaplin service is.

Satanist is probably the safest bet :pac:

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

really? fortunately never had that problem. Might be to do with how preachy the hospital chaplin service is.

Satanist is probably the safest bet :pac:

Yup - for a while there I was in and out of hospital every month and every time I said 'no religion' and every time as soon as I passed out in a purple haze yer man was there with the water flinging. Appeals to the nurses proved useless so in the end my Muslim surgeon had a word with him and made him stop. Me waking up roaring was bad for my post-op recovery apparently.

G-G Uncle did have to contend with some fairly gruesome 'holy' pictures tho which I was spared. He did managed to get them to remove the open heart surgery one which was facing him in his private room - so they put it up in a corridor directly across from his door, which his bed also faced.

kiffer

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yup - for a while there I was in and out of hospital every month and every time I said 'no religion' and every time as soon as I passed out in a purple haze yer man was there with the water flinging. Appeals to the nurses proved useless so in the end my Muslim surgeon had a word with him and made him stop. Me waking up roaring was bad for my post-op recovery apparently.

G-G Uncle did have to contend with some fairly gruesome 'holy' pictures tho which I was spared. He did managed to get them to remove the open heart surgery one which was facing him in his private room - so they put it up in a corridor directly across from his door, which his bed also faced.

Do they use special sterile holy water?
Could you imagine how nasty some random holy well might be?

Bannasidhe

kiffer wrote: »

Do they use special sterile holy water?
Could you imagine how nasty some random holy well might be?

Straight out of the tap with a bit of hand waving and a quick inthenameofthefathersonaaaandholyghost mumbled over it would be my guess.

Correlation between spread of MRSA and 'holy' water flinging - discuss.

Akrasia

Dades wrote: »

I do think some (religious) people still feel threatened by 'atheists', even though statistically they're less likely to have a crime perpetrated on them by one. :P

We mightn't steal their handbag, but their illusions are much more valuable to them

Atheists are a real threat to theism. One of the reasons people believe in religion is because it's the default position in our society. People don't have to justify their beliefs either to themselves or to others because those beliefs are communal.

That position is rapidly changing. When I meet someone of my own age, I do not expect them to be religious. I am not at all surprised if they are atheists.
When I meet people my age who are overtly religious, that is a genuine surprise.
As the older generation die off, the paradigm is shifting towards secularism and atheism.
The more atheists there are, the more difficult it is to be 'religious' without having to invest any thought into it.

endacl

Atheism is a state. I'm not an atheist. I am however atheist. The attachment of other meaning to this simple fact is something I leave to others. I'm atheist and so is this cup of tea.

TBH, I only post here because the banter is good...

Pherekydes

endacl wrote: »

Atheism is a state. I'm not an atheist. I am however atheist. The attachment of other meaning to this simple fact is something I leave to others. I'm atheist and so is this cup of tea.

TBH, I only post here because the banter is good...

...and you can get biscuits with your tea?

endacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

...and you can get biscuits with your tea?

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Straight out of the tap with a bit of hand waving and a quick inthenameofthefathersonaaaandholyghost mumbled over it would be my guess.

Correlation between spread of MRSA and 'holy' water flinging - discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_water#Hygiene :eek:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_water#Hygiene :eek:

That might explain why it's so effective in dealing with vampires.

Duggy747

What happens if you really do believe it's butter?

endacl

Duggy747 wrote: »

What happens if you really do believe it's butter?

Have you evidence that it is in fact butter? If so, your belief is redundant. If you have evidence that it is not butter, yet still believe it is, you're bonkers. If you have no evidence either way, yet still insist based on blind faith that it is butter, well..... there's probably no talking to you.

:P

Duggy747

endacl wrote: »

Have you evidence that it is in fact butter? If so, your belief is redundant. If you have evidence that it is not butter, yet still believe it is, you're bonkers. If you have no evidence either way, yet still insist based on blind faith that it is butter, well..... there's probably no talking to you.

:P

Are you a butter churning expert? Can you disprove it?

Have you ever heard of the analogy..............uh...............what's it called..........Russell's Buttered Toast?

MickFleetwood

ibstar wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

After watching this I come to realize that maybe we Atheists/Agnostics shouldn't refer to ourselves by the branding that religious organizations name us. As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out, people that don't ski, don't refer to themselves as non-skiers etc.

Any thoughts from the boradsies?

The skiing analogy holds no water. It makes no sense. To call yourself an atheist means you disagree with something that happens to be an overtly popular belief - millions upon millions of humans believe in a deity of sorts. Some countries and states have their entire political and social system integrated somewhat with religion. People have died and suffered in the name of religion.

It's a sort of statement, I guess, to call yourself an atheist, rather than a "non-skier." Tyson is more attempting to state that labeling him as something, which in turn in the eyes of many groups him in with others by default, is a fallacy.

I myself am an agnostic.

endacl

MickFleetwood wrote: »

To call yourself an atheist means you disagree with something that happens to be an overtly popular belief

No it doesn't. It just means you don't share the belief. It's not an opposite position.

You may be thinking of 'anti-theist'.

MickFleetwood

endacl wrote: »

No it doesn't. It just means you don't share the belief. It's not an opposite position.

You may be thinking of 'anti-theist'.

So you wouldn't say that the disbelief of a deity isn't disagreeing with the idea that a deity exists?

The definition of "disagree" is to express or hold a differing opinion. Which is exactly what atheism is to theism.

endacl

MickFleetwood wrote: »

So you wouldn't say that the disbelief of a deity isn't disagreeing with the idea that a deity exists?

Ah, but that's not what you said...

MickFleetwood

endacl wrote: »

Ah, but that's not what you said...

It's exactly what I said, though. You quoted me stating that to be an atheist means disagreeing with theism.

endacl

MickFleetwood wrote: »

It's exactly what I said, though. You quoted me stating that to be an atheist means disagreeing with theism.

Happy to admit I'm splitting hairs extremely thinly here....

'Disagreement' implies an opposite position. I argue that 'atheism' represents a null position. Not participating in theism, if you like. The question doesn't apply, so to speak. Anti-theism would be an opposite position to theism, and a disagreement. Atheism isn't.

That's where I'd be. Atheist. Not anti-theist. Don't care what other people get up to, once it doesn't impact on civil society.

kiffer

Or to go back to the skiing thing.

Ann likes to ski, she say it is fun.
Barry doesn't like skiing but can see that Ann is having fun, he doesn't want to be forced to go on a skiing holiday.
Ciaran thinks skiing isn't fun, and not only does he not want to ski he thinks no one should like skiing and we should close all the ski slopes and burn all the skiing equipment.

So...

Ann is a ski-ist.
Barry is an a-ski-ist.
Ciaran is an anti-ski-ist.

Ann's sister is a fundamental ski enthusiast... when she turns up she insists thst every one should be skiing because it's the best thing ever... so she starts a campaign to make it mandatory in Barry's school.

Now Barry will quickly behave more like an antiskiist...
Does he disagree with Ann when she says "I like skiing"? No he does not because Ann clearly enjoys skiing.
Does he disagree with Ann's sister about having to take mandatory skiing lessons? Yes, of course he does.
Does this make him anti-skiing? No.

robindch

kiffer wrote: »

Could you imagine how nasty some random holy well might be?

Popette visited India some years ago and drank a few cupfuls of unboiled well-water as part of some holyritual she got involved with.

She caught a bad dose of amoebic dysentery and while she came quite close to dying, she blamed the dose on her not having enough faith to neutralize it. When they finally made it back to Ireland, her long-suffering hubby vetoed any further exotic travels and Popette, for once in her life, agreed with him.

magicbastarder

is popette a relative of yours?

New_Flash

kiffer wrote: »

Or to go back to the skiing thing.

Ann's sister is a fundamental ski enthusiast....

stupid sexy Ann's sister

Sulla Felix

MickFleetwood wrote: »

The skiing analogy holds no water. It makes no sense. To call yourself an atheist means you disagree with something that happens to be an overtly popular belief - millions upon millions of humans believe in a deity of sorts. Some countries and states have their entire political and social system integrated somewhat with religion. People have died and suffered in the name of religion.

It's a sort of statement, I guess, to call yourself an atheist, rather than a "non-skier." Tyson is more attempting to state that labeling him as something, which in turn in the eyes of many groups him in with others by default, is a fallacy.

I myself am an agnostic.

But saying you're an agnostic tells us nothing about whether you actually believe in God or not. You can be agnostic and theist, plenty of the more sane theologians were. My mother is, despite persisting in her belief in the Catholic Church being the one true faith, also an agnostic.

MickFleetwood

Sulla Felix wrote: »

But saying you're an agnostic tells us nothing about whether you actually believe in God or not. You can be agnostic and theist, plenty of the more sane theologians were. My mother is, despite persisting in her belief in the Catholic Church being the one true faith, also an agnostic.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God, for various reasons. The subject of Religion really isn't all that interesting to me; I find it intensely boring. Coupled along with the fact that you really cannot disprove "God" I'm a firm agnostic who leans toward the belief that there is no deity.

Sofaspud

Sulla Felix wrote: »

But saying you're an agnostic tells us nothing about whether you actually believe in God or not. You can be agnostic and theist, plenty of the more sane theologians were. My mother is, despite persisting in her belief in the Catholic Church being the one true faith, also an agnostic.

Everyone is either agnostic or presumptuous.

Sulla Felix

MickFleetwood wrote: »

I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God, for various reasons. The subject of Religion really isn't all that interesting to me; I find it intensely boring. Coupled along with the fact that you really cannot disprove "God" I'm a firm agnostic who leans toward the belief that there is no deity.

Then you're an atheist. Sorry.

If I ask you, do you believe in God, and you can't answer yes, then you're an atheist. It's that simple. No amount of obfuscation or avoiding the actual question you're being asked results in anything else. Yes or no, do you believe in God? Anything other than a "yes" means you're an atheist.

The answers "atheist/theist" and "agnostic/gnostic" are responses to two specific, mutually exclusive questions.

1) Do you believe in God(s)? Yes/no. Theist/Atheist.

2) Do you believe it is possible to verify the existence of a God/Gods? Yes/no. Gnostic/Agnostic.

MickFleetwood

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Then you're an atheist. Sorry.

If I ask you, do you believe in God, and you can't answer yes, then you're an atheist. It's that simple. No amount of obfuscation or avoiding the actual question you're being asked results in anything else. Yes or no, do you believe in God? Anything other than a "yes" means you're an atheist.

The answers "atheist/theist" and "agnostic/gnostic" are responses to two specific, mutually exclusive questions.

1) Do you believe in God(s)? Yes/no. Theist/Atheist.

2) Do you believe it is possible to verify the existence of a God/Gods? Yes/no. Gnostic/Agnostic.

This is so wrong I'm not even going to bother picking it apart.

Sofaspud

"Yes I believe in a god" - Theist

Anything else, by definition = atheist.

MickFleetwood

Sofaspud wrote: »

"Yes I believe in a god" - Theist

Anything else, by definition = atheist.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any kind of deity.

An agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence for either view, and thus, sits on the fence.

So no, I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. Also, why is the poster originally quoting me saying they're "sorry." For what? For telling me I'm something different to what I think I am?

Do people even know what atheists and agnostics actually are?

Hotblack Desiato

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any kind of deity.

Nope. An atheist does not believe in any of the gods which have yet been proposed.

Almost all atheists are agnostic athiests - they cannot categorically rule out the possibility that at some time in the future a god may be proven to exist - and this includes 'militants' like Richard Dawkins.

MickFleetwood

ninja900 wrote: »

Nope. An atheist does not believe in any of the gods which have yet been proposed.

Almost all atheists are agnostic athiests - they cannot categorically rule out the possibility that at some time in the future a god may be proven to exist - and this includes 'militants' like Richard Dawkins.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. - Wikipedia

a·the·ist

[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. - Dictionary.com

athe·ism

noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\



Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids » - merriam-webster.com

---

It's as if people have their own definition for what agnostics and atheists are, which seems to be in contrast with the actual definition of it.

kiffer

What is disbelief when it's at home?

Claim: in this box is a magic hat.
Response: there might be a hat but I don't believe it's magical... show me.

Is that disbelief?
The respondent doesn't believe that the hat that might be in the box (it is not unusual for hats to be in boxes) is magical. And if he was going to buy the hatbox he'd want to look in the box to check there actually is a hat at all.

Is Disbelief just not believing in things people claim... or is it a more active thing?


Edit: because you want to play the definition game...
Disbelieve:
verb (used with object)1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.verb (used without object)1. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

So you, by having no belief in it/them, disbelieve god(s) and are, once again, an atheist.

Now no one is forcing you to self identify as anything you don't like but ... well by definition not believing is disbelieving.

Sofaspud

Theist = "I believe that a god or gods exist", anything else = atheist.

Gnostic = "I know that a god or gods exist", anything else = agnostic.
("God" can be replaced by "deity", "higher power" or "supreme being" as required)

So you are agnostic, but so is everyone else in the world, because nobody knows for sure and anyone that says they do is lying.

Do you believe in a deity or god? If yes, you're an agnostic theist, otherwise you're an agnostic atheist.
By not having a belief, you disbelieve.

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

Popette visited India some years ago and drank a few cupfuls of unboiled well-water as part of some holyritual she got involved with.

She caught a bad dose of amoebic dysentery and while she came quite close to dying, she blamed the dose on her not having enough faith to neutralize it. When they finally made it back to Ireland, her long-suffering hubby vetoed any further exotic travels and Popette, for once in her life, agreed with him.

It gives the phrase "The Lord moves in mysterious ways" a whole new dimension.

swampgas

MickFleetwood wrote: »

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any kind of deity.

An agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence for either view, and thus, sits on the fence.

So no, I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. Also, why is the poster originally quoting me saying they're "sorry." For what? For telling me I'm something different to what I think I am?

Do people even know what atheists and agnostics actually are?

The confusion here might be that the words atheist & agnostic are used in two different ways, and many people are unaware of this.

(1) Common parlance: Athiest "actively doesn't believe", agnostic "isn't sure if he believes or not, or doesn't care". This is not technically correct.

(2) Technically correct (as used here in A&A): atheism and agnosticism are separate concepts, as described above by other posters.

When you are posting in A&A, be aware that definition (2) is the norm, so you may have to adapt if you wish to be understood.

Turtwig

Mick,

Suppose someone grew up on a planet without religion. Suppose also that this person was never made aware of the concept of a god. How would you describe a person who doesn't believe in god simply because they aren't aware of the god concept? Atheist would be my definition, what would be yours though?

Furthermore, whatever definition you choose would you stay that this person is actually believing their is no god? Is to possible to have belief for or against something when you're not even aware of the concept?