There's a problem with the word "Atheist" (myth, God)

[Prometheus]

Why do we call ourselves Atheists? Why do we define ourselves by what we are not? If you break it down to the actual definition of the word, an Atheist is, "A person who is not a Theist." That presents a bit of a problem. Once you spell out what a Theist is, the definition of an Atheist becomes, "A person who is not a person who believes in God." When you read that sentence, it becomes apparent that saying you are what you are not is rather silly. It's like defining a male as a person who is not a person who is a female.

Not only is there a problem in calling ourselves what we are not, but there is the fact that by using this word we are actually calling attention to the idea of "God." Why are these non-existent entities that we know as "gods" worthy of this kind of publicity? I don't believe in ghosts, but if I went around calling myself an "A-ghostist" I'd be drawing attention to the consideration of these non-existent entities. It's like telling someone, "Don't think about a black cat." The person is obviously going to think of a black cat because the positive command is still in the sentence. It seems to me that by calling ourselves Atheists we actually give credence to the existence of gods.

Furthermore, I'd say most "Atheists" aren't defining themselves well enough when they use the term. You could be a Buddhist for all anyone knows. People that call themselves Atheists generally aren't Buddhists. Buddhists will call themselves Buddhists, even though the word Atheist would be a perfectly fitting. So the word carries more baggage in everyday conversation than it really should.

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition and don't rely on being the antithesis of another concept.

[kadzbiz]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

.....I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition.............

I would agree with thes rest of what you say, but I'd say that the word "skeptic" has a negative connotation.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic."

Then learn the difference between them.

Parenthetically, no word is immune to juvenile 'debate'.

[Jaymes]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Not only is there a problem in calling ourselves what we are not, but there is the fact that by using this word we are actually calling attention to the idea of "God." Why are these non-existent entities that we know as "gods" worthy of this kind of publicity? I don't believe in ghosts, but if I went around calling myself an "A-ghostist" I'd be drawing attention to the consideration of these non-existent entities.

That idea has been bothering me lately, as well.

I might have to latch on to your Skeptic idea. It doesn't seem to have the connotations "atheist" does to some people.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You could be a Buddhist for all anyone knows. People that call themselves Atheists generally aren't Buddhists. Buddhists will call themselves Buddhists, even though the word Atheist would be a perfectly fitting.

"Christian" and "Atheist" aren't mutually exclusive, either. I can honestly and variously identify myself as any of these depending on the mythological focus I choose to work through at a given point.

[Nanda]

Originally Posted by kadzbiz

I would agree with thes rest of what you say, but I'd say that the word "skeptic" has a negative connotation.

You think skeptic has a negative connotation, try telling someone you're an atheist sometime.

[Dream Angel]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Why do we call ourselves Atheists? Why do we define ourselves by what we are not? If you break it down to the actual definition of the word, an Atheist is, "A person who is not a Theist." That presents a bit of a problem. Once you spell out what a Theist is, the definition of an Atheist becomes, "A person who is not a person who believes in God." When you read that sentence, it becomes apparent that saying you are what you are not is rather silly. It's like defining a male as a person who is not a person who is a female.

Not only is there a problem in calling ourselves what we are not, but there is the fact that by using this word we are actually calling attention to the idea of "God." Why are these non-existent entities that we know as "gods" worthy of this kind of publicity? I don't believe in ghosts, but if I went around calling myself an "A-ghostist" I'd be drawing attention to the consideration of these non-existent entities. It's like telling someone, "Don't think about a black cat." The person is obviously going to think of a black cat because the positive command is still in the sentence. It seems to me that by calling ourselves Atheists we actually give credence to the existence of gods.

Furthermore, I'd say most "Atheists" aren't defining themselves well enough when they use the term. You could be a Buddhist for all anyone knows. People that call themselves Atheists generally aren't Buddhists. Buddhists will call themselves Buddhists, even though the word Atheist would be a perfectly fitting. So the word carries more baggage in everyday conversation than it really should.

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition and don't rely on being the antithesis of another concept.

Arent Naturalists the ones that run around naked though?

I can see yoour point though. I dont know why people call themselves athiests. If people say what is your religion its best to say "none". Also my view is that there isnt hard enough concrete 100% evidence that God doesnt exist.

[Nanda]

Originally Posted by laws28186

I can see yoour point though. I dont know why people call themselves athiests. If people say what is your religion its best to say "none".

Except that you can have no religion, and still believe in a God. People do it all the time. I have no religion and I don't believe in any gods, and I feel the need to clarify that when asked.

Also my view is that there isnt hard enough concrete 100% evidence that God doesnt exist.

That's all well and good for you. Agnosticism is for you, then. We don't all feel that way, however. By that same rationale, I could say that I don't understand why some people call themselves theists, because my view is that there isn't any hard, concrete 100% evidence that any gods do exist.