why I choose not identify my religious stance using the word "atheist"

[ADigitalArtist]

*mod post*Just a reminder that this thread is in a discussion section, not a debate section.*mod post*

 

[Heyo]

It’s an emotional response that theists tend to make. Look at how far into the weeds @PureX has gone to sabotage and misrepresent what I said. He is notoriously biased towards atheists.


That is a measure atheists have to take when dealing with the bias of theists, as they are tempted to ho off on irrelevant tangents based on the assumption that atheists are evil, bad, immoral, etc.


It could be. But atheists trying to be heard accurately with an intention to make some progress as citizens deserving of respect has to use any words that avoid inherent bias in the words Atheist or atheism.

Jonathan Miller made a great case for alternative words.

*mod post*Just a reminder that this thread is in a discussion section, not a debate section.*mod post*

No argument, but an expression of my feelings about bovine manure words:

Spoiler: honest language

 

[F1fan]

No argument, but an expression of my feelings about bovine manure words:

Spoiler: honest language

Excellent. And no argument. But not quite the same thing. Actually I suggest it is the opposite of what Carlin is saying. I’m offering a more precise word that offsets the confusion of the common word.

 

[Jagella]

Some might see it as being rather nitpicky, but to me it looks like a word created and designed by religious folks for religious purposes.

I think the same or something similar can go with related words such as "humanist."

To me it's like a way of saying that I don't opt into religion, by simply saying that I'm non-religious or not religious.

Once someone says that they're atheist, it seems to me like they've willingly - and perhaps unwittingly - chosen to step foot on the playing field of religion and religious belief systems. In everyday usage, it might not matter, but from what I've seen in debates between theists and atheists is a trend of the atheists apparently being duped into playing by the rules of the theists.

As an analogy, imagine being asked if you like a certain NFL football team; the question doesn't allow for a distinction between someone who's a fan of a different NFL football team, and someone else who simply isn't interested in NFL football in general. In reality, some (probably most) who identify as atheists would be analogous to those who simply aren't interested in NFL football in general, but the theists don't seem to make that distinction and treat them as being analogous to someone who's a fan of a different football team.

I agree with you completely. I don't believe in any Gods, but I'm much more than that. I prefer to identify as a "truth seeker" which is to say I want to know the truth whatever it might be. So if any Gods exist, then I want to know. If Gods only exist in the imagination, then I want to know that.

 

[anotherneil]

I agree with you completely. I don't believe in any Gods, but I'm much more than that. I prefer to identify as a "truth seeker" which is to say I want to know the truth whatever it might be. So if any Gods exist, then I want to know. If Gods only exist in the imagination, then I want to know that.

Part of my problem with religion is that the words God and gods lack good, consistent, solid definitions and tests & criteria to determine who or what they are, particularly in a way that's practical for some sort of purpose or use - one that cannot be covered by any other explanation.

For instance, there are words and descriptions for things like water, rocks, dirt, air, birds, fish, houses, bridges, happiness, anger, honest, dishonest, time of day, work, energy, chemical reaction, contract, etc. Having words and descriptions for things like that serve a useful purpose. It's not just those words, it's other religious words like sin, good & evil, etc. In other words, describe something in terms of honest or dishonest, breach of contract, agreement/disagreement or other such practical wording to explain or describe something rather than sin, good/evil, etc.

 

[Jagella]

Part of my problem with religion is that the words God and gods lack good, consistent, solid definitions and tests & criteria to determine who or what they are, particularly in a way that's practical for some sort of purpose or use - one that cannot be covered by any other explanation.

For instance, there are words and descriptions for things like water, rocks, dirt, air, birds, fish, houses, bridges, happiness, anger, honest, dishonest, time of day, work, energy, chemical reaction, contract, etc. Having words and descriptions for things like that serve a useful purpose. It's not just those words, it's other religious words like sin, good & evil, etc. In other words, describe something in terms of honest or dishonest, breach of contract, agreement/disagreement or other such practical wording to explain or describe something rather than sin, good/evil, etc.

I'm well aware of this "word problem" in religion and theism. Religion and theism really just boil down to words with no objective reality. There's no way to define those words which is no accident. What keeps religion going is its slippery nature. It can slip out of the stickiest situations, and that's why it's still with us.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Part of my problem with religion is that the words God and gods lack good, consistent, solid definitions and tests & criteria to determine who or what they are, particularly in a way that's practical for some sort of purpose or use - one that cannot be covered by any other explanation.

For instance, there are words and descriptions for things like water, rocks, dirt, air, birds, fish, houses, bridges, happiness, anger, honest, dishonest, time of day, work, energy, chemical reaction, contract, etc. Having words and descriptions for things like that serve a useful purpose. It's not just those words, it's other religious words like sin, good & evil, etc. In other words, describe something in terms of honest or dishonest, breach of contract, agreement/disagreement or other such practical wording to explain or describe something rather than sin, good/evil, etc.

Sounds a bit more Ignostic to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds a bit more Ignostic to me.

I have no problem if someone describes themselves as an atheist, yet prefers to go by a different term. In some parts of the US there is still a huge bias against atheists.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Yes, yes there is. This is one of the reasons I prefer to not use the atheist label.

What I really prefer is no label at all, but the one that seems to suit me and be the most neutral to me is agnostic. I'm perfectly fine with using it to describe myself, as I really don't believe it is possible to prove one way or another whether god exists or doesn't exist.

I've been told I was an agnostic atheist before, though.

I like to think of myself kind of like this:

Belief in the Bible, and the god of the Bible/of world religions: atheist

Some undefined god or higher power that isn't known about and isn't suggested by man-made religions: Agnostic

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, yes there is. This is one of the reasons I prefer to not use the atheist label.

What I really prefer is no label at all, but the one that seems to suit me and be the most neutral to me is agnostic. I'm perfectly fine with using it to describe myself, as I really don't believe it is possible to prove one way or another whether god exists or doesn't exist.

I've been told I was an agnostic atheist before, though.

I like to think of myself kind of like this:

Belief in the Bible, and the god of the Bible/of world religions: atheist

Some undefined god or higher power that isn't known about and isn't suggested by man-made religions: Agnostic

Technically atheism is a "Big tent". There are endless varieties of atheists. All that is required to be an atheist is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Just as theism is a Big Tent that includes everyone that believes in a God. Just as a sidenote, deists quite often resent being called "theists".

And an agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist, though most lean atheist. They simply lack a belief. If any theist ever meets their burden of proof I will switch. What drives some theists nuts, and they all tend to be evangelistic theists, is when atheists quite nicely and genuinely say "Show me reliable evidence for your god and I will change my mind". To date they never seem to have any evidence or even understand the concept. Meanwhile we have Ken Ham in a debate that was supposed to show that a belief in creationism was rationally clearly lost the debate when asked what evidence would convince him to be wrong. I could dig up the quote but he said that no amount of evidence would change his mind. In other words, in a debate about whether a believe in creationism could be rational he admitted that his won belief was irrational.

 

[anotherneil]

Sounds a bit more Ignostic to me.

Well, I intentionally avoid applying any of these labels so I don't get locked into something and branded as meaning or consequently being this or that about me.

"If you're A then that means you're X."
"If you're B then that means you're Y."

Or, some might say that as - whatever (label or branding) - I have to explain or defend this or that claim or position.

"If you're A then you have to defend W, so defend W or else (you lose)."
"If you're B then that means you need to explain Z."

etc. etc.

Maybe I am ignostic, maybe I ain't; all I'm going to say is that I'm not religious, and that includes practicing, believing in & subscribing to anything from any religion or religious texts including any God and Jesus Bible, worshipping anything, engaging in rituals, dogma, etc. etc.

I stay away from the label "atheist", because to me that's using a religious word (the antonym of "theist"), and part of being non-religious, to me, is to not use religious words to label myself; otherwise I'm on their playing field with their rules, where I won't be able to win - ever.

I plan on starting a thread, eventually, to give a possible explanation on why human beings developed beliefs in supernatural beings and an afterlife. If you want to see or try to figure out where I plan to go with that, think of how illusionists or magicians (as in David Copperfield, Chris Angel, Penn & Teller, Harry Houdini, etc.) are able to make people believe something that didn't really happen.

Also, look into the origins of the Assassins ancient secret society. Have you ever come across any stories that involve someone dying, going to heaven, being told that they're not ready to stay, having to temporarily come back to life on Earth to fulfill a good deed or mission, then finally being able to return to heaven and remain permanently if they accomplish that good deed or mission?

What this secret society of Assassins would do is go to pubs and drug their victims with hashish, take them to some hidden palace with beautiful & exotic women, animals, plants, delicacies, and so on - in order to make them believe that they have died and reached an afterlife paradise, but couldn't remain there until the "go back to Earth" to assassinate someone who was actually just an adversary of theirs.

Anyhow, I plan on continuing on this & getting into more detail to tie some loose ends in this future thread.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Some might see it as being rather nitpicky, but to me it looks like a word created and designed by religious folks for religious purposes.

I think the same or something similar can go with related words such as "humanist."

To me it's like a way of saying that I don't opt into religion, by simply saying that I'm non-religious or not religious.

Once someone says that they're atheist, it seems to me like they've willingly - and perhaps unwittingly - chosen to step foot on the playing field of religion and religious belief systems. In everyday usage, it might not matter, but from what I've seen in debates between theists and atheists is a trend of the atheists apparently being duped into playing by the rules of the theists.

As an analogy, imagine being asked if you like a certain NFL football team; the question doesn't allow for a distinction between someone who's a fan of a different NFL football team, and someone else who simply isn't interested in NFL football in general. In reality, some (probably most) who identify as atheists would be analogous to those who simply aren't interested in NFL football in general, but the theists don't seem to make that distinction and treat them as being analogous to someone who's a fan of a different football team.

I 100% agree that people get to define themselves however they want. I choose to use atheist because it fits my beliefs. Although I do get misunderstood as a person claiming god does not exist sometimes so I have thought about using something else from time to time. At least to me it seems that if I say I am atheist it sounds like I came to a conclusion that there are no gods. If I say I am non religious it sounds like I just never thought about it and don't really care. That may just be me though.

 

[anotherneil]

I 100% agree that people get to define themselves however they want. I choose to use atheist because it fits my beliefs. Although I do get misunderstood as a person claiming god does not exist sometimes so I have thought about using something else from time to time. At least to me it seems that if I say I am atheist it sounds like I came to a conclusion that there are no gods. If I say I am non religious it sounds like I just never thought about it and don't really care. That may just be me though.

I was raised Roman Catholic, went to church every week, went to CCD classes, did 1st Communion, but never went through confirmation; I chose to be non-religious.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I was raised Roman Catholic, went to church every week, went to CCD classes, did 1st Communion, but never went through confirmation; I chose to be non-religious.

I went through Catholic 1st communion, had no idea what it was about. My parents did it to appease their parents. Did you ever believe?

 

[anotherneil]

I went through Catholic 1st communion, had no idea what it was about. My parents did it to appease their parents. Did you ever believe?

Yes, because it's what I was told as a child along with Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny & I've outgrown all of that.

I doesn't mean I've abandoned the bulk of the morals, virtues, principles, guidance that I think are useful and beneficial for living life for anyone; I'm just not interested in the beliefs of things that can't be proven, rituals, dogma, worshipping, etc.

Then there's this competitiveness between different religious establishments - "My religion and beliefs is the real one!" "No! Mine is!" "No, my God is the only true god!" "My god's **** is bigger than your god's ****!" LOL I don't even know what that's all about & I'm not interested in wasting my time with that useless nonsense.

I'd much rather people just work together to solve problems with access to resources for all of humanity. Let's focus on developing cures for illnesses; let's study and develop automation and robotics; let's focus on putting food on plates & roofs over heads; let's clean up the polluted environment.

I want to use science, technology, innovation, and creativity to deal with and solve problems, rather than impose religious and political constraints on society & pretend like they solve anything.

As an example, you'll see from other threads that I have a problem with this issue of human-caused climate change hysteria and alarmism; it doesn't mean that I reject the idea that human activity isn't playing some role in climate change or that I'm a climate change denier. I just have a problem with what I see as misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda about the issue. I think climate change is real and has been occurring since long before human beings came into existence. I do not think taxing this or banning that is a useful or good way of dealing with the actual problem. I am for utilizing science, technology, innovation, and creativity to deal with actual problems with climate change; when people get to zealot and fanatical about it, it's like and practically religious sentiment to me. What I'm referring to is this "you ought to be ashamed of yourself if you don't want to ban CO2 emissions" type of attitude.

Anyhow, the point is that I'm not interested in things that I don't see as useful & beneficial to me and society.

I'm not saying I can't or won't change my mind about something; I'm willing and have changed my mind.

This has happened to me when it comes to the issue of abortion. When I was in elementary school, my family was friends with another Roman Catholic family with 2 daughters around my age & my siblings ages; part of the reason for the friendship was because our fathers were in the military, and this couple was Colombian, just like my mother. The older of these 2 girls was pro-life and convinced me to be pro-life. I was very pro-life for a while, until I did a libertarian re-evaluation and decided that women should be able to terminate their pregnancies with something they consume (herbal remedy or so-called "abortion" pill), since my libertarian position is that everyone ought to have a right to consume whatever they want. I didn't stop being pro-life, though; I'm just no longer for these religiously rigid & absolute types of bans.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Well, I intentionally avoid applying any of these labels so I don't get locked into something and branded as meaning or consequently being this or that about me.

"If you're A then that means you're X."
"If you're B then that means you're Y."

Or, some might say that as - whatever (label or branding) - I have to explain or defend this or that claim or position.

"If you're A then you have to defend W, so defend W or else (you lose)."
"If you're B then that means you need to explain Z."

etc. etc.

Maybe I am ignostic, maybe I ain't; all I'm going to say is that I'm not religious, and that includes practicing, believing in & subscribing to anything from any religion or religious texts including any God and Jesus Bible, worshipping anything, engaging in rituals, dogma, etc. etc.

I stay away from the label "atheist", because to me that's using a religious word (the antonym of "theist"), and part of being non-religious, to me, is to not use religious words to label myself; otherwise I'm on their playing field with their rules, where I won't be able to win - ever.

I plan on starting a thread, eventually, to give a possible explanation on why human beings developed beliefs in supernatural beings and an afterlife. If you want to see or try to figure out where I plan to go with that, think of how illusionists or magicians (as in David Copperfield, Chris Angel, Penn & Teller, Harry Houdini, etc.) are able to make people believe something that didn't really happen.

Also, look into the origins of the Assassins ancient secret society. Have you ever come across any stories that involve someone dying, going to heaven, being told that they're not ready to stay, having to temporarily come back to life on Earth to fulfill a good deed or mission, then finally being able to return to heaven and remain permanently if they accomplish that good deed or mission?

What this secret society of Assassins would do is go to pubs and drug their victims with hashish, take them to some hidden palace with beautiful & exotic women, animals, plants, delicacies, and so on - in order to make them believe that they have died and reached an afterlife paradise, but couldn't remain there until the "go back to Earth" to assassinate someone who was actually just an adversary of theirs.

Anyhow, I plan on continuing on this & getting into more detail to tie some loose ends in this future thread.

Very true. It would appear that most labels that one can use, come with some kind of baggage. This is why I refer to myself usually as either Agnostic or just non-religious.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is being an aphilatelist willingly or unwittingly making a choice to step onto the playing field of stamp collecting?

Maybe I'm an apaphilateist?

Once someone says that they're atheist, it seems to me like they've willingly - and perhaps unwittingly - chosen to step foot on the playing field of religion and religious belief systems.

Do you mean kind of like you did when you created an account on Religious Forums?

 

[anotherneil]

Is being an aphilatelist willingly or unwittingly making a choice to step onto the playing field of stamp collecting?

Maybe I'm an apaphilateist?


Do you mean kind of like you did when you created an account on Religious Forums?

Well, we can observe that stamps do exist, and we know what stamps are.

The analogy might be in whether or not one believes that stamps exist without knowing, and not even having a good idea of what stamps are.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well, we can observe that stamps do exist, and we know what stamps are.

Can we not observe that religions or religious beliefs exist?

The analogy might be in whether or not one believes that stamps exist without knowing, and not even having a good idea of what stamps are.

Do we not have a good idea of what religions or religious beliefs are?

 

[Audie]

Some might see it as being rather nitpicky, but to me it looks like a word created and designed by religious folks for religious purposes.

I think the same or something similar can go with related words such as "humanist."

To me it's like a way of saying that I don't opt into religion, by simply saying that I'm non-religious or not religious.

Once someone says that they're atheist, it seems to me like they've willingly - and perhaps unwittingly - chosen to step foot on the playing field of religion and religious belief systems. In everyday usage, it might not matter, but from what I've seen in debates between theists and atheists is a trend of the atheists apparently being duped into playing by the rules of the theists.

As an analogy, imagine being asked if you like a certain NFL football team; the question doesn't allow for a distinction between someone who's a fan of a different NFL football team, and someone else who simply isn't interested in NFL football in general. In reality, some (probably most) who identify as atheists would be analogous to those who simply aren't interested in NFL football in general, but the theists don't seem to make that distinction and treat them as being analogous to someone who's a fan of a different football team.

It's nice living where people don't ask