Is it time to rename atheism?

[DIY 1138]

Deleted by original poster

[Hitsumei]

Should rename atheism to theism, and really screw with their heads!  

[VanReal]

We are only called something because we need a quick name to use when they hear "I don't believe in god" and get all puzzled and preachy.  "I'm an atheist" is easier, they can cringe and run away.  They could rename us "wooly booly" for all I care. But I kind of like it, they know the word, they already don't understand it, but they know it's something about not believing in god, or thinking we are god, or eating babies or something like that.

[SallyMutant]

I had no problem with "Atheism" untill this thread, but it is interesting that it pretty much means "without deity" which implies some lack.
Good old Victorian Robert Ingersoll was billed as a "freethinker." Seems a bit waffle-y, since it doesn't define what his thoughts were free of, but also sounds gloriously open-minded.
"Secularist"  looks good, I need to chech out the etymology on that.
Or we could have a contest! Name that Skepticism!

 

[Enoch Root]

The word implies that theism is the standard or the norm, and atheism is something outside the norm.  Which has been true for most of history I suppose, but today, outside a few theocracies like Saudi Arabia or the USA, atheism is pretty widely accepted as pretty normal.  If I announced to my coworkers that I was an atheist nobody would bat an eye, and I'd probably get a few "So what?" questions.  Whereas if I announced myself as an evangelical Christian they'd look at me like I had a third eye.

Blaming "intelligent falling" for my spaghetti ending up on the floor is far greater a stretch than blaming gravity - yet 'intelligent falling' would be the theistic approach, whilst gravity would be the atheistic.  Perhaps people should be labeled "intelligent fallingists" and "anti-intelligent fallingists".

[Will]

It's perfectly adequate as a descriptive term just like gentile or minority, terms describing what one is not. Because atheists don't agree on anything except that they don't believe in the existence of god or gods, I don't know that we need something describing what we are. I know it might assist in unity, but I for one don't believe that atheist unity is a good idea because it's bound to develop central ideologies and principles, and then we'll find ourselves adapting to the atheist (or whatever name) ideology instead of simply being atheist. Atheism is fine the way it is. If you want to develop a core set of principles, go right ahead. There are several already which include atheism, such as secular humanism.

[Moosader]

Because atheists don't agree on anything except that they don't believe in the existence of god or gods.

Thinking of it this way reminds me of how there are so many variations on the theme of Christianity.  Do we really need to separate ourselves into "First Atheistic Group of There's Definitely No God", "Orthodox Agnostics", and of course, since Scientology seems to be the complete opposite, we'd have the "Jesusologicalyness"
 (Or: Think of the Nintendo Wii Southpark episode)


Then again, I guess it can get tedious having to explain to everyone "no no no, I don't believe in god, but I don't believe this, and I believe that".

Actually, second thought, how many of you even get to describe what you believe?  I sure as heck am never asked to extrapolate on my beliefs and core values once I share that I'm Atheist.