Why call ourselves Atheist?

[Asherah]

This is a good read http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/no-atheists.htm

First few paragraphs:

It is time for us to recognize as a society that there is no such thing as an atheist. Let me help you understand why this is the case.

Do you believe in Leprechauns? Probably not, because Leprechauns are imaginary. Yes, there are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist.

We know that Leprechauns are imaginary. Why? Because there is no evidence for their existence. Despite all the publicity Leprechauns get, normal people dismiss storybook creatures like Leprechauns as myths, and rightly so.

If you do not believe in Leprechauns, what are you? Are you an aleprechaunist? Of course not. You are normal. People who do not believe in Leprechauns are completely normal.


Later in the article, the writer proposes that we call ourselves Rational People instead of Atheists.
Should we now call this the Happy Rational Person's Forum? 

[Stevil]

The problem is that theists also consider themselves to be rational people.

Maybe we are empirical evidentialists, where we have an epistemology (method of knowledge) based on observations.
Whereas theists have an epistemology based on specific scripture or specific theological assertions.

[Amicale]

I totally get the point of the article, but the thing is, a lot of society's still heavily faith-centric. And unlike leprechauns or Santa, people really BELIEVE in their faith. I doubt that in the USA, someone could even be elected president if he or she admitted to not believing in God. In the UK, the story's maybe different. In Canada, most of our political folks give some kind of nod to a higher power, too. A ton of people identify themselves as at least culturally religious (ie, their family was even if they're not). And then there are a TON of people who don't belong to a specific religion, but still assert that they believe in God or a higher power or that they're "spiritual".

Until the overall mentality's roughly the opposite of the above, we'll probably keep calling ourselves atheists just to differentiate ourselves from the folks above.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I agree with Amicale.

There comes a point when every "minority" position has to re-visit whether voluntarily labeling itself as "different" does more harm or good. It'd be nice if rational thought was the assumed default, but I don't think we're there yet.

[John_5.0]

I think he makes some great points but I would have to disagree to an extent. Yes no one believes in leprechauns but if a majority of people did and claimed to have rules from the leprechauns and tried to impose those rules on you I would have no problem being aleprechaunist and would promote it lol. I think the label atheist has a bad reputation but in my experience when revealing that you are an atheist, it strikes at the curiosity of the person asking, usually leading to a very nice discussion. Most of the time lol. I think the label is necessary in this time and age, maybe things will change in the future who knows.

[Jimmy]

I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL

[ThinkAnarchy]

The difference is that most people do not believe in leprechauns. I understand where the author is coming from, but in our current world, a majority of people seem to believe in a god. Therefor, I think the term is justified, just as I would consider myself an "aleprechanist" if a big enough portion of society believed in them.

We as atheists are not normal, at least as far as the majority opinion is concerned. This is why I personally like the label atheist.

I would also say many religious people are rational, simply not when it comes to religion.

I'm not sure if that makes sense. I have had many glasses of wine tonight.

[John_5.0]

I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL

Well if you are an atheist then you lack belief, so you are lacking something.

[Amicale]

I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL

Well if you are an atheist then you lack belief, so you are lacking something.

Respectfully, I don't think so. If you lack something, it suggests you need something but don't have it. We don't believe we need religion.

'Atheist' simply means "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Lacking something doesn't need to enter into it, really.

[xSilverPhinx]

I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL

Well if you are an atheist then you lack belief, so you are lacking something.

'Atheism' is just an umbrella descriptive label, it doesn't say anything about what people do believe and can actually be harmful as in it feeds the tendency that some theists have for black-and-white thinking. It's the main issue IMO with the label, other than that, I have no problems with it.

I'm not even sure that atheism is the default position. Being a theist is the more effortless approach if it is indeed the natural byproduct of a brain's wiring (religious beliefs in general, not one or another in particular). The path of least resistance.

[John_5.0]

I'm not even sure that atheism is the default position. Being a theist is the more effortless approach if it is indeed the natural byproduct of a brain's wiring (religious beliefs in general, not one or another in particular). The path of least resistance.

That is a very interesting point. I remember reading the God Delusion by Dawkins and him talking about that. It made me unsure as well if atheism is really the default position.

[Jimmy]

I was a theist until I became an untheist. I was religious until I became irreligious. I do feel "atheist" makes me feel as if I'm lacking something I'm not, by its very definition. What could we call religious people to make them feel they're lacking something that we have? And don't say a brain...LOL

Well if you are an atheist then you lack belief, so you are lacking something.

Respectfully, I don't think so. If you lack something, it suggests you need something but don't have it. We don't believe we need religion.

'Atheist' simply means "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Lacking something doesn't need to enter into it, really.

Thanks Silver, That is what I mean. Atheism is used pejoratively to mean "without faith," as if having faith is the default position to have, as it surely is in the minds of the religious.

[John_5.0]

Respectfully, I don't think so. If you lack something, it suggests you need something but don't have it. We don't believe we need religion.

'Atheist' simply means "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Lacking something doesn't need to enter into it, really.

If I could clear something up, If you do not believe in something (disbelief) Then wouldn't you lack belief in that something? I am pretty sure what I said fit the definition of atheism that you provided. Now I don't deny the possibility of God existing, I just think it is extremely unlikely. But I do think that it fits.

[Amicale]

Respectfully, I don't think so. If you lack something, it suggests you need something but don't have it. We don't believe we need religion.

'Atheist' simply means "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Lacking something doesn't need to enter into it, really.

If I could clear something up, If you do not believe in something (disbelief) Then wouldn't you lack belief in that something? I am pretty sure what I said fit the definition of atheism that you provided. Now I don't deny the possibility of God existing, I just think it is extremely unlikely. But I do think that it fits.

I think my issue is with the way the word "lack" implies that you don't have something you need. I find that problematic. There are many things I don't believe in -- ghosts, UFO's, the tooth fairy, etc, but I don't "lack" a belief in them. That is, I don't think I need to believe in those things. I'm not missing anything, in my opinion, by refusing to believe in them. It's kind of like saying "I don't believe in Zeus or Athena". I don't lack a belief in Zeus or Athena, as I don't need a belief in them.

When I use the word lack, I only ever use it in terms of something I'd like to have, but don't. For example, I can say I lack knowledge in botany. I'd like to have it, but I don't. I can also say that when I'm hungry but need to go grocery shopping before I can eat, I lack food. Or if I ignored someone who needed my help, I could say I lacked compassion -- all things I'd like to have, but in those cases, wouldn't.

Does that make sense? Maybe we just emphasize the word differently.

[John_5.0]

I think my issue is with the way the word "lack" implies that you don't have something you need. I find that problematic. There are many things I don't believe in -- ghosts, UFO's, the tooth fairy, etc, but I don't "lack" a belief in them. That is, I don't think I need to believe in those things. I'm not missing anything, in my opinion, by refusing to believe in them. It's kind of like saying "I don't believe in Zeus or Athena". I don't lack a belief in Zeus or Athena, as I don't need a belief in them.

When I use the word lack, I only ever use it in terms of something I'd like to have, but don't. For example, I can say I lack knowledge in botany. I'd like to have it, but I don't. I can also say that when I'm hungry but need to go grocery shopping before I can eat, I lack food. Or if I ignored someone who needed my help, I could say I lacked compassion -- all things I'd like to have, but in those cases, wouldn't.

Does that make sense? Maybe we just emphasize the word differently.

Ah yes that makes sense, we do emphasize words differently. Thank you for clearing that up!