Who's the most Atheist??

[karadan]

So, i'm just a guy who happens not to believe in God, Jesus or an afterlife. It just so happens this is termed 'atheism' (not my choice of terminology).

Am i a fool for feeling a little weird that i have been labelled? It is just a school of thought that i happen to subscribe to, but from some of the comments i've read here leads me to believe some people feel others aren't atheist enough, or at least don't have the exact stringent views which should fall in line with this category. Who made the boundaries and rules of this definition anyway?

I was under the impression that atheism pretty much includes all people who don't believe in a deity. So why are some people content to apply the same strictness of definition to atheism as Christians do to Christianity? I've certainly heard religious people complain about others within their belief system as 'not being Christian enough' or vice-versa. I'd hate to see that sort of idiosyncrasy worm its way into a forum of obviously intelligent, free thinking individuals.

I worry that once neatly defined and pigeon-holed, Atheism will become a religion unto itself.

This wasn't a gripe, just an observation. After all, I'm far more atheist than all of you. Ner ner ner ner ner! I'm the furthest away from God. Yay for me!

[Will]

Atheist describes what one is not. Like gentile. I personally prefer "Rationalist" or "Secular Humanist". They describe what I am instead of what I am not.

[myleviathan]

I agree with Willravel. And I swear, I did not copy his worldview!!

Having said that, I don't mind being pigeonholed to a certain extent. When it comes down to it, I'll tell people I'm an atheist. A lot of people don't understand what secular humanism is, and what it's about. What it boils down to is a worldview not based on the presence of gods or superstition. And the most to-the-point way to communicate that idea is the word 'atheism'. But there are endless ways to define the self, even though they're not so eloquent.

[rlrose328]

Whenever you gather a group of people together, SOMEONE will insinuate that others aren't as they SHOULD be.  It's human nature.  And the only thing we share is that we believe there is no god or we don't believe god exists (however you choose to phrase it, it amounts to the same thing, IMHO).  Getting non-believers to agree on anything past that is like trying to herd cats.  

I'm a rationalist, humanist, free-thinker, scientist, agnostic-atheist, atheistic-agnostic, any combination of these will do fine by me.  The only thing I'm NOT is a theist in any way, shape or form.

I call myself an atheist because I strive to show that the word doesn't mean anything.  I'm constantly told I can't possibly be an atheist because I'm too nice and "good."  I WANT to eliminate that misconception.  In the US today, I Feel the need to define myself thusly because they feel the need to define themselves and Christian and I want them to know they're not the only people here.  It's an in-your-face label for an in-your-face time.

But I don't think that any of these labels is any better or worse than any other.  It no more defines who and what I am than my hair color or the clothing I choose to wear.

[myleviathan]

But I don't think that any of these labels is any better or worse than any other. It no more defines who and what I am than my hair color or the clothing I choose to wear.

Word

[susangail]

I hate labels into the ground and one of the reasons why is this whole "You're not-insert label here-enough" or " You're not a true-insert label here-" thing that you're talking about. It's just annoying. But society makes them necessary, which is the only reason I use one. I've been "coming out" more and more so I generally say "I don't believe in any sort of god, and I don't really care if one exists" but sometimes a label is still insisted upon, so I use "atheist" or if i feel like getting technical "apathetic atheist" (or "apatheist" or whatever else may float your boat). So I don't use labels for myself, but for others that want one. For some reason I've found that labels that describe what you are not are better understood by those who want one.

[crocofish]

Humans have a tribal nature, and like to categorize people into groups, particularly to form "in" groups and "out" groups.  An "in" group becomes even more cohesive when an "out" group, or groups, can be characterized as a threat.  Fundamentalist (Christian, Islamic, etc.) preachers use the tactic of outside threats to pull in more donations and to inspire their followers to "spread the word".  Atheists, gays, and other religions are portrayed as threats to these fundamentalist groups.  It's not enough to just get into heaven on the merits of their own religion, the threats must be converted or eradicated.  It's a powerful motivator that appeals to human nature.

Atheists have been particularly stereotyped as a grave threat, and the term "atheist" has been tainted by fundamentalist propaganda.  One time I had an Islamic fundamentalist tell me that gays and people from other religions were OK as long as they believed in god, but atheists should be put to death according to the Koran. Admittedly, I have been reluctant to use the term "atheist" for myself around some people.  Even though I know what "atheist" really means, the term has negative connotations to some people, and sometimes I just don't want to spend the time and effort trying to explain what "atheist" means or does not mean.  The Brights movement is one attempt to try to move beyond the negative stereotypes of "atheist", but I personally have not found it to inspire me much.

I was fortunate to be raised in a family that did not force any kind of group-think on me.  I tend not to follow any cohesive group of any kind.  I don't even follow any sports team religiously.  I first saw the term "apathiest" on this forum, and it is probably the most applicable to me.  I have my own set of beliefs and non-beliefs, and I am somewhat apathetic about spending effort on defending my beliefs to others.  While it is nice to find people that have a similar set of beliefs, it is fine for someone to have different beliefs as long as those different beliefs don't treat me as a lesser human to be converted, subjugated, or eradicated.  On the few occasions that I have been confronted by a religious fundamentalist, my reaction has been, "Ugh, just leave me alone, I have better things to do."

[LARA]

Interesting.  I've felt very similarly at times, Karadan usually after reading something militantly atheistic, as if I weren't 'atheist' enough.  But here, I've found that the group is almost always accepting of all types, being kind and respectful even to theists who visit the forum.  It's a calming sort of thing, very zen, if you will completely forgive the term.  

[rlrose328]

It IS quite zen here... that's exactly how I feel, even though I don't come every day.  It's like a little oasis where I know I can find information and friendship whenever I need it.  I've posted on many mailing lists and forums and there's usually some idjit who takes it upon themselves to make everyone feel uncomfortable, all in the name of free speech atheism.  I even had one group tell me that they don't apologize on that group because that would mean they feel guilty and guilt is a "Christian concept" that to which they no longer adhere.  I kid you not.  I didn't stay long.

So jerks and assholes come in all shapes, sizes, creeds, colors and belief systems.  IT's the person, not the belief.

But here, I know I can always find intelligence, compassion, and something funny to help me through my busy life and that's what counts for me.

[SteveS]

Yeah, I'm getting all this.  Personally, yup, I'm an atheist and I'm okay with that.  I don't mind somebody referring to me that way.  But, on the other hand, I certainly agree that overly insulting/militaristic atheists are generally jerks and I don't care for their approach.  (shrugs).