Should we call ourselves Atheists?

[HandsandDreams]

I'm with Will... I will now and forever call myself an atheist.  Using any other word, for me personally, smacks of trying to cover up what I don't believe with a socially acceptable word.  Why do that?  You can call me CocoPuffs... won't stop people from hating me for not believing in their god.

I don't think we're trying to be more socially acceptable, I think we're trying to find a more comprehensive and accurate way of describing what we DO believe in.  No one is demanding you stop calling yourself an atheist, some of us just don't like the term.

Now for your consideration, as iNow pointed out through Sam Harris, there are certain advantages to not using the term.  Chief among these is to enable constructive conversation with theists, without them getting some preconceived notion that we're the devil.  If your goal is to advance the use of reason, this is worth looking into.

[rlrose328]

Certainly, my goal is to advance the use of reason.  And I could use all kinds of other words to describe myself... freethinker, rational thinker, humanist, etc.  But why should I have to find another word just because they have a prejudice?  Why can't they stop using the word "theist"?  To ME, it is a hateful thing, one that conjures visions of a tortuous, hateful, vengeful god who seeks to control me and everyone I know.  If we keep backing down because they are a unchanging wall, they will never see a reason to change the way they think.

For example, I have some very Christian friends who recently went on a rant about the word "gay" no longer meaning "happy" because it is associated with homosexuality.  They want to take back the word gay from the "homos."  Should gay people stop using that word for themselves just because the Christians are prejudice?  No.  I feel the same way about atheist.

I may not have fleshed out that example completely, but I hope you get the point.

[LoneMateria]

you made a lot of good points rlrose328.  Atheism isn't meant to tell others what we believe, its meant to tell them what we don't believe in... their fairy tale.  If they don't like it then its their problem.

I saw the word skeptic used and Dromedary Hump put it a great way in his fun book The Atheist Camel Chronicles

Skep-tic

â€"noun
1.   a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.   a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3.   a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

Best we get this cleared up from the start: I am not a skeptic on matters pertaining to the supernatural, God, gods, Satan, angels, et al.

I don't question the validity of the supernatural; I reject it entirely at face.  I don't doubt the truth of any religion; I utterly dismiss it as mindless, antiquated thought process and a means of mind enslavement.

I am no more a skeptic on these topics then I am skeptical about alien autopsies or abductions, the living dead, mind readers, fortune tellers, or ghosts.  I utterly reject and dismiss them as fantasies borne either from the imagination, or mental infirmities of people.

...

[iNow]

And anthropogenic global warming is still a very open topic, as studies have shown surface station data to be unrealiable, the nuances of the global climate system are still largely unknown to us,

No.  That's just the parts you choose to listen to in the media.  Closing your eyes to facts does not make them disappear.

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2a.html
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html

the planet has been on a cooling trend for the last 10 years,

No, it hasn't.  As you can see, according to 8 independent sources, the trend is still upward.  While 1998 was an unusually warm year, and we've experienced fluctuations as a result of La Nina, the trend is undeniably still trending positive.




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... omparison/

John Tierney and Roger Pielke Jr. have recently discussed attempts to validate (or falsify) IPCC projections of global temperature change over the period 2000-2007. Others have attempted to show that last year’s numbers imply that ‘Global Warming has stopped’ or that it is ‘taking a break’ (Uli Kulke, Die Welt)). However, as most of our readers will realise, these comparisons are flawed since they basically compare long term climate change to short term weather variability.

This becomes immediately clear when looking at the [graph above]:


The red line is the annual global-mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well), while the blue lines are 8-year trend lines â€" one for each 8-year period of data in the graph. What it shows is exactly what anyone should expect: the trends over such short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative â€" depending on which year you start with. The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either >0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations.

So, it should be clear that short term comparisons are misguided, but the reasons why, and what should be done instead, are worth exploring. <further elaboration and support at the link>

Looking at only 8 years of data is looking primarily at the “noise” of interannual variability rather than at the forced long-term trend. This makes as much sense as analysing the temperature observations from 10-17 April to check whether it really gets warmer during spring.

solar activity is varying,

Solar activity cannot account for the changes we've seen in climate trends.

Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

Sun not to blame for global warming.

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays.

water vapor...

Water vapor doesn't stay in the system for more than about 10-14 days.  Then, it leaves the atmosphere in this nifty little phenomenon I like to call "rain."  CO2, on the other hand, builds cumulatively and remains in the system for centuries.

The evidence of Global Warming/Climate Change is negligable, I want my mountains of irrefutable evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics


Sorry for the (long) off-topic post, folks.  I hate lies and try to correct ignorance when I encounter it.

[HandsandDreams]

No prob iNow.  I applaud your thoroughness.  

[Arctonyx]

you made a lot of good points rlrose328.  Atheism isn't meant to tell others what we believe, its meant to tell them what we don't believe in... their fairy tale.  If they don't like it then its their problem.

I saw the word skeptic used and Dromedary Hump put it a great way in his fun book The Atheist Camel Chronicles

That quote made a lot of good points, and I think it's already been mentioned that skeptic is probably a little too weak. I share similar views in that I reject the idea of the supernatural utterly, but I think skeptic works on some levels at least. As I decided to reject the supernatural particularly because when I was skeptical and questioned things, those things never held up.

[LoneMateria]

That quote made a lot of good points, and I think it's already been mentioned that skeptic is probably a little too weak. I share similar views in that I reject the idea of the supernatural utterly, but I think skeptic works on some levels at least. As I decided to reject the supernatural particularly because when I was skeptical and questioned things, those things never held up.

Well I think (me personally) if atheist is too general and you don't want to describe yourself as an atheist because of that, adopting skeptic is just as general it just doesn't have as much dogma attached.  However like the quote i'm not a skeptic when it comes to the claim that a god exists.  I reject it therefore i'm past the point of doubt.  Because of that skeptic doesn't work for me.  Free thinker to me is an attempt to make atheism more palatable to theists.  We don't need to sacrifice clarity of who we are and what we believe to appease the theistic majority.  Atheists are all different people, the only thing we have in common is our lack in a belief of any god(s).  I don't see why we need to sugar coat ourselves to make the majority happy.  We should wear atheist proudly it is what we believe is right and we shouldn't be ashamed of the truth.

[Arctonyx]

Well I think (me personally) if atheist is too general and you don't want to describe yourself as an atheist because of that, adopting skeptic is just as general it just doesn't have as much dogma attached.  However like the quote i'm not a skeptic when it comes to the claim that a god exists.  I reject it therefore i'm past the point of doubt.  Because of that skeptic doesn't work for me.  Free thinker to me is an attempt to make atheism more palatable to theists.  We don't need to sacrifice clarity of who we are and what we believe to appease the theistic majority.  Atheists are all different people, the only thing we have in common is our lack in a belief of any god(s).  I don't see why we need to sugar coat ourselves to make the majority happy.  We should wear atheist proudly it is what we believe is right and we shouldn't be ashamed of the truth.

I don't like the term atheist because of what it doesn't represent, and that it can apply so broadly. Every religious person is an atheist in relation to 99.99% of all the deities dreamed up, yet atheism and theism, seems to make it look like there are just 2 contradictory views, and you choose one or the other. Plus the term atheist has seemed to only have become synonymous with the Christian/Islamic/Judaic God, and I'd prefer a term that says 'I think that any/every supernatural entity is a load of bull'. Unfortunately a term doesn't seem to exist, as Atheist has too narrow a definition, and everything else implies a more agnostic view, and I'm on the side of people who are 99% sure there is no supernatural deity.

[rlrose328]

We don't need to sacrifice clarity of who we are and what we believe to appease the theistic majority.  Atheists are all different people, the only thing we have in common is our lack in a belief of any god(s).  I don't see why we need to sugar coat ourselves to make the majority happy.  We should wear atheist proudly it is what we believe is right and we shouldn't be ashamed of the truth.

My feelings exactly. Thank you for putting so succinctly.  

[LoneMateria]

I don't like the term atheist because of what it doesn't represent, and that it can apply so broadly. Every religious person is an atheist in relation to 99.99% of all the deities dreamed up, yet atheism and theism, seems to make it look like there are just 2 contradictory views, and you choose one or the other. Plus the term atheist has seemed to only have become synonymous with the Christian/Islamic/Judaic God, and I'd prefer a term that says 'I think that any/every supernatural entity is a load of bull'. Unfortunately a term doesn't seem to exist, as Atheist has too narrow a definition, and everything else implies a more agnostic view, and I'm on the side of people who are 99% sure there is no supernatural deity.

What doesn't atheism represent that another title will?  There are only 2 views, theism is the belief in a god or gods.  Either you believe that there is a god or gods or you don't, there is no middle ground (agnosticism is weak atheism if you don't have confidence in a claim then you don't believe it).  If you want a non-supernatural terms I guess someone needs to make one up, you can be an asupernaturalist ^_^ though atheism seems to work for me.  I dont need to go around saying i'm an afaireyist, or an aleprechaunist its not necessary, I don't see why we need a term to include stuff like that.

[Arctonyx]

What doesn't atheism represent that another title will?  There are only 2 views, theism is the belief in a god or gods.  Either you believe that there is a god or gods or you don't, there is no middle ground (agnosticism is weak atheism if you don't have confidence in a claim then you don't believe it).  If you want a non-supernatural terms I guess someone needs to make one up, you can be an asupernaturalist ^_^ though atheism seems to work for me.  I dont need to go around saying i'm an afaireyist, or an aleprechaunist its not necessary, I don't see why we need a term to include stuff like that.

For me it's a matter of putting it all on the same level. Faith in a deity is just as valid as faith in leprechauns, yet I only have to express my disbelief in a deity. I don't think religion should be given a pedestal above a belief in unicorns/leprechauns/fairies/ghosts until they get some actual evidence. And by saying I'm an Atheist, I always feel somehow like I'm saying "I don't believe in your God, which because it is extra-special means I have to explain my position". I don't have to explain my position on why I do not have faith in leprechauns, because it's a ridiculous idea, so why should I have to do so by saying I'm an Atheist?

[LoneMateria]

For me it's a matter of putting it all on the same level. Faith in a deity is just as valid as faith in leprechauns, yet I only have to express my disbelief in a deity. I don't think religion should be given a pedestal above a belief in unicorns/leprechauns/fairies/ghosts until they get some actual evidence. And by saying I'm an Atheist, I always feel somehow like I'm saying "I don't believe in your God, which because it is extra-special means I have to explain my position". I don't have to explain my position on why I do not have faith in leprechauns, because it's a ridiculous idea, so why should I have to do so by saying I'm an Atheist?

I agree with some of what you are saying.  Religion doesn't need to be put above unicorns/leprechauns/fairies/ghosts.  However (with the exception of ghosts) most people don't believe in unicorns etc.  The problem is the number of people who believe in this stuff.  If there were 2 billion people in the world who believed in unicorns then we'd have to pay special attention to it we might have to call ourselves a-unicornists or a-magicalentitiesist or something along those lines.  But thankfully most people have drawn the rational conclusion that unicorns are made up.  There isn't a group of people trying to impose a set of laws on our society based on the will of a king unicorn or saying that we deserve to be tortured forever because we don't accept the king unicorn as our master.  Therefore I don't feel there is a need to call myself something that refutes unicorns.  Unless you just want to piss off theists with a title that openly lumps their beliefs with that of the underpants gnomes.

When I call myself an atheist to a theist I am saying that your god to me is like Thor to you.  Its all made up.  Which means (or at the very least implies) that their claims of the supernatural are ridiculous myth and superstition.  And that I don't believe bronze age primitives who had no understanding of the universe, mathematics, planetary movement, or the shape of planets, could be right when it comes to their origins.  

If a theist wants you to explain why you don't believe in their god its a one sentence response.  I'm going to steal this quote but I don't remember who said it, "I don't believe in god because I don't believe in mother goose."  Unfortunately I don't have any alternative ideas if you don't like my arguments.  Like I said previously I don't think there is a word in which you express your disbelief with the supernatural, maybe asupernaturalist, but i'm happy with just calling myself an atheist.  For those can't see past their own superstition the term atheist keeps them away and i'm just as happy ^_^

[Arctonyx]

ON the contrary, your arguments are very good. And are winning me over to the term Atheist, not entirely but you've made me revise my concept of it. That quote will be rather handy too, though I may substitute Mother Goose for Leprechauns (because leprechauns are awesome )

[Kylyssa]

I prefer to go by the term 'atheist' because it is recognizable.  It is the accepted word for my absence of belief.  Atheists trying to go by words like 'brights' or 'freethinkers' or 'skeptics' remind me of Christians who say, "I'm not religious, I just have a personal relationship with God."  Christians are religious and people who don't think any gods are real are atheists.  

I say, use the common language whenever possible.  Combining new terms or images with the old is good but I think there needs to be a word bridge to the new.  Otherwise, people will be walking around wondering if the rainbow bumper sticker on your car indicates your support of homosexual rights or advertises de colores church.

[LoneMateria]

Leprechauns rule .  Kylyssa I never liked what Dawkins and ... Dennet (I think) were trying have atheists call themselves brights.  First off it was trying to make theists comfortable with atheists.  And secondly calling yourself a bright has this selfrighteous, smug feel to it when you are implying that those who believe in a deity are not "bright" or are not smart.  That to me seems counter productive trying to "fix" our image to theists.  

The term atheist is much easier.  It gets rid of the confusion without us stroking ourselves and demeaning people who just happen to not believe as we do.  Though the term atheist can be considered divisive, the term "bright" could be even more so. Freethinker makes the same negative connection as bright does.  Freethinker implies that theists don't think which is wrong of course.  I've already made my point about skeptic earlier.  The only word that I might be able to bend to would be word "secular", because it doesn't have negative implications attached to it.  Secular to me though is just trying to sugar coat atheism which i'm against.

Arctonyx what are your reserves about using the term atheism?