Dave raises an interesting point of discussion.
Quote from: Dave on July 14, 2018, 03:17:07 PM
As has been said before, a new term is seriously heeded. There have been "Brights", a term for which I have no time, nor for the arrogance I found on one "Bright" forum.
I call myself an atheist and a humanist, both of which are accurate for my purposes. But I would wish for something to include a disbelief in all aspects of the supernatural or other "non-rational" approaches to the macrocosm or microcosm.
OK, this is outside the scope of the original post but, I feel, it worth exploring the whole
Should the term be 'Rationalist'?
Quote from: Tank on July 14, 2018, 07:06:02 PM
Dave raises an interesting point of discussion.
Quote from: Dave on July 14, 2018, 03:17:07 PM
As has been said before, a new term is seriously heeded. There have been "Brights", a term for which I have no time, nor for the arrogance I found on one "Bright" forum.
I call myself an atheist and a humanist, both of which are accurate for my purposes. But I would wish for something to include a disbelief in all aspects of the supernatural or other "non-rational" approaches to the macrocosm or microcosm.
OK, this is outside the scope of the original post but, I feel, it worth exploring the whole
Should the term be 'Rationalist'?
Rationalist sounds good, as does Humanist.
I actually prefer both of those to "Atheist" because they are positive terms stating what you are, rather than a negative term stating what you are not. Perception is important.
I am not sure I follow completely, but just add, I don't think there is anything "supernatural", nothing outside the power of nature. That being said, there are things outside of the scope of human understanding.
Quote from: No one on July 14, 2018, 07:33:30 PM
I am not sure I follow completely, but just add, I don't think there is anything "supernatural", nothing outside the power of nature. That being said, there are things outside of the scope of human understanding.
Yeah, like how anyone can eat live oysters!
Quote from: Tank on July 14, 2018, 07:06:02 PM
Dave raises an interesting point of discussion.
Quote from: Dave on July 14, 2018, 03:17:07 PM
As has been said before, a new term is seriously heeded. There have been "Brights", a term for which I have no time, nor for the arrogance I found on one "Bright" forum.
I call myself an atheist and a humanist, both of which are accurate for my purposes. But I would wish for something to include a disbelief in all aspects of the supernatural or other "non-rational" approaches to the macrocosm or microcosm.
OK, this is outside the scope of the original post but, I feel, it worth exploring the whole
Should the term be 'Rationalist'?
I don't know -- atheists have their share of irrational people even if the supernatural is left out. Maybe "materialist" is the best we could do, tho that's still wide open to misinterpretation (being confused with Madonna fans, for instance).
I vote for Rationalist.
Rationalist sounds good to me.
Quote from: Dave on July 14, 2018, 08:07:39 PM
Quote from: No one on July 14, 2018, 07:33:30 PM
I am not sure I follow completely, but just add, I don't think there is anything "supernatural", nothing outside the power of nature. That being said, there are things outside of the scope of human understanding.
Yeah, like how anyone can eat live oysters!
I put my vote in for rationalist.
Regarding the oyster question, it's simple, just open your gob and suck em down. Nothing more delectable than Sydney rock oysters, fresh shucked off the rocks. Spent many a pleasant afternoon as a kid on the rocks near Huskisson on Jervis Bay eating as many oysters as I could find, open the shell, out with the oysters, wash it in the sea for seasoning and to remove any grit, then down the hatch. Delicious!
Quote from: Bluenose on July 15, 2018, 01:58:04 PM
Quote from: Dave on July 14, 2018, 08:07:39 PM
Quote from: No one on July 14, 2018, 07:33:30 PM
I am not sure I follow completely, but just add, I don't think there is anything "supernatural", nothing outside the power of nature. That being said, there are things outside of the scope of human understanding.
Yeah, like how anyone can eat live oysters!
I put my vote in for rationalist.
Regarding the oyster question, it's simple, just open your gob and suck em down. Nothing more delectable than Sydney rock oysters, fresh shucked off the rocks. Spent many a pleasant afternoon as a kid on the rocks near Huskisson on Jervis Bay eating as many oysters as I could find, open the shell, out with the oysters, wash it in the sea for seasoning and to remove any grit, then down the hatch. Delicious!
OK, I'll go for rationalist, can't think of a better label!
Pass on the oysters, I will eat most things but I do prefer them dead. Tinned, smoked oysters are something like I expect dried elephant bogeys to be, chewy and salty.
I actually prefer both of those to "Atheist" because they are positive terms stating what you are, rather than a negative term stating what you are not. Perception is important.
[/quote]
I think that's a really good point
Quote from: Essie Mae on July 15, 2018, 04:32:48 PM
I actually prefer both of those to "Atheist" because they are positive terms stating what you are, rather than a negative term stating what you are not. Perception is important.
I think that's a really good point
[/quote]
And "atheist" defines us interms of something others believe in and worship.
Perception is important? Why?
People's perception of me is less important to me than the first deuce I ever dropped.
Quote from: No one on July 15, 2018, 04:46:39 PM
Perception is important? Why?
People's perception of me is less important to me than the first deuce I ever dropped.
Mostly I would agree with that No one but it becomes important in such areas as opposing the teaching of creationism as fact in school science classes. Christians often regard atheists as beyond the pale; almost slightly sub-human and airily dismissed. Same with opposition to the group of 40 (ish I think) Church of England clergy who sit in the UK House of Lords. A positive title would be more difficult to oppose IMO.
I understand your point Essie. The truth doesn't give 2 shits about people's perception of it. Whether or not creatards accept it, evolution is a fact. Granted, people might not have all the pieces of the puzzle from step 1 to step now in the chain reaction that is evolution it does nothing to dilute its certainty.
It may take the truth several decades or even Milena to rise above the shit, make no mistake about it, it will surely rise.
:notsure: I don't think 'Rationalist' would apply to all atheists...which would be my major problem with it.
('Bright' doesn't either, there are some pretty dim atheists out there).
Quote from: Sandra Craft on July 15, 2018, 12:38:01 AM
I don't know -- atheists have their share of irrational people even if the supernatural is left out. Maybe "materialist" is the best we could do, tho that's still wide open to misinterpretation (being confused with Madonna fans, for instance).
:this: