Happy Atheist Forum

i don't like this term, "godless", because it almost implies that here is a god to be without. has anyone else thought this too?

The debate on what to call ourselves is never-ending.

Many don't like "atheist" because it's so negative.

Others don't like anything ending in "-less" because it implies there is something that exists and others have it but we don't, like we are lacking something important, less than perfect.  Same with the prefix "non-".

The terms "humanist" and "freethinker" tend to be acceptable to most.  For me, humanist seems to be a movement, not just an adjective or descriptive noun.  I do like freethinker.

Personally, I stick with atheist.  I think the believers of this would should be forced to see it in a positive light, not a negative one.  It's not my problem they see it as negative.

I really like "Rationalist", but to be quite frank it can become confusing for those who are familiar with what that label used to be. Humanism is a set of ethical philosophies that can but do not always find themselves in the ethical system of atheists, so it can be correct but only for secular atheists. Secularists believe that god isn't the answer but do not necessarily not believe in god or gods. I like free thinker, but it also does not automatically translate to one that does not believe in god or gods.

Atheist is the best label we currently have because it's the most widely understood. "Godless" is a derogatory term for atheist which is used by a bigoted theist. I would be surprised in any atheist that wasn't using the term ironically (like a homosexual might use the word "fag").

Atheist suits me just fine. I'm proud of my beliefs and not the beliefs of others.

I'm good with atheist, godless or any other label that describes my lack of belief in god(s).

What I'm not ok with is devil worshipper, doubter, heathen and the like as they imply that I do believe in/worship some sort of a deity, which I most certainly do not.

 

Quote from: "Asmodean"What I'm not ok with is devil worshipper, doubter, heathen and the like as they imply that I do believe in/worship some sort of a deity, which I most certainly do not.

I often feel that way too, but only because a bit of their insult and pity seeps into me unwelcome.

Most religious people I know say "atheist" in hushed tones, like some Harry Potter fanfreak whispering about "He Who Must Not Be Named." It's quite amusing, really. "Oh, so you're.. you're an... atheist? Wondering in amazement at how they could be so silly as to think "atheist" is a bad word is, in turn, rather silly, as they're also the people who believe a woman was fashioned out of a rib.

I prefer "non-believer." I think it has the greatest potential to become a positive term (if not such a negative one, at least). We've got non-smoker, non-drinker, both of which are considered "positive." Boring, but positive.  

I'm an atheist. A non-believer. A heathen, doubter, devil-worshiper in the eyes of the God-fearing. A rational, grounded, down-to-earth thinking guy to my friends. What bothers me is the need for labels. Why must I be anything? Why can't I just be... me?

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Why must I be anything? Why can't I just be... me?

Humans tend to label and cathegorise things in order to create points for easy reference. The sad thing about it is that the uniqueness of the individual tends to dissolve into stereotypes, which in turn are rarely based on the average of the given group, but often do include one or more side of the extreme.

I don't see what it matters what you call yourself.But when it comes to the word atheist most people think militant or the "new atheist" .Freethinker seems to be a more friendly name.Same with humanist,naturalist and rationalist. I do like Godless because for me it means I need no God to be happy. Being a satanist is totally different,I know some of us have been called that.But one who believes in Satan is also a theist in my mind.Maybe a freethinking/godless/atheist/humanist/naturalist/rationalist title for one to call oneself is better but it's to damned long.If you want just an example of how atheist vs. freethought person is treated get on YouTube.Check under both I think you might be surprised.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I'm good with atheist, godless or any other label that describes my lack of belief in god(s).

What I'm not ok with is devil worshipper, doubter, heathen and the like as they imply that I do believe in/worship some sort of a deity, which I most certainly do not.

 :banna:

No preference.

I vote heathen as well.  It just sounds so cool.

Quote from: "Willravel"I would be surprised in any atheist that wasn't using the term ironically (like a homosexual might use the word "fag").

Ya, quite a few atheists do that with Heathen too.

"Godless" does imply something missing - like "sugarless" does.  I don't want people to think I'm missing something or that I need synthetic God substitute to taste good.  One does not proclaim spinach to be "sugarless" though it might be appropriate to call it "sugar free" instead.  It never had sugar, doesn't need sugar, and tastes exactly as it is supposed to.  Nor does one say a person who doesn't have STD's is dieaseless, they are disease free.  Yeah, so I guess God Free would be better for me.

The labels don't matter much to me.  Fundies see them all as "Satanist" anyway so it matters little to me what you call my belief that things that aren't real aren't real.  Realism, maybe?

QuoteWhat bothers me is the need for labels. Why must I be anything? Why can't I just be... me?

My sentiments exactly.  Labels tend to get confusing and even 'atheist' gets into a few sticky wickets with me.  There are religions that don't necessarily believe in a supernatural overlord, like the animistic and shamanistic type, but they do believe in the supernatural.  There is confusion as to what exactly the nature of god is anyway, depending on whose god you are talking about, so it's confusing to say I don't believe in something that can't be defined.  I picked binocular as my worldview, because that is something I don't think can be argued with as I literally have two eyes and that is how I see the world.  Incidentally, I'm also slightly nearsighted, not that that has any symbolic or metaphorical significance.

i know everyone hates labels, but i like em. they help other people get a grip on who you are and what you are all about. if i go up to you and say have "you met bill?" you would say no or which one. but if i go and say "do you know bill the atheist?" you know exactly who i'm talking about. labels are good for a sense of self. i am for labeling yourself, just don't let others label you. i am deadhead, the guitarist, atheist, student.

Quote from: "deadhead"i am for labeling yourself, just don't let others label you. i am deadhead, the guitarist, atheist, student. :D

Quote from: "deadhead"i know everyone hates labels, but i like em. they help other people get a grip on who you are and what you are all about. if i go up to you and say have "you met bill?" you would say no or which one. but if i go and say "do you know bill the atheist?" you know exactly who i'm talking about. labels are good for a sense of self. i am for labeling yourself, just don't let others label you. i am deadhead, the guitarist, atheist, student.

It's true; labels (and stereotypes) are so deeply ingrained in our genetic survival kit that it's hard for us to imagine daily life without it. But, labeling oneself can be very bad for the sense of self, as well, if a person is dishonest about it. I could say that I'm curiosityandthecat, the photographer, librarian, student, and leave it at that. I could also say that I'm curiositythecat, law-breaker, bigot, womanizer, if I attach labels to myself that I may have fit, even at just one moment, and then only slightly. That's the problem with labels: they don't take into account degree. Jean Valjean, Robin Hood, Prometheus, Willie Loman and Bonnie and Clyde can all be labeled thieves.

I'm okay with descriptions rather than labels. Descriptions inform you about what a person is doing or choosing to do at a certain point in time and nothing more; labels tell you what that person is likely to do (either in reality or in the mind of the labeler). You wouldn't label a fisherman as a tailor, as it would drastically call into question the validity of his resume. However, you could describe the fisherman as someone who enjoys tailoring his own clothing without any confusion or questions.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "deadhead"i know everyone hates labels, but i like em. they help other people get a grip on who you are and what you are all about. if i go up to you and say have "you met bill?" you would say no or which one. but if i go and say "do you know bill the atheist?" you know exactly who i'm talking about. labels are good for a sense of self. i am for labeling yourself, just don't let others label you. i am deadhead, the guitarist, atheist, student.

It's true; labels (and stereotypes) are so deeply ingrained in our genetic survival kit that it's hard for us to imagine daily life without it. But, labeling oneself can be very bad for the sense of self, as well, if a person is dishonest about it. I could say that I'm curiosityandthecat, the photographer, librarian, student, and leave it at that. I could also say that I'm curiositythecat, law-breaker, bigot, womanizer, if I attach labels to myself that I may have fit, even at just one moment, and then only slightly. That's the problem with labels: they don't take into account degree. Jean Valjean, Robin Hood, Prometheus, Willie Loman and Bonnie and Clyde can all be labeled thieves.

I'm okay with descriptions rather than labels. Descriptions inform you about what a person is doing or choosing to do at a certain point in time and nothing more; labels tell you what that person is likely to do (either in reality or in the mind of the labeler). You wouldn't label a fisherman as a tailor, as it would drastically call into question the validity of his resume. However, you could describe the fisherman as someone who enjoys tailoring his own clothing without any confusion or questions.

i see your point , and i agree with it. i guess i was speaking more of descriptions than labels

Maybe a term like non-spiritual could be a better way to desrcibe oneself?  I think it sounds alittle more friendly and it covers alot more to.

Quote from: "afreethinker30"Maybe a term like non-spiritual could be a better way to desrcibe oneself?  I think it sounds alittle more friendly and it covers alot more to.

I'm "not religious" works for me.  Atheist is fine online but, in person some people react to the word Atheist like it means you eat kittens for breakfast.

Quote from: "Msblue"I'm "not religious" works for me.  Atheist is fine online but, in person some people react to the word Atheist like it means you eat kittens for breakfast.

Kittens: It's Not Just for Atheists Anymore!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tribe.net%2Ftribe%2Fupload%2Fphoto%2F24d%2F015%2F24d0151d-be14-48f9-a84b-57802b9c43f1&hash=0381c39fb1f7605fa18592c73aa1bd23d975e933)

I've always preferred atheist.  Short, sweet, and to the point.  Except that when you tell some people you're an atheist (insert god-fearing Southern Baptist relatives here), they freak out and practically run for the hills.  So depending on who I'm talking to, I'll just say I'm not a believer, or if they ask what church I go to, I just say, "I don't."  Surprisingly, I've had very few people ask me why I don't.

Non-religious works for me.  

If questioned about a lack of "god belief" I just go into a rant about how organized religion is the eeebbbiiillll that should be burned.  I'm usually met by wide eyed, blank stares and slight nods with some mumbling before the person who asked me what I believe in decides to walk away.

Atheist would be fine, except that it definitely has a dark connotation, especially to theists. If only I had the power to change the connotation of words... oh what a wonderful power! I would be able to call my friend James the N-Word with no fear or regret!  

I like "Hell-bound whore."

Atheist is a fine word for me. If theists have problems with it then it is their problem, not mine.

Ed:  LOVE that description... can I borrow it?   :D

I love how Sam Harris approaches the issue in Letter to a Christian Nation:

QuoteAtheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheist” is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

How very profound!

Quote from: "dodgecity"I love how Sam Harris approaches the issue in Letter to a Christian Nation:

QuoteAtheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheist” is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

How very profound!

Profound, indeed! I like Sam Harris. However, it felt to me as if he was being a bit too blunt and effusive in The End of Faith. I mean, a whole chapter titled "The Problem With Islam"? Come on. I know we non-believers all feel rather frustrated and amazed at the (perceived) stupidity of believers, but casting aspersions get us nowhere. We're talking about a group of people who still believe in a patriarchal Santa Claus; we must tread lightly or be victims of playground retaliation.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "dodgecity"I love how Sam Harris approaches the issue in Letter to a Christian Nation:

QuoteAtheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheist” is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

How very profound!

Profound, indeed! I like Sam Harris. However, it felt to me as if he was being a bit too blunt and effusive in The End of Faith. I mean, a whole chapter titled "The Problem With Islam"? Come on. I know we non-believers all feel rather frustrated and amazed at the (perceived) stupidity of believers, but casting aspersions get us nowhere. We're talking about a group of people who still believe in a patriarchal Santa Claus; we must tread lightly or be victims of playground retaliation.

True we know bluntness really doesn't do anything.All it does is seem to upset people more,making them work for their cause harder.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "deadhead"i am for labeling yourself, just don't let others label you. i am deadhead, the guitarist, atheist, student. :D

LOL!

Hubby goes by "Lord God Emporor of All Time and Space."  Too much of a mouthful for me.  I'll stick with "Mom, solver of all things."  Hm... guess that's a mouthful too.  

Atheist doesn't sound negative to me. I'm okay with it, because the word expresses all I am: not a theist.

hey I'm sure you'll all get a kick out of this. i got called a "demon sent from satan to temp christians", really not kidding. but then again, i am in a town where i am the only non-southern baptist.  

Quote from: "quizlixx"hey I'm sure you'll all get a kick out of this. i got called a "demon sent from satan to temp christians", really not kidding. but then again, i am in a town where i am the only non-southern baptist.   :|

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "quizlixx"hey I'm sure you'll all get a kick out of this. i got called a "demon sent from satan to temp christians", really not kidding. but then again, i am in a town where i am the only non-southern baptist.   :|

out damn christian, thou shall not tempt me to accept jesus

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Profound, indeed! I like Sam Harris. However, it felt to me as if he was being a bit too blunt and effusive in The End of Faith. I mean, a whole chapter titled "The Problem With Islam"? Come on. I know we non-believers all feel rather frustrated and amazed at the (perceived) stupidity of believers, but casting aspersions get us nowhere. We're talking about a group of people who still believe in a patriarchal Santa Claus; we must tread lightly or be victims of playground retaliation.

I haven't had the pleasure of reading The End of Faith quite yet.

I have to admit that I share the opposite view. Sam Harris simply calls religion for what it is. A great mystery to us all is why religion still persists today. I think Sam Harris touches down on that. It persists because we respect it. It persists because we don't laugh in their faces. In no other area of conversation do we "tread lightly" when an argument is made without reason. Sam Harris is simply tired of making an exception for religion. (and rightly so)

Watch Sam Harris talking about the power of laughter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhbccXIp4c&feature=related

And when you say "perceived" while referencing the stupidity of believers, you make it seem like we simply hold another belief. As if we believe they are stupid, instead of the evidence pointing to it. Honestly, I found your use of the word "perceived" very disturbing. You seem to be a person who highly values his perpetual open mindedness. That's fantastic, but don't forget what Richard Dawkins said(but did not coin):

QuoteThere's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out.

All that said, I wanted to thank you for your post. It has been on my mind for several days, causing me to think critically about the concept.

Quote from: "dodgecity"And when you say "perceived" while referencing the stupidity of believers, you make it seem like we simply hold another belief. As if we believe they are stupid, instead of the evidence pointing to it. Honestly, I found your use of the word "perceived" very disturbing. You seem to be a person who highly values his perpetual open mindedness.

I'm far from perpetually open-minded. :)[/quote]

It bothered me for a long time, too. On one hand, I want to be strong in my convictions and "evangelize" no less than the televangelists or local street-corner orator. On the other hand, I want to be better than that, be better than them. Ants and honey, after all...

Still, thank you.

Ah, yes, point taken. You're right, it is conflicting, in a good way. "Rising above" is very important to me as well.

I also use godless and heathen in ironic terms, along with one of my favorites; blasphemer. It's fun to use their supposedly insulting words to describe yourself. It catches them off-guard, and sticks in their craw a bit. My preferred term is atheist, and if there's any confusion, I explain simply and politely so they know for the next time.