Happy Atheist Forum

I contemplated posting this under the HAF Logo thread, but I decided it takes the subject on a tangent and deserves its own.  I've been chewing on this for some time, and I'd like to hear some input.

For a long time, atheists have struggled with finding a symbol that represents our views.  I think the real problem is that there is a fundamental flaw in calling ourselves atheists in the first place.  The word "atheist" is itself a negative: "non-theist."  It implies that we need theists in order to give ourselves identity, and it further implies that without theists, we would not exist.  This is quite different from any other belief system, as their names are all positive: Christians worship Christ, Muslims worship Mohammed, Wiccans worship several pagan deities and magic, Republicans believe in their views, Democrats in theirs, etc.  But Atheists, they believe in... um... well, they DON'T believe in God.

This begs the question: what DO we believe in?  Is there any one unifying belief that we can circle the wagons around?  I think if we can answer this question, finding a symbol to represent us will be MUCH easier.

It also begs the question: should we call ourselves atheists at all?  I realize it's probably futile to buck against a word that's become household, but I've never been satisfied with it.  Other people have tried other words.  "Freethinker" is OK, I think it's more accurate.  What I don't like about it is that it's offensive to theists by implication.  "Oh, you believe in God?  You're a slavethinker!"  I also don't think it captures exactly what we believe in.  "Agnostic" won't fit in the same category, since they make their belief clear: man's inability to know for sure (I know that's grossly oversimplified, so please no flaming).  "Humanist" is pretty good; it's a positive, and it comes close to what many of us stand for.  Still, it's pretty vague, which is probably why there are so many offshoots (secular, Marxist, collective, etc.).  I admit to some ignorance of Humanism, and I should probably do more research.

Unfortunately, I don't come prepared with any suggestions for a symbol, or a different word, but I'd like to take a crack at answering the question: what DO we believe in?  I think we can all agree that one thing we hold dear is our unyielding commitment to scientific inquiry; in short: truth.  We seek out the truth in all its forms, and we seek supporting evidence for our beliefs.  I would suggest a question mark as a symbol for this, but a question mark is too often taken to mean "I have no idea."  Perhaps agnostics could adopt it

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Truthist.

We roam the world ppouting truthyness.

I don't think free-thinker is offensive to anyone. A theist could be a free-thinker. They could, for example, believe in a deity nobody else believes in.

Humanism (with a capital H) is pretty well defined by the Humanist manifesto (http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III).

Quote from: "HandsandDreams"This begs the question:

definition: Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
=)

Quote from: "HandsandDreams"I would appreciate your thoughts.

Hello HandsandDreams,

You posted a lot of very good thoughts in your OP.  You're certainly on the right track with your thoughts.  However, one thing that I think you may be missing is the simple fact that atheism is not a system of beliefs.  Much like my lack of belief in the accuracy of astrology is not a "system of beliefs"... Much like my lack of belief in leprechauns is not a value system or code of conduct...  Much like my belief that homeopathy is ridiculous nonsense does not inform my approach to the world in any way, shape or form... Atheism is simply the lack of theism... The lack of belief in some celestial dictator or magic sky pixie... It is NOT a belief system or a worldview which we share with others, just a common dismissal of iron age fairy tales.


The label of atheism is rather empty... It's vacuous... and it provides no useful information.  It is just a label, and one which is used often by theists as a method to circumvent logical argument and the need to support their claims regarding the existence of a deity.  Further, it offers a very easy target to those with no ammunition... They will say, "Oh, you're an atheist.  I know your type.  You simply haven't found Jesus yet," and the conversation is over.  We should be cautious falling into this trap, as it does nothing but harm our debating position.



Much of my sentiment above is informed by reading and listening to Sam Harris, who often takes the stance that "atheist" is a ridiculous and useless word.  He makes a pretty powerful point, suggesting that the use of the term itself presents a sort of "ceiling" to the potential success of the movement. He uses examples like race.

It didn't take a group of people saying, "Hey, we're non-racists" to change the sentiment in the world. What it really took was the broad acceptance of the fact that racism is wrong. Same for Thor and Zeus. They didn't die out because a large group of people banded together to say, "We're A-Thorians" or "We're A-Zeusists..." All it took was people realizing how silly and unnecessary these mythological beliefs were, how unfounded they are in reality, and how the control they had over the minds of the populace needed to be severed.

Same with religion and belief in god today. It's not a group of people with a common label who are going to break us from this proverbial spell. It's the realization that these things are counter to rational thought and common sense.

I really do find it a powerful point. The label "atheist" just pigeon holes a huge group who find the evidence available for belief in god insufficient, so if someone comes up to you and says, "I'm a Christian, what are you?" ... you should try to avoid saying, "I'm an atheist," since even though it's easy and close to the truth, the other person will likely dismiss you as some sort of heretic or heathen and the conversation just stops right there.

What we need is for such conversations to continue, and for the valid criticisms and challenges we have of the religious/god position to be addressed, not dismissed.  Below is a quick set of references supplementing my points above:


http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... heism.html (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html)
 

Quote"My concern with the use of the term "atheism" is both philosophical and strategic. I'm speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn't even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that "atheist" is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people "non-astrologers." All we need are words like "reason" and "evidence" and "common sense" and "bullshit" to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

<...>

    "Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldviewâ€"and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

    Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of "atheist," it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I'm not saying that meetings like this aren't important. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

    While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the "new atheists" or "militant atheists" has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm's length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them." <more at link (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html)>

Those comments were taken from a talk, the video of which is available online in its entirety at the following:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0371&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2089733934372500371&hl=en)



This is also a nice short (~3m) summary:

[youtube:1hq5a3ky]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSbdsvCrq2A[/youtube:1hq5a3ky]




From the earlier link:

QuoteRather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honestyâ€"and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefsâ€"not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

<...>

The concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions.

<...>

Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweekâ€"a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

Do you have a special symbol representing your lack of belief in Thor, or your lack of belief in purple unicorns?  No, you don't need one.  Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy or the easter bunny?  I seriously doubt that.  Let's try to make the lack of belief in Yahweh just as common.  

Stand up for reason, and rationality... Stand up for intellectual honesty and integrity.  The rest will work itself out.   :twocents:

Wow, thank you, iNow, for your thoughts and the links.  I read the whole speech, and I'd have to agree with him on all but a few minor points.  I didn't even know about this guy.  I like him.

It's kinda nice to find out that there's someone else out there who's been thinking the same thing I have, and at the same time it's kind of a disappointment because I wanted it to be my own.  Still, I've come to take the stance that arguing in endless pissing contests with religious people - or any people - is useless, and I'm glad to see the idea is catching on.

After reading that I see the fault in trying to turn atheism into a set of beliefs - you can't do it.  It's also brought up the question in my mind of whether I should seek a label at all.  There's something very basic about wanting to identify with a group, and it is not always healthy.

You've given me some great things to think about this week.  Thanks!

I like antitheist, but I have something else in mind that will be equally abrasive yet far more marketable than that stupid scarlet A

Quote from: "Zenrage"I like antitheist, but I have something else in mind that will be equally abrasive yet far more marketable than that stupid scarlet A

Do tell?

I quite like the label skeptic. I've never really liked 'Atheist' for 2 reasons

1) It seems to only ever be in reference to the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God
2) It implies that you 'know' there is no God

Atheist doesn't say I am an anti-leprechaunist, and I think that most people who reject a God also reject the supernatural in general. And the label skeptic does a much better job of implying all supernatural beliefs. It's also good for implying 'I think that X is extremely unlikely, but by the nature of which you describe it, I cannot say it is impossible, however I shall live my life assuming it's not there'. Maybe not so accurately, but it does a better job of putting the general idea across then I think Atheism does.

Skeptic works well because it implies the application of reason to anything that smells fishy.  Of all the labels we've discussed, I think that one fits best.  I still don't think I'll use it for myself, however.  I think it also implies uncertainty, which does not do my beliefs justice.

I am starting to prefer the term free thinker.  Free thinker, like skeptic, describes how I think we should approach knowing things about the world rather than describing me by what I don't believe.

I define myself by what I don't believe (quandry anyone?)
It exemplifies my shallow egotism.

Skeptic is a bit problematic since it has the poo-stinky of global warming deniers.  They have tried to dress up their dismissal of the mountains of evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming by calling themselves skeptics, when in reality they're a bunch of paste-eaters who are closing their eyes to reality.  Not to turn any of you away from the term, but it's been rather soured by that crowd, so bear that in mind.


Btw -43-... Your comment is rather silly.  Pretty much none of us define ourselves as atheist.  We simply are not theist, and don't believe in god, and certainly don't use that label to define ourselves.  It's as if you've just suggested that I define myself by my lack of belief in leprechauns or my dismissal of numerology, so really, you've missed the point rather profoundly by suggesting such a thing.  When you take a step back and look at it for just one short moment, you should hopefully realize this.

I'm proud to be an atheist. For me, the label has become synonymous with freedom from superstition and breaking through that worldview ceiling into adulthood. I'll always consider myself an atheist.

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 was referring to myself, not anyone else. Your label of yourself is none of my concern.

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, the planet has been on a cooling trend for the last 10 years, solar activity is varying, water vapor and methane contribute far more to the greenhouse effect than CO2 and so on. The evidence of Global Warming/Climate Change is negligable, I want my mountains of irrefutable evidence.

Quote from: "rlrose328"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.

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.

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

Quote from: "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.

...

Quote from: "-43-"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://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2a.html)
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html (http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html)

Quote from: "-43-"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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscentofpine.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fglobal_temperature_1999-2008.jpg&hash=bee8f219324af0dac8a96a86372df2228b2d5f49)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Fimages%2Fweather_vs_climate.jpg&hash=ffa2f296e0cba458be7905ff53b315859d6584fe)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... omparison/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/)

QuoteJohn 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 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/)>

QuoteLooking 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.

Quote from: "-43-"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 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html)

QuoteSun 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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uwsp.edu%2FgeO%2Ffaculty%2Fritter%2Fgeog101%2Ftextbook%2Fenergy%2Fradiative_forcing_agents_present_IPCC.jpg&hash=832852738e874266d545205334c9afdd5f111377)

Quote from: "-43-"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.

Quote from: "-43-"The evidence of Global Warming/Climate Change is negligable, I want my mountains of irrefutable evidence.

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

No prob iNow.  I applaud your thoroughness.  

Quote from: "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

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.

Quote from: "Arctonyx"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.  

Quote from: "Arctonyx"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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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?

Quote from: "Arctonyx"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 ^_^

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 )

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.

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?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"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.

To me, secular does not imply that a person is an atheist.  Theists often separate their lives into religious aspects and secular aspects - it doesn't make them part time atheists.  It  just indicates that there are parts of life in which religion is irrelevant, even for theists.

I might take to the label sexual humanist (http://thatatheistbitch.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-funny-stuff-from-mouths-of-fundies.html), though.  Seriously though, the secular humanist label isn't my favorite either.  It leads to more lame "you worship yourself" horsecrap.

So, an honest question for those of you who like the term "atheist."  Do you also have a term designating your lack of acceptance that horoscopes are useful?  After all, they are incredibly common and accepted among the populace.  What about a term designating your lack of racism?  Racism is rather common, too.  Do you have terms describing yourself due to your lack of acceptance of these things?  If not, why not, and how is this any different than theism?

Can't we just be rational and reasonable, and let that be enough?

Quote from: "iNow"So, an honest question for those of you who like the term "atheist."  Do you also have a term designating your lack of acceptance that horoscopes are useful?  After all, they are incredibly common and accepted among the populace.  What about a term designating your lack of racism?  Racism is rather common, too.  Do you have terms describing yourself due to your lack of acceptance of these things?  If not, why not, and how is this any different than theism?

Can't we just be rational and reasonable, and let that be enough?

People don't try to impose laws based on their horoscopes.  At least if they do they aren't public about it.  Saying i'm an a-horoscopeist won't have people telling me I deserve to be tortured for not trusting my horoscope and that its a good thing.  Horoscopes, for the most part, are harmless.  They operate a lot like general prayer, when you pray to god for him to do his will.  Its silly but its benign.

You know we call people racist when they act racist.  It has become a derogatory term and when some accuses someone of being racist they say their not racist.  They can replace the not with an "a" and call themselves aracists, but they don't they leave the not.  When we are accused of being theists we say we are not theists, "atheists".  We chose to remove the not in front of theists and put an "a" there instead.  Again we live in an age where we don't impose laws based on skin color.  Therefore we don't need the non-racist label unless we are accused of being racist.  In which case we use that label to describe ourselves.

Also if you aren't in Texas racism isn't that common.  Hell I live about an hour away from Jay Florida where the KKK live, the majority of Jay voted for Obama, racism is dying.

Don't you provide unearned power to theism by defining yourself in opposition to it?  Aren't you complicit in sanctioning the power of religion by self-identifying as a sub-culture of the religious majority, implicitly relegating yourself to a lower rung on the social hierarchy than theists?

Why not just be reasonable and rational, and call bullshit claims for what they are?  Atheism is a hollow, vacuous, and meaningless label, and the only power it has comes directly from theism itself.  Would it not be a good idea to strip them of that power and just continue moving through life as a person who demands evidence in support of claims and who dismisses nonsense in whatever form it appears... without the desire to label yourself in opposition to the countless forms of nonsense you will inevitably encounter?

Quote from: "iNow"Don't you provide unearned power to theism by defining yourself in opposition to it?  Aren't you complicit in sanctioning the power of religion by self-identifying as a sub-culture of the religious majority, implicitly relegating yourself to a lower rung on the social hierarchy than theists?

Um... first off theism has power.  It sucks and I don't feel they deserve it but they have it.  Theists have the ability to pass unconstitutional laws which is based on religion.  These are increasing frequently (such as banning of homosexual marriage and teaching creationism (ID or whatever they are calling it) along side evolution).  Laws like these are unconstitutional however they make it into law books because our good old friends the fundies have the power to vote.  Honestly if theism was a pushover we would no longer need to call ourselves atheists it would be as redundant as calling ourselves afairiests or ahoroscopeists (OMFG MY SPELL CHECK DOESN'T SEE AHOROSCOPEISTS AS A MISSPELLED WORD WTF).  Wow thats a blow to my morale right there, ahoroscopists is a word in the :shake: and I thought I was just making up words there to compare to atheism.

Damnit I lost the point I was going to make.  Oh yeah we don't need to oppose what isn't a threat, we wouldn't say we were abigfootists (w00t misspelled according to google chrome) because no one is going to pass a law based on what bigfoot wants.  Using atheist we don't give theists any power we are denying them power over us.  We are not a part of them, they don't have a hold over us, we are opposed to (or lack) their convictions with all the superstition and dogma that accompanies it.

Honestly I don't care about the social hierarchy of theists as long as they don't try to interfere in the well being of our society and myself.  Fuck theist's social order.  I couldn't care less if they refer to me as the devil or as the pope or as a saint or as an angel.  Just like they don't give a damn how low atheists have them on their ladder.  I'm not going to stop calling myself an atheist to make them comfortable with me they can learn to deal with it or they can go screw themselves.

Quote from: "iNow'"Why not just be reasonable and rational, and call bullshit claims for what they are?  Atheism is a hollow, vacuous, and meaningless label, and the only power it has comes directly from theism itself.  Would it not be a good idea to strip them of that power and just continue moving through life as a person who demands evidence in support of claims and who dismisses nonsense in whatever form it appears... without the desire to label yourself in opposition to the countless forms of nonsense you will inevitably encounter?

Honestly not all atheists are rational people who don't believe in the supernatural.  Some atheists are big fans of pseudoscience, believe in alien abductions and conspiracies, and a ton of other unprovable hypotheses and they just happen to not believe in a god.  Trying to change the label we all use to express our non belief in a deity will not be successful because we are all different.  There are atheist democrats, republicans, independents, bigfoot believers, alien abduction believers, monster believers, nerds, jocks, intellectuals, soldiers, and so on.  We are all united under the flag of atheism (meaphorically of course) and that possibly is the only connection one of us have to another.  You can't change labels because there are atheists who are not reasonable, nor rational, and believe in bullshit claims.

Can you demonstrate how atheism is hollow, vacuous, and meaningless please?  I'll partly agree with you on the point that atheism's power comes from theism.  Its power doesn't come from claiming one religion is wrong its power is claiming they are all wrong or lack evidence to support them.  In a way you would need theists to give atheists a ... coherent meaning.  However if and when theism becomes a very small minority then we will no longer need to use the term atheism as a label for ourselves.

If you can strip theists of their power then go right ahead.  I'm not even sure how to begin to go about that.  If you have some ideas lay them on me.  

Also I noticed that you didn't mention anything about the previous arguments you used referring to racism and horoscopes.  I can only assume I made good points to your dismay or convinced you that those are flawed arguments.  To me it seems as if you are trying to account for every possible outcome that can occur when you use atheist and you can't because we are all so different.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Arctonyx what are your reserves about using the term atheism?

Well I only have 1 right now (you've presented a very good case), and that is simply because due to peers of mine who claim to be atheist yet believe in some other supernatural occurances. Maybe it's just that I'd prefer too much for the term Atheist to encompass all supernatural things. I'm very close to going back to the term Atheist, although maybe with a little extra = Atheist, including everything supernatural. Or just for a bit of sarcastic fun I could start calling myself a leprechaunist, or an invisible purple chaffinchist, so many choices

Quote from: "Arctonyx"Well I only have 1 right now (you've presented a very good case), and that is simply because due to peers of mine who claim to be atheist yet believe in some other supernatural occurances. Maybe it's just that I'd prefer too much for the term Atheist to encompass all supernatural things. I'm very close to going back to the term Atheist, although maybe with a little extra = Atheist, including everything supernatural. Or just for a bit of sarcastic fun I could start calling myself a leprechaunist, or an invisible purple chaffinchist, so many choices lol.

Ok you've won me over, if just to annoy some overtly zealous theists  :)

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Honestly I don't care about the social hierarchy of theists as long as they don't try to interfere in the well being of our society and myself.  Fuck theist's social order.  I couldn't care less if they refer to me as the devil or as the pope or as a saint or as an angel.  Just like they don't give a damn how low atheists have them on their ladder.  I'm not going to stop calling myself an atheist to make them comfortable with me they can learn to deal with it or they can go screw themselves.

See, based on the comments above, I'm somewhat surprised you don't find my points more compelling.  This is NOT about making theists comfortable, it's about refusing to let ourselves exist in their fairy-tale sandbox.  If we refuse to even acknowledge the need to identify ourselves with a specific form of theism or lack of theism, and instead see it as a waste of time and a bunch of nonsense which doesn't deserve our attention, I think we'd be making a pretty significant step forward.

Again, reading your passionate points suggesting that we should just say "fuck them!" I would think you'd agree completely.  Maybe I'm doing a poor job of articulating what I mean.  I'll try harder.  

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Honestly not all atheists are rational people who don't believe in the supernatural.  Some atheists are big fans of pseudoscience, believe in alien abductions and conspiracies, and a ton of other unprovable hypotheses and they just happen to not believe in a god.  Trying to change the label we all use to express our non belief in a deity will not be successful because we are all different.  There are atheist democrats, republicans, independents, bigfoot believers, alien abduction believers, monster believers, nerds, jocks, intellectuals, soldiers, and so on.

Again, this seems to support my core contention.  We are all different.  Calling someone an atheist is very uni-dimensional, and brings with it no descriptive power.  All you know is that they are not theist.  After that, it's pretty meaningless.

Now, there may be some positive aspects of calling ourselves atheists.  It's nice to have a common flag to wave, and to share a sense of community.  I get that.  However, my larger point is that we do ourselves a disservice by allowing ourselves to be pigeon-holed in this way.  It provides our debate opponents the ability to avoid our arguments, and to lump us together as one monolithic entity.  Yet, you've conceded yourself, we are not... but that's PRECISELY how it plays out.

There is no common worldview or set of beliefs among atheists, yet implicit in the shared label is that we all march to the same drum.  I'm not saying that all atheists are rational, reasonable, or demand evidence in support of assertions.  What I'm saying is that, instead of arguing for being atheist, we argue for the spread of actual value systems and worldviews rooted in the demand for evidence, rationality, and reasonability.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"If you can strip theists of their power then go right ahead.  I'm not even sure how to begin to go about that.  If you have some ideas lay them on me.  

Again... Spread the mandate for evidence in support of claims and assertions, rationality, and reason.  IMO, that is the single strongest approach we can all take to strip theists of their power.  If we support these values of mandating evidence in support of claims, rationality, and reason... then after that, it doesn't matter what the opponent is.  By supporting these values, our approach will kill all forms of woo and gibberish, of both the theistic and non-theistic variety...  That's just my opinion, but I find it quite logical.  Focus less on being an opponent to the Abrahamic god, and focus more on being a proponent of critical thinking.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I noticed that you didn't mention anything about the previous arguments you used referring to racism and horoscopes.  I can only assume I made good points to your dismay or convinced you that those are flawed arguments.

You did make very good points, and as a result I tried to adjust my own... recognizing that my position had holes.  So, thank you for that.  

Quote from: "LoneMateria"To me it seems as if you are trying to account for every possible outcome that can occur when you use atheist and you can't because we are all so different.

That is not my intention, no.  Part of my intention here is to simply suggest that we don't need a label.  It's not really helpful (and, in fact, often serves to weaken our debating position).  In my estimation, what we need to do is to stand up for reason, rationality, and the requirement for evidence in support of claims.  After that, call yourself anything you want... It won't matter.  The label does nothing really, except to suggest that we are all the same.  What I suggest is that by instead choosing to stand up for the aforementioned values of reason, rationality, and evidence in support of claims...  and by choosing not to label ourselves as some monolithic and homogeneous group, we can realize real and lasting change in our culture and bring more people on board.  It's just something to consider.  

Thanks for the really great replies.  I've enjoyed them.

If I could have things my way we'd just be called people and people who believe in god(s) would be called theists, religionists, or superstitionists.  They would require a special word because they would be the exception rather than the norm.  Eventually the word atheist might die a natural death.

I think of the word atheist like I think of the word abolitionist.  It is not something to be ashamed of being labeled as.  When the world is crazy it's a good thing to be labeled non-crazy whether or not society agrees with you at the time.  

Maybe in a hundred years or so people will look back and say, "back when they were a minority and religion held the world in a choke hold, thinking people were called atheists."

Quote from: "iNow"Again, reading your passionate points suggesting that we should just say "fuck them!" I would think you'd agree completely.  Maybe I'm doing a poor job of articulating what I mean.  I'll try harder.  

It may not be you, i'm just not seeing much appeal in renaming ourselves.  I may just be thick lol kk I wasn't sure.  To me it looked like a change of subject or change of examples, and i'm not one (usually) to let it slide if the only thing someone arguing with me will do is change examples until they find one very difficult to answer or answer to their satisfaction.  But like I said I wasn't sure so I didn't want to accuse you of that.  Lol we've seen the "La La La I cant hear you" position from braxton in his debate, not very effective ^_^.

Quote from: "iNow"That is not my intention, no.  Part of my intention here is to simply suggest that we don't need a label.  It's not really helpful (and, in fact, often serves to weaken our debating position).  In my estimation, what we need to do is to stand up for reason, rationality, and the requirement for evidence in support of claims.  After that, call yourself anything you want... It won't matter.  The label does nothing really, except to suggest that we are all the same.  What I suggest is that by instead choosing to stand up for the aforementioned values of reason, rationality, and evidence in support of claims...  and by choosing not to label ourselves as some monolithic and homogeneous group, we can realize real and lasting change in our culture and bring more people on board.  It's just something to consider.  

Thanks for the really great replies.  I've enjoyed them.

How does it weaken our debating position?  I agree that we need to stand up for reason, rationality, and the requirement of evidence, however theists can (and will) claim they are that way too, they just happen to believe there is a god, be it deist or whatever.  The label doesn't suggest we are all the same, we are not Presbyterians, or Evangelicals we all don't share the same view, we don't need to share the same view to be right on this matter.  Standing up for reason, rationality and evidence isn't exclusively for atheists.  Smart people who stand up for these things can be Christians like the guy who was in change of the human genome project.  

This is a really good discussion.  I've enjoyed it too.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Eventually the word atheist might die a natural death.

I hope one day in my future we won't need the word atheist anymore.  Religion will be on the same scale as bigfoot believers and we won't need a name anymore.  I hope

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I hope one day in my future we won't need the word atheist anymore.  Religion will be on the same scale as bigfoot believers and we won't need a name anymore.  I hope

This succinctly captures the point, I just propose that we really don't need to the word today, either.

Quote from: "iNow"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I hope one day in my future we won't need the word atheist anymore.  Religion will be on the same scale as bigfoot believers and we won't need a name anymore.  I hope

This succinctly captures the point, I just propose that we really don't need to the word today, either.

:P