# Searching for a better descriptor \[than "atheist"\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2013, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984 "2013-04-06T03:26:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/81 "2013-04-13T18:08:43Z")
> [@anukulardecider](#): > > Yay, this is my first post here! šŸ†’ > > Thatā€™s a good idea. I think Iā€™ll start using that. I usually say Iā€™m agnostic, because Iā€™m comfortable with not knowing, and the need for knowing all has never been a priority with me, although most days I lean towards Atheism. Iā€™m really tired of trying to explain all that. Not to mention the fact that itā€™s nobodyā€™s business anyway. Welcome to the Dope! Non-religious is a good choice in some circumstances because it can cut off questions from busybodies and is also true. People believing in a god but not wanting to have any sort of formal worship fall under this category too, but seem somehow to be more acceptable to the godly than we are. ---
**Author:** ![anukulardecider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/94ad74/32.png) [@anukulardecider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anukulardecider)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/82 "2013-04-13T18:16:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Welcome to the Dope! > > Non-religious is a good choice in some circumstances because it can cut off questions from busybodies and is also true. People believing in a god but not wanting to have any sort of formal worship fall under this category too, but seem somehow to be more acceptable to the godly than we are. Iā€™m Unitarian, and that really throws people for a loop here in the Bible belt. LOL! Yeppers, non-religious it isā€¦ šŸ˜ƒ Thank you for the welcome! ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/83 "2013-04-13T18:30:49Z")
If you donā€™t believe in God, youā€™re an atheist. Thatā€™s what the word means. Itā€™s the best descriptor there is. If you are apathetic, an apathist, then you are an apathetic atheist. If you reject all supernatural explanations, then you might be a physicalist, which is a kind of atheist. There are all sorts of atheists, just like there are all sorts of theists, but regardless of your other beliefs and attitudes, if you donā€™t believe in God, then you are an atheist. I donā€™t understand the reluctance of people to assume the label. I guess it has to do with the word ā€œatheistā€ having so many negative connotations, and an underlying feeling that being an atheist is somehow rude. ā€œIā€™m notā€¦Iā€™m not one of _those people_.ā€ Sorry, but you are. Welcome to the club. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/84 "2013-04-13T19:33:58Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Strange to see _luck_ in that list. Under most definitions, itā€™s not woo, itā€™s just when an event that you cannot control, or even predict, turns out well for you. Itā€™s perfectly compatible with everything being determined by physical laws; itā€™s just a consequence of our limited information and computing power. > > If luck is woo then probability and game theory are too. Meaning you do something and get ā€œ7 years of bad luckā€. I donā€™t mean the word luck when it refers to the concept of chance. I mean luck as in the gambler who believes heā€™s on a lucky streak and canā€™t lose, or a person who thinks bad things are happening to him because heā€™s cursed with ā€œbad luckā€. Itā€™s another bullshit concept. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/85 "2013-04-13T20:13:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the complete acceptance that there is no god. Thatā€™s the same exact thing. > [@Voyager](#): > > Your little conversation illustrates my point quite well. An atheist (who was feeling feisty, anyhow) would respond that he didnā€™t believe in any gods and so didnā€™t care what the theistā€™s supposed god was going to do. He might also invite the theist to give some evidence that his god existed. Wow, two people convinced of their world view, arguing over an untestable belief. Thatā€™s a useful way to spend your time. Hopefully they donā€™t do anything like join the straight dope. > [@Voyager](#): > > That is a lot different from saying ā€œI donā€™t careā€ which could also be used by a theist not wanting to face the consequences of his sins within his worldview. And ā€œI donā€™t careā€ is hardly the example of a sterling intellectual argument. Iā€™ve mostly heard of this position as a joke. Thereā€™s no need to make an argument. Itā€™s irrelevant. Let people believe what they want about supernatural beings as long as they do not cause harm with it. > [@Voyager](#): > > Actually we donā€™t feel the need to discuss it, since religion is not in our lives. My daughter lives in Germany and her German boyfriendā€™s mother was quite concerned that since we lived in the US we were religious fanatics. My daughter assured her otherwise - that is the last time it came up, and the only time in about five years. So itā€™s generally irrelevant to you then. An apatheist would find the topic irrelevant as well. > [@Voyager](#): > > The only reason to reject the term atheist would be because of the things people out there call me. That I do not care about, and so do not reject it. And there are lots of qualifiers I can add to atheist to denote my position more clearly, but there always are. Well thatā€™s basically what the thread was about. The OP presented possibly the most extreme form of what I viewed the question to be about. Personally, I would want him to find a word for his view that theists have an invalid opinion. It would be preferable if the term also usefully distinguished his thought processes from other atheists that took a more live-and-let-live approach. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/86 "2013-04-13T23:58:57Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > No, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the complete acceptance that there is no god. > > Thatā€™s the same exact thing. No, they arenā€™t. Atheists do not necessarily claim to _know_ there is no god. All that is required is the absence of a belief/conviction that there is a god. Many atheists go much further than this of course (especially WRT the many gods that have an inconsistent definition), but the term is not defined that way. * * * Many people upthread have mentioned how they donā€™t like to lecture people about what to believe in and consider it none of their business etc. I feel the same way, butā€¦I wonder if Iā€™m being a bit hypocritical in that. When a friend recently mentioned buying some homeopathic ā€œmedicinesā€, I told her that thereā€™s no evidence they do anything and were a waste of money. I didnā€™t badger her about it; it was literally one sentence. Nowā€¦my friend is also Muslim. Why do I feel compelled to say something in one instance, and not in another? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/87 "2013-04-14T03:35:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > And what does the apatheist say about the scenario where the proven God starts smiting things (like in the most recent Thursday Next book?) I can see an apathetic position about such things as why we are here - but the existence of God is a statement about reality, and not just a metaphysical position. If the only type of God possible is the ā€œGod is the universeā€ variety, sure, but some types posited by theists can kick the apatheists butt. > > ā€œIt changes nothingā€ said the apatheist, as a pissed off god burned him to a crisp. Interesting position. The apatheistā€™s position is basically that that is simply not going to happen. That all the pillar-of-salt type stories are just fantastical mythology. You can spout what-ifs all day long, but the sun will still set upon a big stack of what-ifs. Jesus, or the 12th Imam or Fenris is not coming round to bring about/end the apocalypse, if you believe that, that part of your belief system is about as valid as claiming that Han Solo will arrive in the Millenuim Falcon real soon to set things right. The apatheist perspective is not exactly the same thing as pure indifference, it kind of declares the faithful, praying for the winning touchdown, to be delusional, in much the same way as the atheist view. Religious people claim to have special insight into metaphysics, apatheists say, ā€œBlah, blah. Based on what?ā€ ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/88 "2013-04-14T04:49:52Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > No, they arenā€™t. > Atheists do not necessarily claim to _know_ there is no god. > > All that is required is the absence of a belief/conviction that there is a god. Many atheists go much further than this of course (especially WRT the many gods that have an inconsistent definition), but the term is not defined that way. Atheists deny the existence of deities. This conviction would completely overlap with the absence of belief. > [@Mijin](#): > > Many people upthread have mentioned how they donā€™t like to lecture people about what to believe in and consider it none of their business etc. > > I feel the same way, butā€¦I wonder if Iā€™m being a bit hypocritical in that. > > When a friend recently mentioned buying some homeopathic ā€œmedicinesā€, I told her that thereā€™s no evidence they do anything and were a waste of money. I didnā€™t badger her about it; it was literally one sentence. > > Nowā€¦my friend is also Muslim. Why do I feel compelled to say something in one instance, and not in another? Homeopathy is a useless therapy and could result in a person not getting treatment for a disease. Being a Muslim is a perfectly healthy thing to do and does not have negative consequences for the believer. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/89 "2013-04-14T05:41:52Z")
A friend of mine always describes his religion as ā€œIndependent.ā€ It has a nice ā€œAmericanā€ sound to it. A little like ā€œFreethinker.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/90 "2013-04-14T06:44:44Z")
> [@For You](#): > > The apatheistā€™s position is basically that that is simply not going to happen. That all the pillar-of-salt type stories are just fantastical mythology. You can spout what-ifs all day long, but the sun will still set upon a big stack of what-ifs. Jesus, or the 12th Imam or Fenris is not coming round to bring about/end the apocalypse, if you believe that, that part of your belief system is about as valid as claiming that Han Solo will arrive in the Millenuim Falcon real soon to set things right. > > The apatheist perspective is not exactly the same thing as pure indifference, it kind of declares the faithful, praying for the winning touchdown, to be delusional, in much the same way as the atheist view. Religious people claim to have special insight into metaphysics, apatheists say, ā€œBlah, blah. Based on what?ā€ So an apatheist is an atheist, since I donā€™t care what a nonexistent god does either. By your definition, there can be no such thing as a theistic apatheist, except perhaps for the small subset who believe in a god who never comes near us and doesnā€™t care what we do. Glad thatā€™s settled. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/91 "2013-04-14T06:46:29Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Being a Muslim is a perfectly healthy thing to do and does not have negative consequences for the believer. Except, perhaps, for lack of bacon. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/92 "2013-04-14T07:03:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So an apatheist is an atheist, since I donā€™t care what a nonexistent god does either. By your definition, there can be no such thing as a theistic apatheist, except perhaps for the small subset who believe in a god who never comes near us and doesnā€™t care what we do. > Glad thatā€™s settled. The premise is that the mythological depiction of jehovallah does not mesh with the concept of an omnimax deity. The omni properties of a universal singular deity do not yield an interested, proactive being that lends itself to anthromorphisization: a god suitable to monotheism (or the odd hybrid that the judeo-christian mythology describes) cannot, by definition, be directly involved in human affairs. Hence, if some form of god-thing were to be shown to exist, it would either be irrelevant or it would not be omnimax (some form of super-being, with powers that are indistinguishable from unimaginably advanced technology). An atheist would tell you that your holy book is a shabbily written compilation of fairy tales; an apatheist would tell you the same thing. You probably would not be able to tell one from the other without a lot of probing, assuming you could manage to keep them engaged on such a boring subject for long enough. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/93 "2013-04-14T07:18:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So an apatheist is an atheist, since I donā€™t care what a nonexistent god does either. By your definition, there can be no such thing as a theistic apatheist, except perhaps for the small subset who believe in a god who never comes near us and doesnā€™t care what we do. I think that many or most Buddhists might qualify as well, since as I understand it itā€™s part of their philosophy that if gods exists, they donā€™t matter. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/94 "2013-04-14T08:15:57Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Well, you donā€™t seem to like any of the suggestions so far. > > How about what Mark Twain used (my guess is it was common in his time), ā€œfree thinkerā€. > > If that isnā€™t euphamistic enough, I donā€™t know what is. I kinda like the term myself, except that itā€™s a bit self-congradulatory and insufficiently descriptive. > > PS: my misspelling of ā€œcongratulatoryā€ was a typo, but it seems appropriate so Iā€™m leaving it. šŸ™‚ Free Thinker was exactly what I was going to suggest. I had no idea that it was coined by Mark Twain or commonly used in his time. For me, I got labelled with it in Singapore. I was filling out forms to obtain an ID and there was a box for ā€œReligionā€. I wrote in: ā€œNoneā€. I considered myself an atheist, but that is not a religion, so I didnā€™t write in atheist, just simply; ā€œNoneā€. I guess they have to put something in there so I got labelled as a ā€œFree Thinkerā€. At first I thought, well in that case, maybe just put in atheist. But then I realized, well it still under the label ā€œReligionā€, so it wouldnā€™t apply. Then I started thinking about it and it is actually quite appropriate. It doesnā€™t specifically indicate that you reject the gods, all it does is to indicate that you do not belong to any religious organization. It make sense in Singapore too, since there are so many religions here and the government does all it can to ensure religious harmony between the groups. ā€œFree thinkerā€ would be relatively harmless in that situation whereas ā€œatheistā€, could be considered antagonistic, especially to the Christian and Muslim communities in Singapore. On another note, I have also found ā€œfree thinkerā€ appropriate, because it does indicate that my mind is emancipated, whereas those under the religious yoke still have minds enslaved by fear and superstition. That moment of epiphany that people feel when they realize the truth is a freeing sensation. The emancipation of the mind. So, I vote for free thinker. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/95 "2013-04-14T11:31:41Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Atheists deny the existence of deities. This conviction would completely overlap with the absence of belief. No. There are multiple definitions of ā€œatheistā€ around (and maybe thatā€™s why some people donā€™t like the term), but arguably the most used, and the most respected by lexicographers is it means ā€œwithout theismā€ i.e. absence of belief. Now, that is of course the _superset_ of positions like the conviction that there are no deities. But it would be wrong to claim, as you did, that they are _the exact same thing_. > [@](#): > > Homeopathy is a useless therapy and could result in a person not getting treatment for a disease. > > Being a Muslim is a perfectly healthy thing to do and does not have negative consequences for the believer. In my friendā€™s case all homeopathy was doing was wasting money ā€“ she was taking it in addition to regular medicines. Her religion, if nothing else, absolutely wastes a lot of money. TBH though, I was trying to provoke discussion and feel I know why the two situations are different. Telling her what I think of homeopathy wonā€™t lose her as a friend and is unlikely to radically change her life. Saying what I think of religion OTOH is opening a whole can of pandoraā€™s boxes. So itā€™s a combination of the easy life plus not wishing to offend/upset anyone. ---
**Author:** ![esmeralda2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ccd318/32.png) [@esmeralda2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esmeralda2)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/96 "2013-04-14T19:19:01Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > If you donā€™t believe in God, youā€™re an atheist. Thatā€™s what the word means. Itā€™s the best descriptor there is. > > If you are apathetic, an apathist, then you are an apathetic atheist. > > If you reject all supernatural explanations, then you might be a physicalist, which is a kind of atheist. > > There are all sorts of atheists, just like there are all sorts of theists, but regardless of your other beliefs and attitudes, if you donā€™t believe in God, then you are an atheist. > > I donā€™t understand the reluctance of people to assume the label. I guess it has to do with the word ā€œatheistā€ having so many negative connotations, and an underlying feeling that being an atheist is somehow rude. ā€œIā€™m notā€¦Iā€™m not one of _those people_.ā€ Sorry, but you are. Welcome to the club. I cannot stand people who are totally hung up on labels. You donā€™t understand people who donā€™t want to be labeled? Thatā€™s because you donā€™t know how to think for yourself, to be an independent free thinker. I donā€™t care what people think about atheists, if they think it is negative or not. I donā€™t need to explain my beliefs to anyone or justify them or be compelled to fit into some little box that has been created by the overly anal. In fact, this thread is already totally tiresome. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/97 "2013-04-14T23:10:35Z")
> [@esmeralda2](#): > > I cannot stand people who are totally hung up on labels. You donā€™t understand people who donā€™t want to be labeled? Thatā€™s because you donā€™t know how to think for yourself, to be an independent free thinker. I donā€™t care what people think about atheists, if they think it is negative or not. I donā€™t need to explain my beliefs to anyone or justify them or be compelled to fit into some little box that has been created by the overly anal. In fact, this thread is already totally tiresome. If you donā€™t believe in God, then you are an atheist by definition. You can shout ā€œDonā€™t fit me into your box, Man!ā€ till the cows come home, it wonā€™t change things. And I still donā€™t get the big deal. Just be what you are. You donā€™t see sports fans or vegetarians or record collectors getting so pissy when people identify them as such. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/98 "2013-04-14T23:48:15Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > . . . You donā€™t see sports fans or vegetarians or record collectors getting so pissy when people identify them as such. Sir! I am a discophile! šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/99 "2013-04-15T01:13:26Z")
> [@For You](#): > > The premise is that the mythological depiction of jehovallah does not mesh with the concept of an omnimax deity. The omni properties of a universal singular deity do not yield an interested, proactive being that lends itself to anthromorphisization: a god suitable to monotheism (or the odd hybrid that the judeo-christian mythology describes) cannot, by definition, be directly involved in human affairs. Hence, if some form of god-thing were to be shown to exist, it would either be irrelevant or it would not be omnimax (some form of super-being, with powers that are indistinguishable from unimaginably advanced technology). > > An atheist would tell you that your holy book is a shabbily written compilation of fairy tales; an apatheist would tell you the same thing. You probably would not be able to tell one from the other without a lot of probing, assuming you could manage to keep them engaged on such a boring subject for long enough. _My_ book? Your reading comprehension needs some work. If you look at my around 10,000 posts on this subject, you would be enlightened. Some of them even show that the state of being omnimax is logically contradictory, and so omnimax deities can be disproved logically. If this so-called philosophy is just not caring about things that donā€™t exist, it is rather trivial. I donā€™t care much about teapots orbiting Jupiter either. It is just as trivial if it is about not caring about things which canā€™t possibly affect us. I donā€™t much care what goes on beyond the event horizon of the universe myself. I can only conclude that this label is just one more used by people afraid to acknowledge that they are atheists. Because it makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![steabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@steabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steabo)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/100 "2013-04-15T02:15:25Z")
Although I saw Camus mentioned, how did nobody suggest ā€˜existentialistā€™? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984.md?page=6)