# 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:** 3\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/101 "2013-04-15T15:14:03Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Once theists realize that “secular humanist” means the same thing as atheist in their mind, then it will be said with the assumption of negation in mind. One doesn’t have to be an atheist or agnostic to be a secular humanist. The other option would be apatheist (which is not necessarily atheist, as I’ll get to later.) > [@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 “God is the universe” variety, sure, but some types posited by theists can kick the apatheists butt. > > “It changes nothing” said the apatheist, as a pissed off god burned him to a crisp. Interesting position. Apatheism makes the most sense to me as a term regarding ethics: what’s right vs wrong, and how should I behave, rather than metaphysics, which is about “what is”. But it can apply both ways. In the latter sense, an event like this would lead to an “oops” moment. Ethical apatheism can apply regardless of one’s belief in whether gods exist. In “The Flies” Sartre covers the case of apatheism in the context of an extant God. Orestes chooses an ethic that defies Zeus. It’s a great play and a quick read. Metaphysical apatheism could be rendered null given proof that gods exist. Of course, this could just be proof that superior beings exist, in which case the argument changes from whether they exist to whether they’re gods or not, and the apatheist can still say “I don’t care”. > [@Mijin](#): > > When a friend recently mentioned buying some homeopathic “medicines”, I told her that there’s no evidence they do anything and were a waste of money. I didn’t badger her about it; it was literally one sentence. Now…my friend is also Muslim. Why do I feel compelled to say something in one instance, and not in another? Perhaps because you’re being polite. It’s considered impolite to challenge someone’s religious beliefs, but this injunction doesn’t necessarily apply to issues with less emotional intensity. However, the emotional intensity does seem to apply to homeopathics, so perhaps it’s really pretty much a religion, and you might want to rethink. I find that reactions to arguments of science and logic on homeopathy are pretty much the same as for the same on religion. 😉 > [@For You](#): > > The apatheist’s position is basically that [being zapped by God] is simply not going to happen. No, the apatheist’s position is that it hasn’t happened and he isn’t going to worry about it happening, and (in the case of ethical apatheism) even if it does, it doesn’t affect his judgement of right and wrong. > [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > 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. I first saw the term in “Puddnhead Wilson”. Since then I’ve read all of Twain’s novels (gotta love cheap classics on ereaders!) and he uses it in a few others. I get the sense that it was common usage at the time. I also get the sense that Twain considered himself a free thinker. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/102 "2013-04-15T15:25:23Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > Although I saw Camus mentioned, how did nobody suggest ‘existentialist’? I posted above before seeing this. Extentialism involves a lot, and isn’t antithetical to theism (though it would be a very unusual theist who is also an existentialist). I wouldn’t call myself an extentialist without a lot more study, and I have read a bit about it. I can’t quite get through my copy of “Being and Nothingness”, though. In any case I wouldn’t recommend it as a label for someone who hadn’t studied it pretty thoroughly. Extistentialism is apatheistic, though. Of that I’m pretty sure! It’s also humanistic, and I can even cite the title of an essay by Sartre to back that up: “Existentialism is a Humanism”. ---
**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 15, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984/103 "2013-04-15T17:38:07Z")
> [@steabo](#): > > Although I saw Camus mentioned, how did nobody suggest ‘existentialist’? Kierkegaard was at least a proto-existentialist, and a deeply committed Christian. Existentialism is vaguely defined, but it is not antithetical to Christianity, or any other religion, though most existentialists were also atheists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searching-for-a-better-descriptor-than-atheist/654984.md?page=5)