Searching for a better descriptor [than "atheist"]

[clairobscur]

@For You

The best I have been able to come up with so far is “Stoic”, which is a nice word that expresses a sort of absolute indifference to metaphysics

I don’t really understand your issue, nor what your position wrt religion is.
But in any case, you shouldn’t call yourself a Stoic when this word has already an accepted and specific meaning which hasn’t much to do with what you’re talking about. It would make as much sense as deciding to call yourself a Marxist or a Zionist.

[BrainGlutton]

@For You

Searching for a better descriptor [than “atheist”]

Ah, the Great Question.

I believe “skeptic” is a very popular term nowadays. (But, I won’t really believe that until I see statistical evidence.)

Some have tried to substitute “Bright,” but, as many atheists/agnostics/apatheists/antitheists agree, that’s just, you know, silly.

It would help you immensely to check out the RationalWiki page on Atheism (and, on practically anything else for which a RationalWiki page exists, for that matter).

Types of atheism

There are many ways to describe different types of atheism and some of these are explained below. These shouldn’t be read as factions or sects within atheism in the same way as sects within religion, Protestant/Catholicism in Christianity, Sunni/Shiite in Islam, and their multiple sub-groups for example. One does not “join” a group of implicit atheists. Instead of being sects that dictate people’s beliefs, these should be taken as models to, at least roughly, describe people’s beliefs and their attitudes towards belief itself. There are many similarities, all of which are included in the blanket term “atheist.” However - as is typical in atheist thought - not all athiests consider these divisions particularly relevant worthwhile or meaningful.

The commonality among these various modes of atheism is the statement that no god or gods created natural phenomena such as the existence of life or the universe. Instead, these are usually explained through science, specifically without resort to supernatural explanations. Morality in atheism is also not based on religious precepts such as divine commandments or revelation through a holy text - many alternative philosophies exist to derive or explain morality, such as humanism.

**Implicit vs. explicit atheism

Implicit atheism**

Implicit atheism is simply the state of not believing in any gods, simply out of a lack of considering the question. All implicit atheists are weak or pragmatic atheists.

Explicit atheism

Explicit atheism is a conscious rejection, either of the belief in gods or of their existence. Explicit atheists can be weak or strong atheists, but all strong atheists are explicit atheists.

**Weak vs. strong atheism

Weak atheism**

Weak atheism (sometimes equated with “pragmatic atheism” or “negative atheism”) describes the state of living as if no gods exist. It does not require an absolute statement of God’s non-existence. The argument is based on the fact that as there is no evidence that gods, spatial teapots or fairies exist, we have no reason to believe in them. This argument could also be classified as extreme agnosticism, or “agnostic atheism” - as it is an acknowledgment of the lack of evidence but acting as if there were no gods.

Pragmatic atheists however are frequently reluctant to make outright statements like “Gods (or fairies) do not exist”, because of the great difficulties involved in proving the absolute non-existence of anything - the idea that nothing can be proved is held in the philosophy of pyrrhonism. Consequently many pragmatic atheists would argue that the burden of proof does not lie with them to provide evidence against the extraordinary concept that gods exist. They would argue that it is up to the supporters of various religions to provide evidence for the existence of their own deities, and that no argument is necessary on the atheist’s part.

Christopher Hitchens put it another way when he said: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Strong atheism

Strong atheism (sometimes equated with “theoretical atheism”) makes an explicit statement against the existence of gods. Strong atheists would disagree with weak atheists about the inability to disprove the existence of gods. Strong atheism specifically combats religious beliefs and other arguments for belief in some god (or gods), such as Pascal’s Wager, and argument from design. These arguments tend to be geared toward demonstrating that the concept of god is logically inconsistent or incoherent in order to actively disprove the existence of a god.[19] Theological noncognitivism, which asserts the meaninglessness of religious language, is an argument commonly invoked by strong atheists.[20] In contrast, weak atheist arguments tend to concentrate on the evidence (or lack thereof) for god, while strong atheist arguments tend to concentrate on making a positive case for the non-existence of god.

Apatheism

An apatheist has no interest in accepting or denying claims that a god or gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist considers the very question of the existence or non-existence of gods or other supernatural beings to be irrelevant and not worth consideration under any circumstances.

In short: they simply don’t care. (Well, OK, they care enough to give themselves a name - so that people explicitly know what it is they don’t care anything about. But that’s it.)

Antitheism

Antitheism adds to a disbelief in gods the position that any adherence to a different position — any belief in gods — is harmful or undesirable, either to the adherent or to society. As justification the antitheist will often point to the incompatibility of religion-based morality with modern humanistic values, or to the atrocities and bloodshed wrought by religion and by religious wars.

[BrainGlutton]

See also the page on Agnosticism.

An atheist’s opinion

An agnostic is someone too intelligent to believe in gods but too cowardly to be an atheist. A secondary opinion is that since an agnostic lacks positive and explicit belief in any gods anyway, they are, well, technically an atheist anyway.[2][3] A more charitable view suggested by Leon Baradat is that “Agnostics are the only people smart enough not to take sides in religious matters.”

A theist’s opinion

An agnostic is someone too intelligent to be a closed minded, outright atheist but too cowardly to believe and commit to belief in gods. A secondary opinion is that since an agnostic is prepared to believe in gods in principle, are open to the idea of religion and don’t reject the concept of a higher power outright, they are, well, technically a theist anyway.

An agnostic’s opinion

A theist is someone who stubbornly insists that their imaginary friend(s) are real.
An atheist is someone who just as stubbornly insists that the theist’s friend(s) would have measurements if they exist.
A secondary opinion is that theists and atheists should turn their stereos down because some of us are trying to sleep.

[MrDibble]

@even_sven

I consider myself ignostic, which is basically saying the whole concept of “god” doesn’t really make any sense, so how the heck could I have an opinion on it? Does god exist? What is god? What do these words even mean? How am I supposed to know?

Also known as theological noncognitivism if you wanna be fancy.

[Mijin]

I’m an atheist, but I don’t agree with some of the things the OP seems to be assuming go along automatically with atheism. ISTM it’s not a new term for atheist (s)he is looking for, but a new term for a new concept.

For example, I’m not indifferent to metaphysics, and I don’t claim to know that the universe is meaningless (admittedly for that latter claim, I’m not sure if the OP is lumping that in with atheism). It seems a common position IME, for many people claiming to be skeptics, to dismiss philosophy only to go on to make philosophical claims.

[Dinsdale]

The Humanists I’ve known distinguished between capital H - accepted the principles of the manifestos including rejection of the supernatural, and smll h - I believe popes have described themselves as “humanistic”.

I like the word Humanist, as it describes something I believe in, rather than one of many supernatural things I reject. At least a few Humanists I knew preferred the word nontheist over atheist, as they felt it emphasized the irrelevance of theism.

[JLRogers]

Materialist

Realist

Ananthropist (OK, that one has a different meaning!)

edit: Come to think of it, if you reject religion out of hand to the extent that you don’t even want to acknoeldge it why choose a label? Just refuse to talk about it at all. Labelling legitimizes, no?

[Mijin]

@JLRogers

Materialist

Realist

Ananthropist (OK, that one has a different meaning!)

This is the kind of thing I mean.
I’m an atheist but I don’t consider myself a materialist*, so that label is not interchangeable either. Nor is realism.

• Why not? Firstly, I don’t see any reason to make such a claim. Secondly the definition of matter changes depending on new empirical data making the claim close to meaningless.

[BrainGlutton]

@Dinsdale

The Humanists I’ve known distinguished between capital H - accepted the principles of the manifestos including rejection of the supernatural, and smll h - I believe popes have described themselves as “humanistic”.

I like the word Humanist, as it describes something I believe in, rather than one of many supernatural things I reject. At least a few Humanists I knew preferred the word nontheist over atheist, as they felt it emphasized the irrelevance of theism.

Personally I prefer “humanitarian,” not so much for its actual semantic content (which is very different from that of “humanist,” after all), as for being a word constructed along the same lines as “vegetarian.”

[Voyager]

@Der_Trihs

Apatheist?

Trouble is that apatheist message boards have a very low number of posts.

Free Thinker used to be popular. The problem is that anything but “atheist” is assigning characteristics to a person which do not go with a lack of belief in god. Humanist certainly sounds positive, but it is possible to be an atheist without liking people very much. Karl Rove is an atheist, but I sure wouldn’t call him a humanist.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Der_Trihs

Apatheist?

By far the best term to describe many atheists and I think it serves as a useful way to distinguish cool atheists from annoying atheists who constantly have to announce their atheism or who want to join atheist churches, atheist clubs, atheist circle jerks, etc.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@BrainGlutton

Personally I prefer “humanitarian,” not so much for its actual semantic content (which is very different from that of “humanist,” after all), as for being a word constructed along the same lines as “vegetarian.”

Does that preclude fava beans and a nice Chianti? Or are there qualifiers for humanitarians who eat legumes and drink alcohol?

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Voyager

Karl Rove is an atheist, but I sure wouldn’t call him a humanist.

“Godless commie” comes to mind.

[Voyager]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

By far the best term to describe many atheists and I think it serves as a useful way to distinguish cool atheists from annoying atheists who constantly have to announce their atheism or who want to join atheist churches, atheist clubs, atheist circle jerks, etc.

Theists would love your description, since it splits atheists into obnoxious ones and ones just too lazy to care. The latter group could be appealed by dragging out eternal damnation. The former group can be ignored. Missing are atheists who are atheists due to the careful evaluation of facts and evidence - in other words the ones theists have the biggest problem with, and the ones who force them to retreat into faith.

And I suspect many or most apatheists are actually theists if you look deeply enough.

[Jackmannii]

“Godless heathen” works for me.

Or “satanic mechanic”.

[Mijin]

@Voyager

Theists would love your description, since it splits atheists into obnoxious ones and ones just too lazy to care. The latter group could be appealed by dragging out eternal damnation. The former group can be ignored. Missing are atheists who are atheists due to the careful evaluation of facts and evidence - in other words the ones theists have the biggest problem with, and the ones who force them to retreat into faith.

And I suspect many or most apatheists are actually theists if you look deeply enough.

Yeah I resent this supposed dichotomy between obnoxious atheist and “too lazy to think about it”.

I don’t bother other people with my opinion. But sure I’ve thought about metaphysics and other philosophy: that’s why I’m an atheist

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Voyager

Theists would love your description, since it splits atheists into obnoxious ones and ones just too lazy to care.

Well, club-atheists are obnoxious. Apatheists should not be described as “lazy”. I think it represents a true understanding of a philosophical position, much like enlightenment can be compared to merely meditating. Or something.

@Voyager

The latter group could be appealed by dragging out eternal damnation.

That’s the opposite of being apathetic.

@Voyager

Missing are atheists who are atheists due to the careful evaluation of facts and evidence - in other words the ones theists have the biggest problem with, and the ones who force them to retreat into faith.

Those atheists have children that are apatheists.

@Voyager

And I suspect many or most apatheists are actually theists if you look deeply enough.

I see nothing in its description that indicates this. This analysis sounds like the baseless sort of beliefs espoused by psychoanalysis; like you think of this concept as a defense mechanism. Instead, accept it for what it is - apatheism.

[eschereal]

@Mijin

I’m an atheist, but I don’t agree with some of the things the OP seems to be assuming go along automatically with atheism. ISTM it’s not a new term for atheist (s)he is looking for, but a new term for a new concept.

For example, I’m not indifferent to metaphysics, and I don’t claim to know that the universe is meaningless (admittedly for that latter claim, I’m not sure if the OP is lumping that in with atheism). It seems a common position IME, for many people claiming to be skeptics, to dismiss philosophy only to go on to make philosophical claims.

No, I am mostly not interested in metaphysics because it often descends into woo. Mathematically, an omnid is extremely difficult to support, and under-gods are kind of lacking in value. Because of that, I seek to fully disassociate from any deity: atheist references belief in a deity, so I find it rather unsatisfying as a way to describe my position.

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

I see nothing in its description that indicates this. This analysis sounds like the baseless sort of beliefs espoused by psychoanalysis; like you think of this concept as a defense mechanism. Instead, accept it for what it is - apatheism.

No, I do think apatheism does tend toward atheism. You might consider it a subset of agnosticism, inasmuch as it allows for the possibility of a deity existing, but I get the sense that apatheists start out from a position of not believing in such a being existing. “Even if a god were to exist, it would be irrelevant, proof of it would change nothing.” That is close enough to atheism as to be nearly indistinguishable. As far as
I can tell, failure to believe in/accept the existence of a deity is enough to qualify one as an atheist, which crosses the agnostic boundary, except apatheists are not really interested in studying the matter.

[njtt]

@For You

I seek a better title for my kind.you see, “atheist” is not an independent word, it concedes the presence of theism, almost thereby offering it validation.

Frankly, that is ludicrous and ignorant. You live in a culture that (just like all other human cultures) has been fundamentally shaped by religion for thousands of years, probably tens of thousands, since human’s first became self aware. The way you, and everyone around you, thinks about the world has been shaped by this, and this will continue to be true even if everyone in the world entirely ceased to believe in any sort of god tomorrow. Science itself is shaped by having developed within a Christian culture, even though it may have eventually come to undermine people’s belief in key aspects of Christianity.

Atheism, by contrast is is an ideology three or four centuries old at most, and was most certainly formed in reaction to the prevailing religion of Europe at the time. Atheism is the rejection of certain crucial aspects prevailing religious (in practice, Christian) beliefs. To try to pretend otherwise is no more than naïvety and arrogance.

[eschereal]

@njtt

Frankly, that is ludicrous and ignorant. You live in a culture that (just like all other human cultures) has been fundamentally shaped by religion for thousands of years, probably tens of thousands, since human’s first became self aware.

<semantical nitpick>
My cat is self-aware, religion is irrelevant to that (and her).
</semantical nitpick>

The way you, and everyone around you, thinks about the world has been shaped by this, and this will continue to be true even if everyone in the world entirely ceased to believe in any sort of god tomorrow. Science itself is shaped by having developed within a Christian culture, even though it may have eventually come to undermine people’s belief in key aspects of Christianity.

So all of the contributions to science that came from non-christian cultures – the Norse, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Arabs – are meaningless? You speak of the christian influence as though it were a net positive, when the opposite appears to be the case (though one might entertain the idea that a metaphorical engine requires a certain amount of back-pressure to function well).

Atheism, by contrast is is an ideology three or four centuries old at most, and was most certainly formed in reaction to the prevailing religion of Europe at the time. Atheism is the rejection of certain crucial aspects prevailing religious (in practice, Christian) beliefs. To try to pretend otherwise is no more than naïvety and arrogance.

Atheism is an ideology? What are its ideological tenets and precepts?