Well, you don’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), “free thinker”.
If that isn’t euphamistic enough, I don’t know what is. I kinda like the term myself, except that it’s a bit self-congradulatory and insufficiently descriptive.
PS: my misspelling of “congratulatory” was a typo, but it seems appropriate so I’m leaving it. 
I know that you proposed this thread to come up with a new term for your kind, but I think you fail to understand that any term applied to a person-who-is-not-religious will then become synonymous with a negation over time. 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. The benefit of the term apatheist is that it basically says “I’m not playing the game anymore” and your position can be summarized as such.
I also find it bizarre that any atheist would want to make atheism part of their identity so that one would want a term to define “their kind”.
Not considering the prospect of eternal life or eternal damnation relevant to one’s life doesn’t seem like much of a philosophical position to me. Maybe you have a definition that is different from what is in the link.
But unless the apatheist has a good reason to doubt the claims of the theist, it is not that hard for a theist to give a convincing argument why not giving a crap is going to have a serious impact.
Not mine. Both grown, and both atheists. Not joining atheist clubs is not the same thing as being an apatheist - it just shows there is no reason to. I don’t join non stamp collecting clubs either.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Consider the number of Americans who don’t go to church, and compare to the number of avowed atheists (as opposed to those with no church.) Much higher. As much as I’d like to claim all these people as atheists, it seems clear that they are apathetic believers.
Atheism would not be a part of my identity if there were no religion. Given that there is, and that it is often aggressive, it is hard to avoid it as one of the many things I am. But that is different from wearing it on one’s sleeve
Atheist is good enough for me - I don’t care if ignorant buffoons are shocked by the term.
What I’ve quoted here is the easily refutable accusation made by theists against those who espouse this philosophical position. It’s the result of complete acceptance that there is no God, or that its a useless debate. Apatheism is the end of a process characterized by thoughtful analysis. You’re implying that it is a consequence of intellectual laziness and that is clearly not the case.
Apathy toward the question annihilates any argument. This is the outcome of an exchange between an apatheist and a proselytizing theist:
pt: “Hey eternal damnation blah, blah, blah…”
apa: “I don’t care”
pt: “Blah blah blah blah…”
Apatheist walks away.
So you and your children feel no need to discuss the absence of deities, probably spend all your time thinking about important stuff in the world around you, and probably do not engage theists in their beliefs, yet you’re not apatheists? I’m not trying to get you to relabel yourself btw, I am trying to get you to see that apatheism is a really great term that contains none of the negatives you are adding to it.
Yet they are not apatheists. Apatheism is the consequence of realizing that the existence of God is a hopeless debate or that absence of any deities is such a certainty that religion is only interesting as a topic of human social behavior - an abstraction for study.
Well the thread is about a better term applied to oneself - people are going to call you whatever they will call you. I agree that atheist is just fine, but I would argue there are better terms considering the variety of atheists out there.
I agree with some others who pointed out that changing the term will not change the mening, and any beliefs about what it means to be an atheist will just be transferred to the newly coined term. Imo it would frankly come off sounding silly and a bit self important. Afterall if you use some other clever word, some people will want to know what you mean by that. Like a Christian saying "no, Im not Christian, Im Christcentric, " . After you explain, they will look at you and say “oh, youre an atheist”.
I could have written this, now I don’t have too. The word ‘atheist’ is so often heard as anti-Christian that it just isn’t worth using except in places like the Dope where the meaning is generally understood.
Out in the world I say I’m ‘not religious’ and leave it at that. 95% of the time they take that for answer. The last 5% are the haters and I don’t mind bringing out the big guns and telling them I’m a capital ‘A’ Atheist. That lot can clutch their crucifixes and swoon with the vapors, I don’t mind.
No, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the complete acceptance that there is no god. I think that this hypothesis is well supported, enough so that I don’t just lack belief in a god but also believe that no gods exist, but this is a provisional belief that can change.
Your little conversation illustrates my point quite well. An atheist (who was feeling feisty, anyhow) would respond that he didn’t believe in any gods and so didn’t care what the theist’s supposed god was going to do. He might also invite the theist to give some evidence that his god existed. That is a lot different from saying “I don’t care” which could also be used by a theist not wanting to face the consequences of his sins within his worldview. And “I don’t care” is hardly the example of a sterling intellectual argument. I’ve mostly heard of this position as a joke.
Actually we don’t feel the need to discuss it, since religion is not in our lives. My daughter lives in Germany and her German boyfriend’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.
Wait - the second clause there is an atheist position. And there are lots of debates equally hopeless - many involving politics - but that is not an excuse for giving up.
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, hundreds (at least) of black cats have been destroyed because of a perceived link to witchcraft, so, no, religion isn’t entirely irrelevant to cats. (Nitpicking a nitpick is an old board tradition!)
I’m going to go with ‘Agnatheist’, personally. 
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what “apatheist” means. An apatheist might be characterized as an agnostic (neither affirms nor denies the existence of a deity) who holds the position that a deity would be irrelevant to anything meaningful in our lives. If, tomorrow, there came irrefutable proof of the existence of a deity, nothing would change.
Essentially, an apatheist would say that all forms of metaphysical doctrine are “… the briansick fantasies of morbid cobweb-spinners … the last fumes of evaporating reality” (Nietzsche), with no foundation in or bearing on reality. Some god or another could possibly exist, but that fact would change absolutely nothing.
In a way, the apatheist position is even more insulting to believers than vanilla atheism.
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.
LOL:)
This iswhat I say. I just say I am not religious and people leave me alone. I have no interest in explaining myself to others or justifying anything for them. I don’t at all care what they think about it one way or another. And I really do not like to label myself as anything, following any theory or belonging to any group.
‘Nothinger’ would be descriptive without the consideration of anything stated that was rejected.
The Norse ‘Nithing’ ****generally meant a wretch of some kind, but it could be reclaimed proudly and made positive ( for a negative thing ); since the Urban Dictionary also suggests:
The state and philosophy of nithing : exit with physical nil; no single result from you action, only mental yeild
However since atheism essentially acknowledges meaninglessness, and the inconsequence of all present actions to the future when one is dead and nothing: why would one care what one is called ?
Neither of those things are inherent to atheism.
The issue I have with the term atheist as a primary descriptor is that my non-belief doesn’t end at formal deities, but all supernatural, superstitious, cockamamie bullshit in general. I don’t believe in leprechauns, faeries, angels, demons, devils, souls, spirits, ghosts, hells, heavens, life forces, karmas, chi, feng shui, fate, luck, auras, psychics, astrology, palmistry, you name it. If it’s something that is very, very real to certain people in their imaginations, but there is absolutely no scientific evidence for it, then I don’t believe in it.
The proper term for someone who is not a supernaturalist would therefore be a naturalist.
It’s also possible to be an atheist and a firm believer in freaking karma and auras and shit.
Odds are, however, if you don’t believe in God, or gods, then you also don’t believe in a lot of other supernatural fiction that humans invented before there was cable tv, and the only entertainment was telling ghost stories about virgin births and resurrections and zombie saviors around a campfire.
Strange to see luck in that list. Under most definitions, it’s not woo, it’s just when an event that you cannot control, or even predict, turns out well for you. It’s perfectly compatible with everything being determined by physical laws; it’s just a consequence of our limited information and computing power.
If luck is woo then probability and game theory are too.
Yay, this is my first post here! 
That’s a good idea. I think I’ll start using that. I usually say I’m agnostic, because I’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. I’m really tired of trying to explain all that. Not to mention the fact that it’s nobody’s business anyway.
That’s the thing. It is nobody’s business.