# Sick of the term "atheist", is there a better alternative? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 15, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831 "2006-09-15T13:57:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/101 "2016-11-20T15:26:47Z")
> [@easternshore](#): > > I have always found the term “athiest” to be offensive on a fundamental level, as ugly as “infidel” is to Muslims. So I have coined a new term: Verumbian - a believer in that which is true. Derivation: Latin word “verum” or true. > > This is much more positive in its characterization, as it immediately expresses belief in something. I would welcome your comments or opinions. How often do you find yourself needing to explain what that means? ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/102 "2016-11-20T15:28:31Z")
Keep it up. Sick if the term “school”? Attendance center. Sick of the term “hospital”? Health sciences facility. Sick of the term “jail”? Correctional institution. Sick of the term “soldier”? Men and women of the armed forces. Sick of the term “gay”? GLBT Sick of the term “retarded”? Special. Sick of the term “genius”? Special. Sick of the term “crippled”? Special. Hey, I got it. I’m not an atheist, I’m Special. If you don’t want to call me that, you’ll need a mandatory course in sensitivity training. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/103 "2016-11-20T15:30:49Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Do you actively advocate that there is no god, or are you like me and say that no one knows if a god of any kind exists? If you are, the correct term is agnostic. The degree of certainty to which one can claim for the non-existence of a god is exactly the same degree of certainty that one can claim for the non-existence of TFSM, or Russell’s teapot, and a plethora of other pseudo-entities for which there are no good reasons to believe. It’s the same degree of certainty that one can have when one says that the sun shall rise tomorrow, or that the world continues to exist even when one has closed one’s eyes, or that any interaction one has with the world is real (as opposed to "brain-in-a-jar/Matrix/Cartesian Demon -induced delusions). That word _agnostic_, when used by a person to describe themselves, I find to be cloying, presumptious and arrogant – to think oneself above it all, capable of cold, hard, super-rationalism, in the face of a mass of evidence against that position. It is ultimately of no value – if one were to treat all human experience with the same degree of agnosticism one could never believe in anything at all. ---
**Author:** ![CatandMouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@CatandMouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatandMouse)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/104 "2016-11-20T15:31:42Z")
> [@mrrealtime](#): > > No wonder no one likes athiests, the very word basically says I am anti-god. > > Its like calling oneself “everyoneisanidiotexceptme” and expecting to win friends and influence people. > > Not only does the term extend a nasty middle finger up at the vast majority of the population, it also gives creedence to the religious majority by declaring that it is no more than whatever a theist isnt, thereby being essentially defined by religion. > > I for one, do not wish to continue to indulge the religious nut bars of the planet by allowing them to define me as something that is no more than what they arent. > > There HAS to be a better term for us. Enlightened? Too arrogant. Darwinians? There are probably athiests that dont accept everything Darwin taught. > > If anyone can help out please do! What is a proactive, empowering word to describe those of us who are un-shackled by a religious faith, and are prepared to face reality with no predisposition? You could refer to yourself as a naturalist, that way you’re not defining yourself on religious terms. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/105 "2016-11-20T15:38:25Z")
> [@easternshore](#): > > I have always found the term “athiest” to be offensive on a fundamental level, as ugly as “infidel” is to Muslims. So I have coined a new term: Verumbian - a believer in that which is true. Derivation: Latin word “verum” or true. > > This is much more positive in its characterization, as it immediately expresses belief in something. I would welcome your comments or opinions. I like this idea. In principle, the word “skeptic” captures the idea, but unfortunately it’s a word like “theory” that has a technical meaning and a colloquial meaning, and the colloquial meaning entails negativism rather than just empiricism. It would be nice to have a word that captures the essence of seeking truth through rational enquiry and empiricism; that entails being positive and open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out. Until the word Verumbian catches on, I will just have to rely on my sunny disposition to get the message across that I’m a positive and open-minded skeptic. ETA: welcome to SDMB. You will find many fellow Verumbians here. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/106 "2016-11-20T15:48:01Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](#): > > …That word _agnostic_, when used by a person to describe themselves, I find to be cloying, presumptious and arrogant – to think oneself above it all, capable of cold, hard, super-rationalism, in the face of a mass of evidence against that position. It is ultimately of no value – if one were to treat all human experience with the same degree of agnosticism one could never believe in anything at all. Exactly. It’s trivial that all belief is technically provisional and probabilistic. Repeatedly asserting that there is a technical difference between 99.999999999% certainty and 100% certainty does not make you smart, it makes you tedious. Agnosticism may be a useful word, but it should be reserved for those who genuinely believe that there is a significant probability that god exists. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/107 "2016-11-20T16:35:47Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Exactly. It’s trivial that all belief is technically provisional and probabilistic. Repeatedly asserting that there is a technical difference between 99.999999999% certainty and 100% certainty does not make you smart, it makes you tedious. > > Agnosticism may be a useful word, but it should be reserved for those who genuinely believe that there is a significant probability that god exists. If one limits oneself to the “The Abrahamic God” (or any other specific God), I’d agree with you. But “God” can have so many different definitions that I think the term agnostic is much better. I find the existence of a “God” to be unnecessary to explain the universe; that it adds an extra layer of complexity without explaining anything. But I also accept that it is highly unlikely that our puny ape-brains are even equipped to actually understand the universe in its entirety. The term agnostic also recognizes that science is not a tool that is designed to deal with issues of a supernatural nature. Having said that, I find “not religious” to be the best term to use with most people. I have no interest in getting into philosophical debates about the existence of God with every Tom, Dick and Harry that I meet, so it’s a convenient way of removing myself from the fold without getting them all worked up about trying save my soul or some other tedious thing. And if my fellow travelers prefer atheist over agnostic, more power to them. Whatever works. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/108 "2016-11-20T17:54:19Z")
**Anaamika** earlier in this thread suggested “secular humanist.” I like radio host Jim Bohannon" “born-again secular humanist.” I’d use this if “agnostic” doesn’t really fit the bill. ---
**Author:** ![correlophus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@correlophus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/correlophus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/109 "2016-11-20T20:57:11Z")
The fact that the majority of the earth’s population is still religious necessitates a negative term for anyone who does not believe. How otherwise could someone who does not believe be described? Atheist means without god, not necessarily anti-god, and I find the term empowering. I don’t care if I agitate the religious nuts or whatever. The term “atheist” gives a sense of being down to earth, with no one imaginary watching you from above. ---
**Author:** ![Dragwyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dragwyr/32/2855_2.png) [@Dragwyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragwyr)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/110 "2016-11-21T15:26:31Z")
Just because the religious vilify the term, “Atheist”, doesn’t mean we have to accept that they do so. I think the best way to remove the stigma of the term, “Atheist”, is to be open about it. Show people that those of us who don’t believe in any kind of a god are not evil, baby-eating psychopaths. I don’t think we need to use a different label at all. For myself, for the sake of completeness, I like using Matt Dillahunty’s definitions: “Gnosticism” has to do with what you know. “Theism” has to do with what you believe. Therefore, I describe myself as an, “Agnostic Atheist”; I don’t know that any kind of a god exists and I don’t believe that one exists. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/111 "2016-11-21T15:44:22Z")
My term for most Atheist as the OP defines is ‘non-religious and non spiritual’, though there are ‘spiritual but not-religious’ Atheists (belief in an afterlife or spirit realm without a God), there are also religious but not spiritual atheists as well (those holding to a set of hard and fast ideals about how one should be - a set of (sometimes unwritten) codes that should always be followed for the best of all) > [@scr4](#): > > You could just say “not religious.” > How can you have a word that means “non-religious” that isn’t defined by religion?? I define myself as non-religious, though I know God, the longer term is spiritual but not religious. I can move from different religion services to typical atheists gatherings (some are termed ‘sceptics groups’, but many other such exists ) and know and see God’s hand guiding humanity in all. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/112 "2016-11-21T15:52:00Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](#): > > The degree of certainty to which one can claim for the non-existence of a god is exactly the same degree of certainty that one can claim for the non-existence of TFSM, or Russell’s teapot, and a plethora of other pseudo-entities for which there are no good reasons to believe. > > It’s the same degree of certainty that one can have when one says that the sun shall rise tomorrow, or that the world continues to exist even when one has closed one’s eyes, or that any interaction one has with the world is real (as opposed to "brain-in-a-jar/Matrix/Cartesian Demon -induced delusions). > > That word _agnostic_, when used by a person to describe themselves, I find to be cloying, presumptious and arrogant – to think oneself above it all, capable of cold, hard, super-rationalism, in the face of a mass of evidence against that position. It is ultimately of no value – if one were to treat all human experience with the same degree of agnosticism one could never believe in anything at all. Nice, but wrong. Agnostics don’t claim either way. They simply state the fact that no one knows if a god exists. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/113 "2016-11-21T15:54:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You might as well pray for a response-The OP posted that back in 2006, and he left the board in 2012. I’m still around but haven’t been active because of lots of personal issues. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/114 "2016-11-21T16:19:57Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Nice, but wrong. Agnostics don’t claim either way. They simply state the fact that no one knows if a god exists. I’m an agnostic in that I don’t know that a god exists. I’m an atheist in that I don’t believe that one does. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/115 "2016-11-21T16:31:40Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Nice, but wrong. Agnostics don’t claim either way. They simply state the fact that no one knows if a god exists. Can they read? ---
**Author:** ![CatandMouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@CatandMouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatandMouse)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/116 "2016-11-21T16:46:22Z")
It’s nice to see that there are a few atheists on this forum. I normally advise people that I’m not religious if the topic comes up. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/117 "2016-11-21T16:49:51Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > My term for most Atheist as the OP defines is ‘non-religious and non spiritual’, though there are ‘spiritual but not-religious’ Atheists (belief in an afterlife or spirit realm without a God), **there are also religious but not spiritual atheists as well (those holding to a set of hard and fast ideals about how one should be - a set of (sometimes unwritten) codes that should always be followed for the best of all)** > … Bolding mine. And here you’ve confused religiosity with ethics. Holding to a set of ideals is ethical behavior. It isn’t moral behavior nor is is religious behavior. Many conventional religionists confuse things and think religion equals morality and it’s impossible to be moral without belief in some god, and most especially in their own god. Where ethics differs from morals is what it’s in service of. IMO good ethics are in service of good morals. A “warrior’s creed” can be ethically fine. Until it’s in service of, e.g., Hitler. Such a situation remains ethical, but ceases to be moral. I’d suggest ethics, morality, and religion are, strictly speaking, orthogonal ideas. It’s sloppy thinking and sloppy language to conflate them. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/118 "2016-11-21T17:27:59Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Bolding mine. > > And here you’ve confused religiosity with ethics. Holding to a set of ideals is ethical behavior. It isn’t moral behavior nor is is religious behavior. > > Many conventional religionists confuse things and think religion equals morality and it’s impossible to be moral without belief in some god, and most especially in their own god. > > Where ethics differs from morals is what it’s in service of. IMO good ethics are in service of good morals. A “warrior’s creed” can be ethically fine. Until it’s in service of, e.g., Hitler. Such a situation remains ethical, but ceases to be moral. > > I’d suggest ethics, morality, and religion are, strictly speaking, orthogonal ideas. It’s sloppy thinking and sloppy language to conflate them. Thanks, good counterpoint, but can you define the difference between ethics and religiosity? Also note not all religions have a ‘God’ Buddhism is a prime example, but many others exist. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/119 "2016-11-21T23:50:06Z")
As I define it for my purposes, religiosity is about belief in some supernatural something or other. It may be a god or gods. It may be more amorphous, like the Force, karma, etc. It’s belief in stuff that’s not obviously real. Ethics is a functional form of community. Humans can’t live well alone on an island. We live better in groups. We live best in groups that mutually support us all as well as practicable. What behavior standards followed by each of us makes that group work best? That is the essence of ethics. I also hold that believing something like “what works best is for me to be a wolf and everyone else to be a sheep” is fundamentally dishonest. If you wouldn’t be willing to take the opposite side in a deal you just made, well it wasn’t an ethical deal. As you can see, there’s just about zero overlap between these two ideas. Where I get muddy is trying to define a clean dimensional difference between ethics and morals. They ought to be orthogonal, but they aren’t really. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2016, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831/120 "2016-11-22T00:07:36Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > …As you can see, there’s just about zero overlap between these two ideas. Where I get muddy is trying to define a clean dimensional difference between ethics and morals. They ought to be orthogonal, but they aren’t really. I don’t see them as orthogonal. Morality informs ethics. And religion makes dogmatic assertions on the principles of both, to a point where many people mistakenly believe that the only _possible_ source of morality and ethics is by _diktat_ from God; refusing to accept that morality or ethical principles could ever derive from our evolved nature, or from rational enquiry and reflection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sick-of-the-term-atheist-is-there-a-better-alternative/372831.md?page=7)