I generally go with “I’m not religious” for people who I know* are * religious; they can take it as they like. I think a lot of them take it as “I don’t attend church regularly, but don’t eat babies for lunch or turn into a vampire at night.” Whatever. It doesn’t seem to offend people, and they’re generally willing to leave it alone.
However, I love “heathen” and may start to use it among those who have a sense of humor about religion (few and far between though they are).
There were no disbelievers until there were believers. It is the believers who define the god, not the other way around.
Considerably more magic.
I’m an atheist, although I’m also a “priest” in the Church of Spiritual Humanism (OK, it’s a lark). But I use that word only when specifically discussing that subject with like-minded or similarly-minded people. Otherwise, I simply don’t talk about what I do or don’t believe. If asked, my wife (who still clings to shreds of her RomanCatholic-Episcopalian traditions) and I both just say, “We don’t go to church.” That pretty much ends all conversation about it.
I submit “agnostic” . You are unshackled by religious faith and prepared to face reality. What ever it may be.
It says you don’t believe in gods, and for me, at least, it’s perfectly accurate. What’s the problem?
I think this is complete crap. ‘Atheist’ is a term that religious people came up with, as far as I know, and the atheists certainly weren’t giving the church the middle finger in that scenario. I see it as a reclaimed term and the simplest and most honest description of my views on religious topics. There are other terms out there, like humanist, but for some of us that’d be intentionally soft-pedaling things and I’ve got no desire to confuse people about what I think.
In addition to that, Darwinist would be a HORRIBLE idea. A lot of religious kooks are already trying to convince people that evolution is a godless idea put forth by people who want to eliminate morality. (Same goes for the Big Bang.) That’d be a perfect way to convince their audience that they’re right.
So “atheist” is a middle finger to people, but you want everybody to know that you’re “unshackled,” and can view reality objectively, unlike religious people? By comparison, atheist is polite.
I’ve heard some suggestions that the word “Bright” be used as alternative to “Atheist” and a Google search of the two terms turns up a bunch of websites, including atheistempire.com. On the other hand, several of them seem to be saying that “Bright” is a term they’d rather not use. I figure I should refer to a person’s beliefs or attitude toward religion by whatever term he or she prefers. On the other hand, “Bright” to me suggests something a bit more nebulous and New Agey than the rationality I’ve come to associate with the Atheists.
Thomas Jefferson and company have often been referred to as “Deists” in that they believed a god of some sort, just not necessarily the Judeo-Christian one. “Adeist” is a possible alternative, and it would be closer to what the OP seems to be trying to convey than “Bright”. On the other hand, I can’t see that it has any advantage over “Atheist”.
I’m happy with “atheist.” Why not? It’s a simple descriptor, and if there’s negative baggage attached to the term, that’s not my fault. If the posters to this thread can’t come up with anything better, you can be sure that’s because there is nothing better.
I could swear that we had a thread debating the merits of “bright” on this board, but I can’t find it. I hope that parts of my last post didn’t come off too strong, but I like “atheist” as a term - it’s accurate and unlike some of these other terms, non-judgmental. It says nothing beyond what it means and I don’t think it’s any more “middle finger”-y than the term Christian.
If some of the anthro and archeo folk are right, y’all don’t necessarily predate them.
Considerably more magic.
[/quote]
OK, so what’s a good adjective for the kid of thinking or world-perceiving that doesn’t involve magical thinking or references to magic? That would be an adjective that could define atheists without the definition being phrased in terms of what atheists aren’t.
That’s where I was trying to go with “empiricist”. Not sure it would be applicable to all atheists though.
It doesn’t exactly fit, but I’ve always thought “apostate” had a nice ring to it.
That one’s gotten kind of loaded, though. It’s big with the militant Muslim terrorist crowd.
Oh, didn’t realize that. I just kind of visualized an exchange like:
“So, where do you go to church?”
“Me? I’m an apostate.”
“Oh, that’s…nice. Do they go on Sundays too?”
So if you are agnostic are you a Lite-Bright?
Can you elaborate? It seems incomprehensible to me that the concept of “atheist,” meaning “without god,” could exist before the concept of “god” existed.
I don’t know. That wasn’t what you asked. The prefix “a” makes “without” necessarily a part of the definiton. It is essential to the description of an atheist that he not be a believer in god. An atheist is defined by what he is not.
It is what it is. I disagree that we’re flipping off the rest of the world. Just flipping off the concept of god. Huge difference. Atheist works for me.
One of my very good friend’s uses “Apathetic” when queried about what religion he is, and I had the opportunity to use it when some Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door. It was a mom and 2 daughters and the exchange went like this:
JW: So may I ask what religion you belong to?
Me: I’m Apathetic
JW: (furrows brow) I don’t think I know that one (while her daughter rolls her eyes)
I loved it and even though I’m a stronger atheist than what it connotes, it’s now my stock answer.
Sorry, I must’ve misread. I thought you were saying the atheists came first. (Not that they would have been called atheists, but harkening back to a time before religious beliefs)
Well…I had been starting to read about Epicurious in Stanley’s history of Philosophy.
An “Epicurian” sort of sounds sophisticated and worldly, and makes absolutely no reference to religious people. I have a Lucretious book as well, once I get around to reading that I might go for “Lucretian”.
The only problem is it seems a bit difficult to pronounce. But then, that mabey adds to the mystique.
sorry thats Epicurus
None of those beliefs are common to all atheists, and your link makes it clear that Epicureanism is theistic!