I’d say the search for new words for each of your categories continues.
Trying to replace the current catch-all with a fresh catch-all is IMO mostly pointless as it’ll have the same shortcomings as the current word. And will quickly grow similar baggage.
Post-theist is fun.
In my opinion, any necessary appeal to the supernatural is definitional of a religion. If someone believes in a place we go after death (or reincarnation,) spirits or ghosts, laws of karma, etc., then they are engaging in religious thought.
There are some varieties of Buddhism that are so austere that they can be called “philosophies” and not religions, but since most Buddhism calls for reincarnation, it’s mostly religious.
I see both “atheist” and “nonreligious” as useful (partly overlapping) terms.
You think atheists who don’t appeal to the supernatural are wrong to identify as religious? Some of them attend (UU) church every week.
Yeah, pretty much. If they’re only there for good feelings and community and the snacks, then they aren’t actually “religious.” If the specific UU church in question doesn’t make any appeal to the supernatural, then it isn’t a religious church at all, just a fellowship of some sort.
Without some sort of god, spirit, karmic force, wish-fulfillment mechanism, or Star Wars “Force” is ain’t a religion. Ya gotta have a mythos.
(Just to be complete, I don’t hold that the inverse is true. You can have some supernatural belief without being religious. I know people who think they can influence the outcome of dice-rolls. That’s a supernatural idea, but not a religious one.)
Freethinker is the one we use when we don’t subscribe to A religion, but instead amalgams of all religions - it kinda has elements of agnosticism thrown in…
It’s how I like to think of myself, believing in the idea of “cosmic power” but not one of an omniscient god figure…
This is pretty much my attitude as well.
I’m not real familiar with all that UU really stands for. Time for a wiki voyage of discovery.
But there is a group called “Sunday Assembly” (http://www.sundayassembly.com/) that is explicitly affirmatively non-mythos, whose purpose is to duplicate the communitarian aspects of conventional Western Protestant congregations. I’ve not attended my local chapter, but they look like they have a good idea for providing what I see as the good part of conventional churching without the irredeemably bad=religious part.
What are their teenagers going to say to get out of getting up on Sunday mornings to go to assembly?
Same as religious ones do: “I don’t wanna. Waaah!!! Mom, you’re ruining my life!”
The historical meaning of freethinker is one who was religious (Christian) but not bound by the doctrine of a particular church or sect - more polite than “heretic.” So saying “freethinker” as a synonym for atheist or nonreligious might backfire with someone from one of the traditional sects who uses it to describe those who think outside doctrine.
But yeah, we need at least three words here to complete the whole set -
[ol]
[li]A person who has no religious or spiritual beliefs at all, nor need of them. (“atheist” or “non-religious”)[/li][li]A person who has generalized spiritual beliefs but not god/gods centric. (?)[/li][li]A person who accepts spirituality as a real and necessary thing but has no completely formed or organized notions on the topic. (“agnostic”)[/li][/ol]
I don’t even think spirituality is necessary as an agnostic, just consider completely ruling out any kind of higher power or afterlife etc to be a belief in itself.
Hmm, fair point there! Unfair generalisation on my part. Certainly not, he prides himself in not shoving his religion on others or using it as a tool of hate, so gets nothing but respect from me.
Maybe the only atheists you see are ones in the news who do have atheism as a job. I’ve never noticed atheists in the real world attacking religion - in some parts of the country it could be hazardous to your health.
Now, if you consider a Darwin symbol on a car an attack on religion that’s something else. But my observation has been that some religious people find the existence of atheists an attack on their religion.
A JW came to my door once, and reacted in total shock when I told her I was an atheist - with a smile.
That’s why it worked - because there were straight “confirmed bachelors” too.
My father ran his battalion’s veterans group, and the guy who edited their newsletter (and who was a real editor) was explained to me as a “confirmed bachelor.” Which shows that we won WWII with gays in the military.
But I think that a person with a personal god belief who does not participate in any organized religion can be considered to be non-religious also. Deists, of whom we have many on the Dope, fall into this class.
I’ve never gotten a negative reaction from a theist when I call myself non-religious - it does not seem to be a threatening position.
I think about it like this.
“atheist” merely means you don’t have a belief in a god or gods. That is it. It is the “ground state” of belief. You were born an atheist and had to construct (or be instructed in) any gods you now do have.
As such, it is an accurate description of anyone that has no belief in god. It also is a very poor descriptor of a persons worldview. You could also be agnostic and an atheist. It also tells you pretty much nothing about the way in which a person may behave in a given situation.
So if you ask me what my position on gods are I will tell you, quite correctly, that I’m an atheist. If you want to know how I view the world you’ll have to dig a little deeper.
I’ll use “atheist” in conversation if needed (I avoid the topic). It has a mostly understood definition, even if most American Christians don’t grasp its true meaning.
Privately, I see it and terms like “non-religious” as being to not-something, kinda like Anti-Federalist. I do believe in science, observational conclusion, reproducible results, reliable knowledge, and such. I call myself a science-ist, because scientist is taken by the profession.
A path to clarity might be thinking of it in other terms. For example, I don’t follow soccer/futbol. At all. Ever. The only two names I can list are Pele, Brandy Chastain and Hi Opal. (No, none of my kids ever played, which may make me unique in the western hemisphere.)
So if soccer is a zeroth part of my intellectual continuum, how do I say that?
Substitute any field of human involvement that you have zero connection to/with.
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.
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.
You might as well pray for a response-The OP posted that back in 2006, and he left the board in 2012.