why I choose not identify my religious stance using the word "atheist"

[Shadow Wolf]

Hey, I know it's off-topic. But if your elf ears ever suffer wear and tear, you can hit them with some green spray paint, contort them into deformed shapes using super glue and rubber cement, then -- boom. Orc ears. Don't just throw them away if they become damaged.

I tend to lose them. They stay on actually pretty well without spirit glue or anything so I don't use any so I can easily take them off if I play a different character to make it more clear to those paying attention I'm not my dark elf at that moment.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I just call myself a non-believer in that regard, I suppose. Agnostic, atheist and humanist in reality though.
I suppose for me, a humanist would be a good overall definition, since most of the time the "non belief,"
of any gods are basically implied. Well, for a secular humanist, that is. Non-theist is a good term, too.

 

[SalixIncendium]

As an analogy, imagine being asked if you like a certain NFL football team; the question doesn't allow for a distinction between someone who's a fan of a different NFL football team, and someone else who simply isn't interested in NFL football in general. In reality, some (probably most) who identify as atheists would be analogous to those who simply aren't interested in NFL football in general, but the theists don't seem to make that distinction and treat them as being analogous to someone who's a fan of a different football team.

I understand the point you are making, but since you created an account here, doesn't that express some interest in "NFL football?" Or at least in "football" in general?

 

[PureX]

Some might see it as being rather nitpicky, but to me it looks like a word created and designed by religious folks for religious purposes.

I think the same or something similar can go with related words such as "humanist."

To me it's like a way of saying that I don't opt into religion, by simply saying that I'm non-religious or not religious.

Once someone says that they're atheist, it seems to me like they've willingly - and perhaps unwittingly - chosen to step foot on the playing field of religion and religious belief systems. In everyday usage, it might not matter, but from what I've seen in debates between theists and atheists is a trend of the atheists apparently being duped into playing by the rules of the theists.

As an analogy, imagine being asked if you like a certain NFL football team; the question doesn't allow for a distinction between someone who's a fan of a different NFL football team, and someone else who simply isn't interested in NFL football in general. In reality, some (probably most) who identify as atheists would be analogous to those who simply aren't interested in NFL football in general, but the theists don't seem to make that distinction and treat them as being analogous to someone who's a fan of a different football team.

I think the problem here is that you think this is about what you care about, or don't care about. But in fact no one else much cares what you care about or don't, and only a fool would try to debate with you about it. What would be the point?

The terms theist and atheist are not about what or how much anyone cares about whatever. They are terms intended to designate philosophical positions that you accept or assert as being valid or true, or that you reject as being invalid or untrue. "I don't care" isn't an option to be discussed because it's irrelevant to anyone but ourselves.

I agree that you should not call yourself an atheist if you do not care about the question of God's existence or effect on our existence enough to have developed a position on it.

And your presence and opinions here are still appreciated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As an analogy, imagine being asked if you like a certain NFL football team; the question doesn't allow for a distinction between someone who's a fan of a different NFL football team, and someone else who simply isn't interested in NFL football in general

I'm not interested in Cricket, but I don't feel a compulsion to harp on this.

 

[LuisDantas]

@anotherneil , have you learned of Apatheism and Igtheism? Do you identify with either concept?

 

[HonestJoe]

I think raise a valid point about how words in this area are often (ab)used to generically label and categorise people (be they "us" groups or "them" groups), but it's a much wider issue than just "atheist".

I've always felt that if you're under the impression that you can describe your entire theological worldview with a single word (whatever it is), you've not given the topic anything like enough thought. I happen not to believe in the existence of any god or gods, but that is only one tiny element of my wider beliefs and opinions, and even a largely consequential rather than causal one at that.

 

[F1fan]

I also don't prefer the label "atheist", it's just something that I am by definition.

In his documentary The History of Disbelief Jonathan Miller said that he refers the word "Non-theist" since the word atheist has so much baggage associated with it. It is apparent that some believers refer to atheism as some sort of belief system, and even as a religion. To say non-theist and non-theism is clearer, and less ambiguous. I do use these words when discussions wander into misunderstanding about the positions of atheists.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm not interested in Cricket, but I don't feel a compulsion to harp on this.

Me neither, but then I've never been told that not liking cricket means I'm an evil sinner who will burn in hell for eternity (and I used to work for a company in India!)

 

[PureX]

In his documentary The History of Disbelief Jonathan Miller said that he refers the word "Non-theist" since the word atheist has so much baggage associated with it. It is apparent that some believers refer to atheism as some sort of belief system, and even as a religion. To say non-theist and non-theism is clearer, and less ambiguous. I do use these words when discussions wander into misunderstanding about the positions of atheists.

Except that a non- anything is not clearer at all. In fact, that's the whole point of using that kind of an empty negative ... NOT to be clear. To be as vague as possible so that you can't be interrogated about what you actually do believe. It's a deliberate subterfuge.

 

[Heyo]

In his documentary The History of Disbelief Jonathan Miller said that he refers the word "Non-theist" since the word atheist has so much baggage associated with it. It is apparent that some believers refer to atheism as some sort of belief system, and even as a religion. To say non-theist and non-theism is clearer, and less ambiguous. I do use these words when discussions wander into misunderstanding about the positions of atheists.

The term "atheist" has a well-defined meaning that can be found in dictionaries. When people use different definitions, it is on them to be clear of their different usage.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Me neither, but then I've never been told that not liking cricket means I'm an evil sinner who will burn in hell for eternity (and I used to work for a company in India!)

But when you mention not being interested in football ...

 

[F1fan]

Except that a non- anything is not clearer at all.

Really? To say “non-living” allows anyone some wiggle room to assume it’s alive? Or are you just reinforcing your dedication to being as confused as possible?

In fact, that's the whole point of using that kind of an empty negative ... NOT to be clear.

But to be a non-theist is quite clear. That cats are non-dogs is quite clear and correct.

To be as vague as possible so that you can't be interrogated about what you actually do believe. It's a deliberate subterfuge.

How is it not clear that non-theists don’t believe in gods? Non-theists will certainly believe something but it won’t be gods.

 

[F1fan]

The term "atheist" has a well-defined meaning that can be found in dictionaries. When people use different definitions, it is on them to be clear of their different usage.

Right. My point was the negative social attitudes towards the word atheist. Even if the person understands what atheist means in the most clear context their prejudice remains. It’s a social tactic to use an alternative word to avoid the negative response.

 

[Firenze]

Let’s keep in mind that there are at least 13 countries where atheists can be executed, and here in the US, polling shows that we would elect a Muslim as president over an Atheist. Further, identifying as Atheist can keep you from getting a job, or keeping one. Put Atheist on your resume and see how eager Hobby Lobby and Chik-fil-a are to hire you. I’m just advising caution. You have to know your audience.

That said….

 

[PureX]

Really? To say “non-living” allows anyone some wiggle room to assume it’s alive?

Go ahead and list all the things that are not alive, so we can all be clear about what you mean.

But to be a non-theist is quite clear.

Again, go ahead and list all of the possible permutations of non-theism there are so that we can all see how clear you're being.

 

[Heyo]

Right. My point was the negative social attitudes towards the word atheist. Even if the person understands what atheist means in the most clear context their prejudice remains. It’s a social tactic to use an alternative word to avoid the negative response.

I understand the intention, but I think it's misplaced.
1. It's an appeal to emotion. (Which, in a debate, is a fallacy.)
2. It circumvents the problem instead of tackling it.
3. It's not sustainable. In five years, the new word will have taken on all the stigmata of the old, and you'll need just another "neutral" word. Ask the Negroes/Blacks/African American/coloured people/people of colour/marginalized people with healthy melatonin level.

 

[F1fan]

Go ahead and list all the things that are not alive, so we can all be clear about what you mean

Irrelevant. Your request is unnecessary to clarify my simple example.

Again, go ahead and list all of the possible permutations of non-theism there are so that we can all see how clear you're being.

It’s unnecessary. If you can’t understand my point then you are overcomplicating it.

 

[F1fan]

I understand the intention, but I think it's misplaced.
1. It's an appeal to emotion. (Which, in a debate, is a fallacy.)

It’s an emotional response that theists tend to make. Look at how far into the weeds @PureX has gone to sabotage and misrepresent what I said. He is notoriously biased towards atheists.

2. It circumvents the problem instead of tackling it.

That is a measure atheists have to take when dealing with the bias of theists, as they are tempted to ho off on irrelevant tangents based on the assumption that atheists are evil, bad, immoral, etc.

3. It's not sustainable. In five years, the new word will have taken on all the stigmata of the old, and you'll need just another "neutral" word. Ask the Negroes/Blacks/African American/coloured people/people of colour/marginalized people with healthy melatonin level.

It could be. But atheists trying to be heard accurately with an intention to make some progress as citizens deserving of respect has to use any words that avoid inherent bias in the words Atheist or atheism.

Jonathan Miller made a great case for alternative words.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Some might see it as being rather nitpicky, but to me it looks like a word created and designed by religious folks for religious purposes.

I think the same or something similar can go with related words such as "humanist."

To me it's like a way of saying that I don't opt into religion, by simply saying that I'm non-religious or not religious.

Once someone says that they're atheist, it seems to me like they've willingly - and perhaps unwittingly - chosen to step foot on the playing field of religion and religious belief systems. In everyday usage, it might not matter, but from what I've seen in debates between theists and atheists is a trend of the atheists apparently being duped into playing by the rules of the theists.

As an analogy, imagine being asked if you like a certain NFL football team; the question doesn't allow for a distinction between someone who's a fan of a different NFL football team, and someone else who simply isn't interested in NFL football in general. In reality, some (probably most) who identify as atheists would be analogous to those who simply aren't interested in NFL football in general, but the theists don't seem to make that distinction and treat them as being analogous to someone who's a fan of a different football team.

I consider myself an atheist, because I don't believe in gods. But I'm not irreligious because I participate in and identify with a specific religion.