There's a problem with the word "Atheist"

[Prometheus]

Why do we call ourselves Atheists? Why do we define ourselves by what we are not? If you break it down to the actual definition of the word, an Atheist is, "A person who is not a Theist." That presents a bit of a problem. Once you spell out what a Theist is, the definition of an Atheist becomes, "A person who is not a person who believes in God." When you read that sentence, it becomes apparent that saying you are what you are not is rather silly. It's like defining a male as a person who is not a person who is a female.

Not only is there a problem in calling ourselves what we are not, but there is the fact that by using this word we are actually calling attention to the idea of "God." Why are these non-existent entities that we know as "gods" worthy of this kind of publicity? I don't believe in ghosts, but if I went around calling myself an "A-ghostist" I'd be drawing attention to the consideration of these non-existent entities. It's like telling someone, "Don't think about a black cat." The person is obviously going to think of a black cat because the positive command is still in the sentence. It seems to me that by calling ourselves Atheists we actually give credence to the existence of gods.

Furthermore, I'd say most "Atheists" aren't defining themselves well enough when they use the term. You could be a Buddhist for all anyone knows. People that call themselves Atheists generally aren't Buddhists. Buddhists will call themselves Buddhists, even though the word Atheist would be a perfectly fitting. So the word carries more baggage in everyday conversation than it really should.

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition and don't rely on being the antithesis of another concept.

 

[kadzbiz]

.....I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition.............

I would agree with thes rest of what you say, but I'd say that the word "skeptic" has a negative connotation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic."

Then learn the difference between them.

Parenthetically, no word is immune to juvenile 'debate'.

 

[Jaymes]

Not only is there a problem in calling ourselves what we are not, but there is the fact that by using this word we are actually calling attention to the idea of "God." Why are these non-existent entities that we know as "gods" worthy of this kind of publicity? I don't believe in ghosts, but if I went around calling myself an "A-ghostist" I'd be drawing attention to the consideration of these non-existent entities.

That idea has been bothering me lately, as well.

I might have to latch on to your Skeptic idea. It doesn't seem to have the connotations "atheist" does to some people.

 

[doppelganger]

You could be a Buddhist for all anyone knows. People that call themselves Atheists generally aren't Buddhists. Buddhists will call themselves Buddhists, even though the word Atheist would be a perfectly fitting.

"Christian" and "Atheist" aren't mutually exclusive, either. I can honestly and variously identify myself as any of these depending on the mythological focus I choose to work through at a given point.

 

[Nanda]

I would agree with thes rest of what you say, but I'd say that the word "skeptic" has a negative connotation.

You think skeptic has a negative connotation, try telling someone you're an atheist sometime.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Why do we call ourselves Atheists? Why do we define ourselves by what we are not? If you break it down to the actual definition of the word, an Atheist is, "A person who is not a Theist." That presents a bit of a problem. Once you spell out what a Theist is, the definition of an Atheist becomes, "A person who is not a person who believes in God." When you read that sentence, it becomes apparent that saying you are what you are not is rather silly. It's like defining a male as a person who is not a person who is a female.

Not only is there a problem in calling ourselves what we are not, but there is the fact that by using this word we are actually calling attention to the idea of "God." Why are these non-existent entities that we know as "gods" worthy of this kind of publicity? I don't believe in ghosts, but if I went around calling myself an "A-ghostist" I'd be drawing attention to the consideration of these non-existent entities. It's like telling someone, "Don't think about a black cat." The person is obviously going to think of a black cat because the positive command is still in the sentence. It seems to me that by calling ourselves Atheists we actually give credence to the existence of gods.

Furthermore, I'd say most "Atheists" aren't defining themselves well enough when they use the term. You could be a Buddhist for all anyone knows. People that call themselves Atheists generally aren't Buddhists. Buddhists will call themselves Buddhists, even though the word Atheist would be a perfectly fitting. So the word carries more baggage in everyday conversation than it really should.

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition and don't rely on being the antithesis of another concept.

Arent Naturalists the ones that run around naked though?

I can see yoour point though. I dont know why people call themselves athiests. If people say what is your religion its best to say "none". Also my view is that there isnt hard enough concrete 100% evidence that God doesnt exist.

 

[Nanda]

I can see yoour point though. I dont know why people call themselves athiests. If people say what is your religion its best to say "none".

Except that you can have no religion, and still believe in a God. People do it all the time. I have no religion and I don't believe in any gods, and I feel the need to clarify that when asked.

Also my view is that there isnt hard enough concrete 100% evidence that God doesnt exist.

That's all well and good for you. Agnosticism is for you, then. We don't all feel that way, however. By that same rationale, I could say that I don't understand why some people call themselves theists, because my view is that there isn't any hard, concrete 100% evidence that any gods do exist.

 

[mr.guy]

I can see yoour point though. I dont know why people call themselves athiests. If people say what is your religion its best to say "none".

The greatest use for distinguishing oneself as athiestic is to inform the your reader/listener more specifically of your religious and ontological position; clarity, being the goal here.

In my opinion, the contemporary relevance of being (self) indentified as an athiest is to best extinguish assumptions of confusion, waffling or ambivalence regarding their perceptions and acceptance of other peoples popular views, religions and beliefs.

Also my view is that there isnt hard enough concrete 100% evidence that God doesnt exist.

Terrif. When you have a spare moment, maybe you can quote me the feasibility of magical drawer fairies, who are conspiring with the lost key gnomes to snatch my fridge light.

I'll be sure to expect hard enough concrete 100% evidence, of course.

 

[Willamena]

Why do we call ourselves Atheists? Why do we define ourselves by what we are not? If you break it down to the actual definition of the word, an Atheist is, "A person who is not a Theist." That presents a bit of a problem. Once you spell out what a Theist is, the definition of an Atheist becomes, "A person who is not a person who believes in God." When you read that sentence, it becomes apparent that saying you are what you are not is rather silly. It's like defining a male as a person who is not a person who is a female.

Most atheists I know distinguish between "belief in no god" and "no belief in god." In the latter sense the atheist is "a person who has no belief in god", which is a positive statement. A lack is something one can conceptually possess.

Atheism is not "not theist" but rather "not the"-ism --from Greek "atheos" which means godless. It is godlessism; a person "without god" in the sense of having no concept to latch onto. Literally nothing re god to believe.

In the same way the "agnostic" is not defined as "a person who is not a person who knows something."

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition and don't rely on being the antithesis of another concept.

"Skeptic" is already claimed by the agnostic; sorry. (kidding)

 

[kadzbiz]

You think skeptic has a negative connotation, try telling someone you're an atheist sometime.

Ha, I don't even say I'm a skeptic.

Arent Naturalists the ones that run around naked though?

You're thinking of Naturists.

 

[Yerda]

Why do we call ourselves Atheists?

'Cause we are asked?

Why do we define ourselves by what we are not?

'Cause it's accurate.

Why are these non-existent entities that we know as "gods" worthy of this kind of publicity? I don't believe in ghosts, but if I went around calling myself an "A-ghostist" I'd be drawing attention to the consideration of these non-existent entities. It's like telling someone, "Don't think about a black cat." The person is obviously going to think of a black cat because the positive command is still in the sentence. It seems to me that by calling ourselves Atheists we actually give credence to the existence of gods.

I don't understand how you've reached that conclusion. Gods are high on the list of what humans think and converse about. In rejecting what appears to be unwarranted subscription to nonsense I like to think I call myself an atheist to separate myself and to show my disapproval. If ghostism was prevalent and nonsensical discussion on the topic made up a large part of human interaction, while non-ghostism encountered persecution or misunderstanding I'd see no reason not to describe myself as aghostic.

Furthermore, I'd say most "Atheists" aren't defining themselves well enough when they use the term. You could be a Buddhist for all anyone knows. People that call themselves Atheists generally aren't Buddhists. Buddhists will call themselves Buddhists, even though the word Atheist would be a perfectly fitting. So the word carries more baggage in everyday conversation than it really should.

Fair enough. I think it's appropriate.

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition and don't rely on being the antithesis of another concept.

Cool.

 

[UnTheist]

Also my view is that there isnt hard enough concrete 100% evidence that God doesnt exist.

there isn't 100% concrete evidence that anything doesn't exist. Most Atheists don't make the claim that God doesn't exist. They just don't believe in God.

 

[lilithu]

Why do we call ourselves Atheists? Why do we define ourselves by what we are not? If you break it down to the actual definition of the word, an Atheist is, "A person who is not a Theist." That presents a bit of a problem. Once you spell out what a Theist is, the definition of an Atheist becomes, "A person who is not a person who believes in God." When you read that sentence, it becomes apparent that saying you are what you are not is rather silly. It's like defining a male as a person who is not a person who is a female.

Not only is there a problem in calling ourselves what we are not, but there is the fact that by using this word we are actually calling attention to the idea of "God." Why are these non-existent entities that we know as "gods" worthy of this kind of publicity? I don't believe in ghosts, but if I went around calling myself an "A-ghostist" I'd be drawing attention to the consideration of these non-existent entities. It's like telling someone, "Don't think about a black cat." The person is obviously going to think of a black cat because the positive command is still in the sentence. It seems to me that by calling ourselves Atheists we actually give credence to the existence of gods.

Furthermore, I'd say most "Atheists" aren't defining themselves well enough when they use the term. You could be a Buddhist for all anyone knows. People that call themselves Atheists generally aren't Buddhists. Buddhists will call themselves Buddhists, even though the word Atheist would be a perfectly fitting. So the word carries more baggage in everyday conversation than it really should.

I'm leaning toward using the terms "Naturalist" or "Skeptic." These words give a positive definition and don't rely on being the antithesis of another concept.

How weird. I was considering starting a thread on this same topic this morning as I walked to work. (But then when I got to work I completely forgot about it.) I was going to call the thread "Why I don't like atheism" and then... :run:

No, seriously, I was going to respectfully make the same argument that you made. Define yourself by what you are for, not by what you are against. This is true for everyone.

Kudos and frubals too. :bow:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Define yourself by what you are for, not by what you are against.

As someone who has long self-identified as a naturalist (or, more precisely and depending on context, a religious naturalist or ontological naturalist), atheist remains a perfectly fine term. The fact that the author of the OP counterposes naturalism and skepticism (as if they were synonymous) is instructive.

 

[Jaymes]

The fact that the author of the OP counterposes naturalism and skepticism (as if they were synonymous) is instructive.

Out of curiosity, was there anything in the OP that I missed that indicated that he was recommending the use of those terms for anyone other than himself?

 

[lilithu]

As someone who has long self-identified as a naturalist (or, more precisely and depending on context, a religious naturalist or ontological naturalist), atheist remains a perfectly fine term.

It's a perfectly fine term as long as one doesn't stop there, in terms of defining oneself.

The fact that the author of the OP counterposes naturalism and skepticism (as if they were synonymous) is instructive.

One mistake at the end does not negate the validity of the entire post, imo. Or perhaps he knows they're not the same, but held both up as alternatives to atheist - examples of words that partially define his beliefs.


edit:
I just realized this is in the atheism forum, so I will bow out of any potential dispute and remain an interested onlooker. :bow:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[ given the above, I prefer to delete the response that was here originally ]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

edit:
I just realized this is in the atheism forum, so I will bow out of any potential dispute and remain an interested onlooker. :bow:

As did I. Nevertheless, your contributions are valued and I suspect that the topic would benefit from wider participation. Perhaps it should be moved to a different forum.

 

[lilithu]

[ given the above, I prefer to delete the response that was here originally ]

lol, well know I don't know what you wrote in response but it just occurred to me that I was too preoccupied with approving of the gist of the OP that I wasn't thinking properly earlier. From my pov, skeptic would raise the same concerns as atheist in that it does not define what a person is for. Naturalist, otoh, does.

Not debating (I swear!), just correcting my own mistake.