Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 209 (657633)
03-29-2012 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rahvin
03-29-2012 3:03 PM


if someone asks your {an atheist's} religion, what are you to reply?
"None."
You'll have to reply using the term Atheist or something that means the same, like "I'm not religious" or "I don't believe in gods."
Not really, but there's a big difference in these approaches:
-what religion are you?
"None, I don't have a religion."
.
-what religion are you?
"lol, I'm an atheist!"
.
You'll have to reply using the term Atheist or something that means the same, like "I'm not religious" or "I don't believe in gods."
Outside of places like this, which seem to be the only places where I see the reclaiming of the word to mean simply a lack of belief in gods, I find the latter to be more common than the former.
That's why I think its a good idea for you people (the ones here doing the reclaiming), to just find a better word to describe yourselves.
I don't think that a random person on the street will be somehow convinced to cast aside the "negative connotations" of the term "Atheist" simply because we try to use a different word.
I don't think people are as adamantly opposed to you simply not having a belief in god as you seem to be implying they are. I think that when people here "atheist", they're thinking of something different than what you really are.
That's why the word needs the reclaiming in the first place. Or you could just go with a different word - like nonbeliever, or unbeliever. I don't think those would bring along the same negative connotations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 03-29-2012 3:03 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 03-29-2012 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 32 of 209 (657653)
03-29-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
03-29-2012 4:23 PM


Not really, but there's a big difference in these approaches:
I agree, but the difference seems to be less the term "Atheist" and more the inclusion of the "lol" and your smarmy artwork.
When I identify myself as an Atheist, I tend not to make such faces, nor do I laugh. In fact, such disclosure bears a striking similarity to when I used to tell people I was Christian, or when I tell people that I work in IT - a simple communication of a fact, unattached from the 4chan-level of discourse you seem to imply.
Why such a caricature from you, I wonder? Do you feel like all Atheists are "shoving it down your throat" every time they identify themselves, or that all Atheists are in fact stupid little 4channers who think they're somehow better than you?
Certainly your representation describes no Atheist I've ever met.
That's why I think its a good idea for you people (the ones here doing the reclaiming), to just find a better word to describe yourselves.
But I couldn't care less about "reclaiming" a word. It's not "our" word, nor is it "your" word or "their" word. It's a word. In English. It has a definition meaning "one who does not have any belief in gods." When I identify myself as an Atheist, I feel exactly the same as when I identify myself as male - the term describes one true aspect about me, and that's all.
People have irrational connotations associated with all sorts of words. We have stereotypes for men, for women, for police, for IT workers, for Whites, Blacks, Asians, Chrisitans, Democrats, and just about any other "tribe." I don't see the point in trying to change the word - the word isn't the problem, it's just a word. The problem is the irrational thought that adds additional, inaccurate information to the word.
I'm an Atheist, because I have no belief in gods and that's what the word means. I'm male, because I identify as male and have a Y chromosome, and that's what the word means. Why all the semantic games to avoid a word that accurately describes a group of people when used by people who are at least slightly sane and have an IQ above 70?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2012 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2012 10:16 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 33 of 209 (657661)
03-29-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
03-29-2012 3:21 PM


Heathen vs. Atheist
To me, "heathen" connotes an adherent of the wrong religion rather than an adherent of no religion.
I think that's about right.
I read some of the comments of the source page that resulted in the Athiest Manifesto topic. There one or more people said something along the lines of: "A heathen is someone who recognizes the existence of a god, but chooses not to be a follower of that god". Kind of a variation of the above quoted.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 03-29-2012 3:21 PM ringo has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 209 (657691)
03-29-2012 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rahvin
03-29-2012 5:47 PM


I agree, but the difference seems to be less the term "Atheist" and more the inclusion of the "lol" and your smarmy artwork.
Sort of... but its both.
When I identify myself as an Atheist, I tend not to make such faces, nor do I laugh. In fact, such disclosure bears a striking similarity to when I used to tell people I was Christian, or when I tell people that I work in IT - a simple communication of a fact, unattached from the 4chan-level of discourse you seem to imply.
Why such a caricature from you, I wonder? Do you feel like all Atheists are "shoving it down your throat" every time they identify themselves, or that all Atheists are in fact stupid little 4channers who think they're somehow better than you?
I'm saying that I'm seeing more stupid little 4channers joining the "Athiest Tribe" than I am from your kind, and that it'd be a better idea for you to seperate yourselves from them. Its becomming more popular, the tribes growing... I didn't think your kind would be so eager to join up. I've noticed an interesting correlation; that the more rational position goes with the more rational behavior; the /b/tards tend toward the strong atheist position, while the other side is reclaiming the title towards a more agnostic position.
The Heathen thing is just another tribe. It even admits that its like a religion.
But I couldn't care less about "reclaiming" a word. It's not "our" word, nor is it "your" word or "their" word. It's a word.
It belongs to the people who self-identify as/with it.
In English. It has a definition meaning "one who does not have any belief in gods." When I identify myself as an Atheist, I feel exactly the same as when I identify myself as male - the term describes one true aspect about me, and that's all.
Males... now that's a good tribe to be in. And we could judge them by their behavior.
People have irrational connotations associated with all sorts of words. We have stereotypes for men, for women, for police, for IT workers, for Whites, Blacks, Asians, Chrisitans, Democrats, and just about any other "tribe." I don't see the point in trying to change the word - the word isn't the problem, it's just a word. The problem is the irrational thought that adds additional, inaccurate information to the word.
The tribe is going to be judged by the behavior of those that identify as it. More so from the loudest and most adamant.
I'm an Atheist, because I have no belief in gods and that's what the word means. I'm male, because I identify as male and have a Y chromosome, and that's what the word means. Why all the semantic games to avoid a word that accurately describes a group of people when used by people who are at least slightly sane and have an IQ above 70?
Because you want to identiy with a tribe, and make sure other are judging it accurately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 03-29-2012 5:47 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 209 (657701)
03-30-2012 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
03-28-2012 12:46 PM


I'm a Revert!
Taq writes:
It has been suggested that the title "Atheist" has a negative connotation, so much so that we need to come up with a new name to describe those that do not have a positive belief in any gods.
Non-theists. People who aren't communists are non-communists.
Here in Europe, theists have actually become a minority, and there doesn't seem to be a need for a special word to describe what we all are at birth, and what the majority (in Europe) will continue to be for life. Theists, feudalists, capitalists and communists aren't born, they are made.
Belief is an active thing, and non-belief is always the default and the original position. If something like monotheism becomes prevalent in a society, as it still is in the U.S.A., then there's often a tendency to get things back to front, so the non-monotheists are seen as active. As many (most) non-theists from such societies have had to de-program themselves, they can often incorrectly perceive themselves as "converting" to "atheism" rather than "reverting" to it, which is actually what they've done.
For political groups, there are terms like "secularists" (not necessarily non-theists, of course) for those who promote a secular society, and "humanists" for those who have a definable moral philosophy.
Perhaps the strong critics of religion need a term that goes beyond "secularist". People certainly shouldn't use "atheist" for that, as self-described atheists are actually divided on the question of whether or not religion does more harm than good in the world.
As for use of words like "heathen", "heritic", and "infidel", none of them actually technically describe non-believers, but they're all fun to use ironically.
What about "reverts"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 03-28-2012 12:46 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 03-30-2012 6:51 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 03-30-2012 10:34 AM bluegenes has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 36 of 209 (657713)
03-30-2012 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluegenes
03-30-2012 3:25 AM


Religion-Free
I tend to use the term religion-free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 03-30-2012 3:25 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Kairyu
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 162
From: netherlands
Joined: 06-23-2010


Message 37 of 209 (657715)
03-30-2012 7:02 AM


naturalist?
Not all atheists are one, but I think naturalist would be a rather important sub-term. And since many open atheists, who would care about their label, also hold their naturalistic views in high regard, as they also tend to argue against ghosts and the like, it might be of use as a positive term.

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 209 (657716)
03-30-2012 7:12 AM


Non-Stamp Collector
I'm a non-stamp collector. I really don't care about other non-stamp collectors who don't collect stamps. I'm not interested in forming any non-stamp collecting organizations either.
I wonder what that would say about an orginization of non-stamp collectors having a march...to promote their non-stamp collecting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Granny Magda, posted 03-30-2012 7:23 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2012 4:02 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(8)
Message 39 of 209 (657718)
03-30-2012 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Chuck77
03-30-2012 7:12 AM


Re: Non-Stamp Collector
Hi Chuck,
I wonder what that would say about an orginization of non-stamp collectors having a march...to promote their non-stamp collecting.
But of course, no one ever killed anybody because they collected the wrong type of stamps. No-one was ever ostracised from their community because they didn't like stamp-collecting. No-one ever tried to justify misogyny by reference to their favourite stamps. No government gives special decision-making powers to stamp-collectors. No-one ever suggested that stamp-collectors should be exept from tax. It is entirely possible to imagine a non-stamp-collector being elected PotUS, because no-one cares whether the president collects stamps or not. No-one ever tried to sabotage science education and replace it with loopy stories about stamps.
Get the picture?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Chuck77, posted 03-30-2012 7:12 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 03-30-2012 3:06 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 209 (657736)
03-30-2012 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluegenes
03-30-2012 3:25 AM


Re: I'm a Revert!
What about "reverts"?
Part of Islamic dogma is that one is born a Muslim. Therefore anyone that 'converts' to Islam is technically reverting and are commonly called 'reverts'. So yeah, the term is already in use I'm afraid.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 03-30-2012 3:25 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 03-30-2012 12:41 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 41 of 209 (657759)
03-30-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
03-28-2012 12:46 PM


"Bright" seems a bit too egotistic to me..
How about 'non-theist'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 03-28-2012 12:46 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 3:01 PM ramoss has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 42 of 209 (657769)
03-30-2012 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
03-30-2012 10:34 AM


Re: I'm a Revert!
Modulous writes:
Part of Islamic dogma is that one is born a Muslim. Therefore anyone that 'converts' to Islam is technically reverting and are commonly called 'reverts'. So yeah, the term is already in use I'm afraid.
I know. And the claim has sometimes been made by Christians, as well. That's the whole point. I'm right, they're wrong. It's testable.
If the Muslims want to fight for the name, they need to support their claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 03-30-2012 10:34 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 43 of 209 (657799)
03-30-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ramoss
03-30-2012 11:57 AM


"Bright" seems a bit too egotistic to me..
I completely agree. I started with the more provocative ones to get things moving along.
At the same time, aren't many theistic positions even more egotistical? Think about it for a moment. People actually believe that this entire universe was made for them. We live on one tiny planet that circles one star out of hundreds of millions in a galaxy that is one of billions. Not only that, but the creator of this vast universe actually cares about their day to day struggles and foibles. Did you touch yourself in lust today? The creator of the universe seems to want to know.
In light of this, how is it egotistical to state that nature is completely indifferent to our existence, that our existence hangs by the slimmest of shreds. The only thing looking out for our good will is ourselves, and the purpose we find in life is something that we must also provide. We are alone as a species. Because of this, we should structure a society that is equitable to everyone and that our future lies in understanding how nature works.
Frankly, I think the Brights position is much less egotistical in comparison.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ramoss, posted 03-30-2012 11:57 AM ramoss has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 44 of 209 (657803)
03-30-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Granny Magda
03-30-2012 7:23 AM


Re: Non-Stamp Collector
Granny Magda writes:
But of course, no one ever killed anybody because they collected the wrong type of stamps.
So how do you respond to a stamp collector who claims that non-stamp-collecting is just another hobby?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Granny Magda, posted 03-30-2012 7:23 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-30-2012 3:41 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 03-31-2012 9:49 AM ringo has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 209 (657804)
03-30-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
03-30-2012 3:06 PM


Re: Non-Stamp Collector
So how do you respond to a stamp collector who claims that non-stamp-collecting is just another hobby?
I dunno, but here's what not to do:
Join up with all your non-stamp-collecting buddies to make non-stamp-collecting groups with non-stamp-collecting websites and then be very vocal to everybody that you don't collect stamps and its not really a hobby.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 03-30-2012 3:06 PM ringo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024