Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm about 1/4 of the way into THE ATHEIST MANIFESTO by Michael Onfray, and something he said in here hit me right between the eyes. He merely pointed out that religion is so pervasive in society that at least in English, there is no way to describe not having a religion without referring to religion, "atheist" literally meaning "without a belief in God." From there the ground slopes away sharply and people starts assuming you have no sense of right and wrong, that's you're a menace to society or that you (gasp) worship the WRONG god (in their opinion). There is no way, he says, to describe a person's way of looking at the meaning of life without referring to religion. I'm not sure that's 100% true -- "spiritual" is a less loaded term, "philosophical" less loaded still -- but he's definitely correct that there's no term for not having a religion at all that doesn't translate literally as "godless." There's no simple term that means "free of religious claptrap" or "blissfully unsuperstitious" or "thinks for her own self, thank you very much."
I'm skulling for other terms that might describe someone who thinks without using religion as a framework, and the only ones I can come up with are "scientific" or Ayn Rand's "objectivist," but not everyone without a religion is scientific, for sure, and "objectivist" doesn't apply to that many people.
What terminology do you like? (If any!) What would you suggest people use?
Freethinker is nice, though when I first encountered the term, it had a sort of improvisational feel to it I thought, like free-form skating or something, which is not what it's about. It speaks to the unshackling of the mind from rigid forms (not just religious either), in favor of free inquiry, which means your thinking is not defined in terms of what you don't believe in, but what you believe in -- following evidence where it leads, dealing in reality, rational argument, etc.
Humanist is somewhere in between, a word that has negative connotations (usually as "secular humanist"), though arguably not as intense as those for atheism. Atheism is a very narrow concept that says only that you don't believe in one thing (deities); humanism is a sort of ideology similar to a religion that is godless, freethinking is at least in principle untethered from both.
For some reason though it just doesn't catch on. Would everyone here want to lobby to change this from "atheism and agnosticism" to "free-thinking" and move it from religion to philosophy? I might ... but don't know if it's a battle I'd pick. One of the big outside-the-box thoughts that free-thought enables is that there's no evidence for deities, and then you're right back where you started.
It's sort of like how people of color have embraced a series of labels for themselves, each one in preference to some bigoted or hateful term, but later discarded as itself bigoted and hateful. It's like an infinite regress. The correct term was once Negro and now that is almost like the N-word before it. I don't know that I want that sort of tail-chasing for unbelievers.
I have no issue with the term "atheist" - without god. I will freely refer to myself as an atheist in the same way as I will say I am without hepatitis. There are many people who are Hep A, Hep B, or Hep C. I am Hep Negative. Simply saying "I'm healthy" just doesn't seem to get to the point.
I'm about 1/4 of the way into THE ATHEIST MANIFESTO by Michael Onfray, and something he said in here hit me right between the eyes. He merely pointed out that religion is so pervasive in society that at least in English, there is no way to describe not having a religion without referring to religion, "atheist" literally meaning "without a belief in God." From there the ground slopes away sharply and people starts assuming you have no sense of right and wrong, that's you're a menace to society or that you (gasp) worship the WRONG god (in their opinion). There is no way, he says, to describe a person's way of looking at the meaning of life without referring to religion. I'm not sure that's 100% true -- "spiritual" is a less loaded term, "philosophical" less loaded still -- but he's definitely correct that there's no term for not having a religion at all that doesn't translate literally as "godless." There's no simple term that means "free of religious claptrap" or "blissfully unsuperstitious" or "thinks for her own self, thank you very much."
I'm skulling for other terms that might describe someone who thinks without using religion as a framework, and the only ones I can come up with are "scientific" or Ayn Rand's "objectivist," but not everyone without a religion is scientific, for sure, and "objectivist" doesn't apply to that many people.
What terminology do you like? (If any!) What would you suggest people use?
I suggest continuing to use the term atheist, if for no other reason than that it is already the perfect term to describe the concept. The fact that there are so many people out there who are too stupid, too rigid and dogmatic, and just too plain narrowminded to understand the meaning of it - and to have a conversation without redefining it to suit their ignorant mindset - is not my problem. It's theirs.
I see no reason to dumb down my vocabulary piece by piece until we finally got a to a point where they can actually have a conversation on roughly equal terms as the grownups. If they're not bright enough to hold their own, let them sit in the corner watching cartoons or playing with "Jesus riding a velociraptor" coloring books.
I'm skulling for other terms that might describe someone who thinks without using religion as a framework, and the only ones I can come up with are "scientific" or Ayn Rand's "objectivist," but not everyone without a religion is scientific, for sure, and "objectivist" doesn't apply to that many people.
What terminology do you like? (If any!) What would you suggest people use?
But subscribing to a naturalist view does not conflict with being atheist.
As mordant noted, there are many terms throughout history that get all kinds of baggage attached to them. Atheist is one of those words, as is materialist.
I'm comfortable owning the label of atheist, which simply requires a lack of belief in the gods that theists proclaim. And that's partly because I refuse to let the ignorance & mischaracterization of theists turn it into some sort of dirty word...or synonym for "immorality". Because when you run from terms, especially appropriately defined terms, you'll never stop running from the new terms. So I may as well take the stand on the word that best describes my position, even if cognitively dissonant people want to suggest otherwise.
I'm about 1/4 of the way into THE ATHEIST MANIFESTO by Michael Onfray, and something he said in here hit me right between the eyes. He merely pointed out that religion is so pervasive in society that at least in English, there is no way to describe not having a religion without referring to religion, "atheist" literally meaning "without a belief in God." From there the ground slopes away sharply and people starts assuming you have no sense of right and wrong, that's you're a menace to society or that you (gasp) worship the WRONG god (in their opinion). There is no way, he says, to describe a person's way of looking at the meaning of life without referring to religion. I'm not sure that's 100% true -- "spiritual" is a less loaded term, "philosophical" less loaded still -- but he's definitely correct that there's no term for not having a religion at all that doesn't translate literally as "godless." There's no simple term that means "free of religious claptrap" or "blissfully unsuperstitious" or "thinks for her own self, thank you very much."
I'm skulling for other terms that might describe someone who thinks without using religion as a framework, and the only ones I can come up with are "scientific" or Ayn Rand's "objectivist," but not everyone without a religion is scientific, for sure, and "objectivist" doesn't apply to that many people.
What terminology do you like? (If any!) What would you suggest people use?
Depends on what you want. If you are anti religion then call yourself an anti-religion person. In fact one can believe and be anti-religion. One can be atheist and not fear religion at all. "free thinker " is dumb. Some atheist what to ignore facts and have you think the way they do or you are wrong. That's not allowing nobody to free think.
Just think how you think. labels limit you, they are not "free". I am atheist by definition. I had a normal childhood so I have no axe against religion per say. But religion should have no more say in politics then lobby lawyers do. Together they have royally screwed the pooch.
Observation based conclusions foo me. I wish the method had another name. maybe we should work on that.
I'm comfortable owning the label of atheist, which simply requires a lack of belief in the gods that theists proclaim. And that's partly because I refuse to let the ignorance & mischaracterization of theists turn it into some sort of dirty word...or synonym for "immorality". Because when you run from terms, especially appropriately defined terms, you'll never stop running from the new terms. So I may as well take the stand on the word that best describes my position, even if cognitively dissonant people want to suggest otherwise.
^^^ This.
You can't control labeling, it is human nature to (mis)classify things. In another thread this came up and I contrasted the infinite regress problem that people of color have encountered trying to define new labels for themselves over and over, vs the gay community simply embracing the label qu__r. When I first realized they were doing that I honestly cringed. I thought it was a public relations disaster. But really it is running to the roar. It's a sort of mental jiu jitsu. Make qu__r unprintable / unusable like the n-word (to an extent it already is, you can't actually spell it out here) and soon enough people will find a way around it, usually by co-opting the term you prefer and transforming it into an even worse pejorative.
So if hypothetically we picked a term like 'naturalist' or 'freethinker' and transformed ourselves from a sub-forum of religion & spirituality to a sub-forum of philosophy ... all that debating and lobbying and hue and cry for weeks or months would accomplish just what exactly? Would we be less deliberately mischaracterized and stereotyped? The most you could say is "maybe, for awhile". And then some Christian blogger would go viral with a post about the new atheist conspiracy to hide behind the deceptive new label and it would all be over.
Yes, "rationalist" or "empiricist" are decent labels as well.
Theism is still by and large opposed to both, though. Openly so in many cases. The wisdom of god is foolishness to man. Do not be deceived by mere human wisdom. Be like little children. Etc.
So here again ... rational argument ends up most visibly opposed to faith, which is its polar opposite. One has an evidence requirement, one not only doesn't have one, but disparages it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
