Is "atheism" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?

[Humes fork]

"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle." - Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

"My fourth consciousness-raiser is atheist pride. Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Do you think "atheism" is a conceot that should ideally be redundant, or is it a label to claim with pride?

[Rasmus]

Both.

It should be redundant. It isn't.

It's a bit like literacy: Ideally, everyone should be able to read and write - those who aren't today are in the minority and it is perceived as a problem.

It wasn't always like this - and still isn't like that everywhere, I guess - but even where it's not and where it wasn't, it should be.

[Lowpro]

Eh, I echo Sam's sentiment, though to say "I'm an atheist" is a REALLY fast, understood (usually) way to communicate that "I don't think God(s) exist"

As for a matter of pride, there's no objective way to feel pride as it's subjective enough; if you enjoy the knowledge you have, and it happens to be under the subscription of atheism, enjoy it (You might as well; life doesn't do well to those who dislike themselves).

[Complexity]

Getting back to being an atheist after being religious for twenty years was a hard battle that I'm proud to have won.

[Ray Brady]

I look at the label "atheist" as being kind of like the label "non-dog". It's true that I don't believe in gods. It's also true that I'm not a dog. I don't believe either trait defines me very well.

[Bram Kaandorp]

Getting back to being an atheist after being religious for twenty years was a hard battle that I'm proud to have won.

See, that's the difference. Not everyone had to fight to become an atheist.

I came to not being a theist by incremental steps, none of which were very extreme in and of themselves. It didn't feel like a struggle either.

So in that regard, I don't feel that I can be proud of it. It doesn't feel like an accomplishment, just a change.

I'm very happy with it, and I wouldn't want it any other way, but that's about it.

[lionking]

Another poorly designed poll. It's perfectly reasonable to say "I'm an atheist, I don't claim it with pride, but i don't think the word is redundant".

[Humes fork]

I look at the label "atheist" as being kind of like the label "non-dog". It's true that I don't believe in gods. It's also true that I'm not a dog. I don't believe either trait defines me very well.

A dog can't become a human, and human can't become a dog. A theist can become an atheist, an atheist can become a theist.

Another poorly designed poll. It's perfectly reasonable to say "I'm an atheist, I don't claim it with pride, but i don't think the word is redundant".

The option didn't say that the word is redundant, the options said it should be redundant.

[lionking]

The option didn't say that the word is redundant, the options said it should be redundant.

No difference. There's still the excluded middle.

[Robrob]

I look at the label "atheist" as being kind of like the label "non-dog". It's true that I don't believe in gods. It's also true that I'm not a dog. I don't believe either trait defines me very well.

We live in a world comprised primarily of dogs, that's the only reason it's pertinent to have a term such as "atheist."

[Gawdzilla]

I'm an atheist because it expresses my attitude toward religion. All else is claptrap.

[Agatha]

As long as there are theists, the word atheist will not be redundant.

[Complexity]

As long as there are theists, the word atheist will not be redundant.


And notice that she didn't say "gods".

(they don't exist, you see)

[Ron_Tomkins]

"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle." - Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

"My fourth consciousness-raiser is atheist pride. Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Do you think "atheism" is a conceot that should ideally be redundant, or is it a label to claim with pride?

Once, a Theist person approached a non Theist person and asked him/her something in the lines of "What about you? What God do you believe in?", to which the non Theist said something in the lines of "None". Thus, the term "Atheist" was born.

[Mudcat]

Once, a Theist person approached a non Theist person and asked him/her something in the lines of "What about you? What God do you believe in?", to which the non Theist said something in the lines of "None". Thus, the term "Atheist" was born.

Um... I think you look that up again, it was originally coined to describe a certain sect of monotheists.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I look at the label "atheist" as being kind of like the label "non-dog". It's true that I don't believe in gods. It's also true that I'm not a dog. I don't believe either trait defines me very well.

Phoowee. "On the Internet no one knows if you are a dog".

[Ron_Tomkins]

Um... I think you look that up again, it was originally coined to describe a certain sect of monotheists.

Huh?

Where does it say that? Cause I did look it up and it says pretty clear:

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.[

[Dinwar]

Invertebrates, outgroups, cold, dark....we have many, many labels for things that exist only as the absence of some other trait. The label "atheist" is entirely appropriate in this light--one who does not believe in gods.

As for a mark of pride, I don't understand how it CAN be. Atheism is the opposite of theism. Just as no one would say theism is a religion, or is a badge of honor (though they may say individual theistic doctrines are), we can't say that atheism is. One can be an atheist for completely irrational reasons, just as one can arrive at theism logically (before the flame war starts, what I mean is that logic processes data--if you have bad data, perfect logic will lead to the wrong conclusion).

Rational atheism is a conclusion that one reaches after examining the data. I feel no more pride in being an atheist than I do knowing that the Tylerhorse Deposits of the Antelope Valley are of Quaternary age. They're true, and I know it. That's as far as I can go. If there's any pride to be had, it's in arriving at my conclusions via a rational process--the conclusions themselves are what they are.

[Complexity]

Another poorly designed poll. It's perfectly reasonable to say "I'm an atheist, I don't claim it with pride, but i don't think the word is redundant".


I have to agree. This is similar to asking "Is this green or is it furry?"

Also, where are the 57 varieties of atheist/agnostic?

[Wolfman]

I think it is entirely redundant, and counterproductive.

Consider: people don't generally identify themselves as "theists"...they identify themselves by the specific form of theism they subscribe to (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc.). The reason for this is simple: "theist" tells you only that they believe in some kind of god or gods, but nothing else beyond that; whereas a more specific description of their specific theological designation tells me more about what they actually believe.

I'm perhaps coming from a fairly unique perspective as an atheist born in a western nation, as my entire life in Canada was as a fundamentalist Christian, and my entire atheist life has been lived in a country (China) where atheism is the norm. In fact, just as in Canada no theists identify themselves as theists, in China almost no atheists identify themselves as atheists...it is, truly, considered redundant.

Why define myself to others by what I don't believe in? I'd far rather define myself by what I do believe in. I'm a Humanist, so there are specific moral/ethical values that I subscribe to. I'm a rationalist, and a critical thinker.

On my rare visits back to Canada and the U.S., I've tried an experiment. When meeting religious people for the first time, I'll describe myself variously as an atheist, and as a Humanist. When I take the former approach, the response is generally along the lines of "Why don't you believe in god?"; when I take the latter approach, the response is generally along the lines of "What do Humanists believe?" or "Why are you a Humanist?" To me, the latter response is far, far more conducive to positive, meaningful discussion than the former.

When I describe myself as a Humanist, I am describing myself as belonging to a community of people who's shared values and beliefs are, for the most part, similar to my own. We all believe in the value of human rights, democracy, rational thinking, secular leadership, etc. When I describe myself as an atheist, by contrast, I'm identifying myself as belonging to a group that includes people who's values and beliefs are, in some cases, 100% opposed and contrary to those that I hold to be important. Hard-line Communists; social darwinists; and the many, many atheists who despite rejecting god, hold to beliefs that are ludicrous and irrational (belief in homeopathy, belief in Traditional Chinese Medicine, etc.).

I understand why atheists in some western countries tend to build a group identity simply as atheists...but I think it is a sign of immaturity (either of individuals, or of the movement as a whole). And I look forward to the day when, like China, identity as an atheist doesn't really mean much...but rather identity linked to the actual values and beliefs that you hold.

[David Swidler]

I'm not an atheist, but the mere existence of atheists is something I welcome.

[Gawdzilla]

"Is "being blue-eyed" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?"

"Is "ginger" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?"

"Is "Native of Minnesota" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?"

"Is "southpaw" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?"

Burning questions, all.

[Denver]

I look at the label "atheist" as being kind of like the label "non-dog". It's true that I don't believe in gods. It's also true that I'm not a dog. I don't believe either trait defines me very well.

I'm an atheist because it expresses my attitude toward religion. All else is claptrap.


...
As for a mark of pride, I don't understand how it CAN be. Atheism is the opposite of theism. Just as no one would say theism is a religion, or is a badge of honor (though they may say individual theistic doctrines are), we can't say that atheism is. One can be an atheist for completely irrational reasons, just as one can arrive at theism logically (before the flame war starts, what I mean is that logic processes data--if you have bad data, perfect logic will lead to the wrong conclusion).

Rational atheism is a conclusion that one reaches after examining the data. I feel no more pride in being an atheist than I do knowing that the Tylerhorse Deposits of the Antelope Valley are of Quaternary age. They're true, and I know it. That's as far as I can go. If there's any pride to be had, it's in arriving at my conclusions via a rational process--the conclusions themselves are what they are.

The label atheist, like the word christian, can carry a lot baggage beyond it's more pure dictionary meaning. For example, christian can mean someone who cares for the poor and tries to love their neighbor, while atheist then, being its opposite, can mean someone who is selfish and anti-social. Or that atheists are critical thinkers and so christians are not. I am not saying this is true of course, just that, given the slop of definitions around these words, those meanings can emerge. For reasons like that, I don't really favor such simple labels that can 1) trivialize my life to others as just a conclusion, and 2) encourage others (or myself) to put up walls to discussion and understanding in places where we really could use more dialog.


I think it is entirely redundant, and counterproductive.

...Why define myself to others by what I don't believe in? I'd far rather define myself by what I do believe in. I'm a Humanist, so there are specific moral/ethical values that I subscribe to. I'm a rationalist, and a critical thinker.

To me this is the crux of the matter: what use does the label actual have in my life. I suppose there are reasons (and maybe good ones) to label oneself an atheist with pride. I don't much care what a person believes or says they believe (or don't): I care about what they actually do.

If I knew a person in real life that resisted proper medical treatment because of their religious perspective (assuming there was not some immediate emergency where I thought I should call 911), and I felt I should try to convince them of their error, I would not think of myself as doing it because I was an atheist, or present that as the label from which I am arguing. If I wanted to convince them that it is ok, even moral, to seek medical care, then instead of engaging in a discussion of whether or not god exists, I might instead try to discuss how much they think, given all the religious edicts and interpretations in the world, what percentage they think is actually god's will, and how much is stuck in there as man's will. I don't need to convince them that the ratio is 0-100, to have a positive effect in someone's life, or at least to open an ongoing dialog that might not be possible if I instead tried it from the label (and the baggage) of the word atheist.

[dafydd]

"Is "being blue-eyed" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?"

"Is "ginger" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?"

"Is "Native of Minnesota" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?"

"Is "southpaw" a badge of pride or something that should be redundant?"

Burning questions, all.

Do you know what 'ginger' is in Britain?

[Complexity]

Do you know what 'ginger' is in Britain?


Having red hair?

[Dinwar]

The label atheist, like the word christian, can carry a lot baggage beyond it's more pure dictionary meaning. For example, christian can mean someone who cares for the poor and tries to love their neighbor, while atheist then, being its opposite, can mean someone who is selfish and anti-social. Or that atheists are critical thinkers and so christians are not. I can certainly see where you're coming from, and considered that argument as I was typing. The thing is, all the positive aspects attributed to atheism are more properly attributed to rationality, and there are numerous irrational atheists. I mean, Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were both atheists--it sort of illustrates the diversity of the group. The issue is that we need to educate people about that, so that we lose the baggage.

To me this is the crux of the matter: what use does the label actual have in my life. There is one use I can think of: convincing people that atheists aren't bad. Helps to remove the stigma against us, which takes care of your first objection to the label by, ironically, accepting the label.

[Complexity]

There is one use I can think of: convincing people that atheists aren't bad. Helps to remove the stigma against us, which takes care of your first objection to the label by, ironically, accepting the label.


This is the reason that many gays began to the use word 'queer' to describe ourselves - to take back a word that was used by haters and to make it our own, an act of in-your-face defiance. I think that doing so weakened the perjorative value of the word.

[dafydd]

Do you know what 'ginger' is in Britain?

That is one meaning, but if it is applied to a man it usually means ginger beer, queer. Rhyming slang.

[Bram Kaandorp]

I can certainly see where you're coming from, and considered that argument as I was typing. The thing is, all the positive aspects attributed to atheism are more properly attributed to rationality, and there are numerous irrational atheists. I mean, Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were both atheists--it sort of illustrates the diversity of the group. The issue is that we need to educate people about that, so that we lose the baggage.

There is one use I can think of: convincing people that atheists aren't bad. Helps to remove the stigma against us, which takes care of your first objection to the label by, ironically, accepting the label.

I find it mildly funny when I read some post by a Cristian (or other theist) along the lines of;

"Look at all the horrific crimes perpetrated by atheists throughout history. Do you really want to be associated with that?"

Of course, if you say the same to them, they can simply say that those crimes weren't perpetrated by their form of theism.

See, if Christians specifically, and believers in general, disagree with the acts perpetrated by people of their faith, they can disavow that person as "not a real Christian", or they can just cause a schism and start a new denomination, severing all ties with the one they leave, thus not having the baggage of the atrocities any more.

We atheists can't do that, since we aren't an organised group.

And nor should we. We can disassociate ourselves from someone far more easily, namely by saying "I don't care if he's a theist or an atheist, if he does good I like him, if he does bad I don't."

Don't you think it's strange that someone is disassociated with a belief if he/she commits atrocities, but when an atheist does something bad, theists assume that we associate with that? (not all theists, but that's obvious)

[Complexity]

That is one meaning, but if it is applied to a man it usually means ginger beer, queer. Rhyming slang.


I was suspecting that was mixed in there somewhere.

Cool. Now I'm ginger, too.

(and I really like ginger (thinking of the ginger root, here))

[Gawdzilla]

Do you know what 'ginger' is in Britain?

I'm Irish descent.

[dafydd]

I was suspecting that was mixed in there somewhere.

Cool. Now I'm ginger, too.

(and I really like ginger (thinking of the ginger root, here))

The term is applied to women too

http://www.gingerbeer.co.uk/

[Ron_Tomkins]

Anything can be worn as a badge of pride.
Some people are proud to be Irish, or American.

But really, anything can be worn as a badge of pride.
Thus, it's not about the thing itself. It's about the plasticity of the human ego.

[lionking]

I was suspecting that was mixed in there somewhere.

Cool. Now I'm ginger, too.

(and I really like ginger (thinking of the ginger root, here))

You know what root means in Australia, don't you? :)

[dafydd]

You know what root means in Australia, don't you? :)

There's no end to this, is there? :)

[epix]

Do you think "atheism" is a conceot that should ideally be redundant, or is it a label to claim with pride?
This is seemingly off topic, but it supports the keen observation that the atheists are indeed very proud people. Who did the observation? Actually it's a sad time to ask: the former president of Czech Republic - one of the most atheist countries in Europe - died today.

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders hailed on Sunday late former Czech President Vaclav Havel as a humble hero whose resistance to Communism helped bring about a united and free Europe.

The leader of the "Velvet Revolution" that toppled Communist rule in Czechoslovakia, a former chain smoker who survived several operations for lung cancer, died at 75 in his country home north of Prague.

Political leaders praised Havel as an inspiration against tyranny worldwide while intellectuals mourned the bookish and shy former playwright who loved jazz and theatre.

http://news.yahoo.com/world-pays-tribute-great-european-havel-153842527.html

The whole country of Czech Republic is already dressed in black.
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/

It was back in 2000 when Vaclav Havel mentioned during his speech the pride of the atheists while attending a conference:

However, the most dangerous aspect of this global atheistic civilisation is its pride. The pride of someone who is driven by the very logic of his wealth to stop respecting the contribution of nature and our forebears, to stop respecting it on principle and respect it only as a further potential source of profit.

http://www.forum2000.cz/en/projects/forum-2000-conferences/2010/speeches/remarks-by-vaclav-havel-at-the-opening-ceremony/

Well, he kinda didn't like them atheists. Actually, he couldn't stand them.

RIP

[Dinwar]

This is the reason that many gays began to the use word 'queer' to describe ourselves - to take back a word that was used by haters and to make it our own, an act of in-your-face defiance. I think that doing so weakened the perjorative value of the word. Yankees and Rebels, the whole donkey/elephant thing...There's more but I can't think of them just now. There's a long history of people doing exactly that--take a perjorative and turn it into a rallying cry.

This is seemingly off topic, but it supports the keen observation that the atheists are indeed very proud people.You sure you want to bring up pride as a bad thing? Based on what some dead guy said? Something THAT stupid? You have fun with that. First off, I believe pride is a good thing--pride in knowing one's value and living up to one's potential. Second, it's insane to think that all atheists are in it for the money--Dawkins advocates altruism, which is fundamentally contrary to profits (one of the few points OWS and the Objectivists agree on), so that argument is trivially false. Third, who CARES what he thinks about atheism? His statements aren't any kind of evidence. Finally, doesn't Catholicism have that whole remove-the-plank-from-your-own-eye thing? Seems like good advice in this case. Just a thought.

[Minoosh]

I mean, Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were both atheists--it sort of illustrates the diversity of the group.

I'm a minority here as I don't call myself an atheist. But from what I know of Ayn Rand, the world view she espoused amounted to a religion. And in China, it seems the Mao era also amounted to religion. What do you call it when one's world view is based more on ideology than on evidence? That seems to apply a kind of faith to me.

I'm pretty sure Mao was an atheist, but he certainly didn't discourage people from thinking of him as a god. State worship seems like a variety of idolatry to me, and except for the degree of supernatural mojo purported, I'm not really sure what separates it from religion. Well, I guess the question is, does religion have to be supernatural. There is actually a Church of Reality!

[Dinwar]

But from what I know of Ayn Rand, the world view she espoused amounted to a religion. Yeah, that's a common belief. Mostly I've found it's based on complete misunderstandings of Rand's philosophy and third-hand information from sources with obvious biases. And even if you believe that Objectivism is a religion, it's one without a god (and before someone says Rand is their god, Leonard Peikoff, the closest thing to an authority on Objectivism since Rand's death, has pointed out cases where Rand was wrong), so the argument that she was in fact an atheist still stands.

And in China, it seems the Mao era also amounted to religion. Never said that Communism amounted to atheism--I said Karl Marx was an atheist. Mostly based on the whole "Religion is the opiate of the masses" thing. I don't want to get into a discussion of the various flavors of Communism; my point was merely that these two 1) hold opposing viewpoints, to the point where each viewed the other's ideas as evil, and 2) were atheists, in that neither believed in a god.

Well, I guess the question is, does religion have to be supernatural. Not really--the question is, does calling something a religion have anything to do with whether its members are atheistic? If not, than it doesn't matter whether you call something a religion or not--the members or founders can still be atheists.

[Kid Eager]

irrelevant poll. Perhaps I should create a poll asking for opinions on whether irrelevant polls should be responded to....

[Stomatopoda]

I don't think it's irrelevant, as it's used to distinguish from a common human trait, but I don't feel that it should be something to be proud of. I'm not proud of being an atheist for the same reason that I'm not proud of being able to tie my shoes or wipe myself. I pity those who can't do such trivial things.

[lionking]

irrelevant poll. Perhaps I should create a poll asking for opinions on whether irrelevant polls should be responded to....

Lionking's Law:

When Planet X (or Other), leads the voting, it's a crap poll.

[epix]

You sure you want to bring up pride as a bad thing? Based on what some dead guy said? Something THAT stupid?

When someone dies, then his or hers opinions are effectively not taken into account any more. :rolleyes: And what else is to learn from the Atheist Scriptures?

Second, it's insane to think that all atheists are in it for the money--Dawkins advocates altruism, which is fundamentally contrary to profits (one of the few points OWS and the Objectivists agree on), so that argument is trivially false.
Lol. Are you so misguided-naive? Dawkins has been lying and making things up for profit continuously. But he is so pathetically entangled in his lies like no one else in his sorrowful league. Dawkins advocates altruism and at the same time he attacks Christianity as one of the worst idea that mankind has come across, but he doesn't double-check.

Christianity

Altruism was central to the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospel especially in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain.


I'm kind of doubtful that Dawkins would be that super-dumb. Maybe there is altruism and there is altruism. Which case does Dawkins really "advocate?"


Dawkins has consistently been sceptical about non-adaptive processes in evolution (such as spandrels, described by Gould and Lewontin)[30] and about selection at levels "above" that of the gene.[31] He is particularly sceptical about the practical possibility or importance of group selection as a basis for understanding altruism.[32] This behaviour appears at first to be an evolutionary paradox, since helping others costs precious resources and decreases one's own fitness. Previously, many had interpreted this as an aspect of group selection: individuals were doing what was best for the survival of the population or species as a whole, and not specifically for themselves. British evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton had used the gene-centred view to explain altruism in terms of inclusive fitness and kin selection − that individuals behave altruistically toward their close relatives, who share many of their own genes.[33][a] Similarly, Robert Trivers, thinking in terms of the gene-centred model, developed the theory of reciprocal altruism, whereby one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future reciprocation.[34] Dawkins popularised these ideas in The Selfish Gene, and developed them in his own work.[35]


Now it's your turn to support your claim about the human altruism.

[Tricky]

There seems to be a derail occurring about whether certain countries/regimes are/were athiest, and that may well deserve it's own thread (or search for one already created.) Please keep this one on topic as to whether a person individually should take pride in atheism.

[Lamuella]

it's neither something to say with pride nor something to be redundant. I lack a belief that other people have. I think they are mistaken in their belief. It's probably good that there's a term to describe this.

[Brattus]

I'm not sure if "pride" is the word I would choose to describe my atheism.

BUT!

I do know the roasted baby flesh sure taste guuuuuud!!!!!!!!

[truethat]

I used to think that it was redundant and agree with Sam Harris, we don't call ourselves anti astrologists for example when we don't believe in astrology.

However I find that many atheists themselves lack critical thinking skills and especially on this site I have to really point out that I am an aggressive atheist. Like super duper point it out because any discussion is considered a covert attempt to push god belief or something.

There is a big difference in saying "I don't believe in God" and saying "I believe there is no such thing as any god, or ever will be."

[Multivac]

Both.

It should be be as redundant as the term aphilatelist but, while people still spout religious nonsense, the term is required to distinguish betwen the religious and non-religious.

[Gawdzilla]

Both.

It should be be as redundant as the term aphilatelist but, while people still spout religious nonsense, the term is required to distinguish betwen the religious and non-religious.

Deluded and non-deluded, I think.

[Multivac]

When someone dies, then his or hers opinions are effectively not taken into account any more. :rolleyes: And what else is to learn from the Atheist Scriptures?

there are no Atheistic Scriptures.

Lol. Are you so misguided-naive? Dawkins has been lying and making things up for profit continuously. But he is so pathetically entangled in his lies like no one else in his sorrowful league. Dawkins advocates altruism and at the same time he attacks Christianity as one of the worst idea that mankind has come across, but he doesn't double-check.

Do you have any proof for this bizarre claim?

I'm kind of doubtful that Dawkins would be that super-dumb. Maybe there is altruism and there is altruism. Which case does Dawkins really "advocate?"

I'm glad you don't think he is super-dumb, as he is smart enough to reject the writings of bronze-age goat shaggers herders talking about an invisible sky-daddy.


Now it's your turn to support your claim about the human altruism.

Why do you think that altruism doesn't exist? Or are you saying that only christians can be altruistic?

[Multivac]

Deluded and non-deluded, I think.

I like that! But christians would say that atheists are deluded.

[Gawdzilla]

I like that! But christians would say that atheists are deluded.

One group believes in the Great Sky Fairy. One doesn't. Next question, please.

[Bram Kaandorp]

One group believes in the Great Sky Fairy. One doesn't. Next question, please.

"Why do you lack the imagination to believe in God?"

But wait, if I have to use my imagination, then isn't that a hint that it's made up?

[Gawdzilla]

"Why do you lack the imagination to believe in God?"

But wait, if I have to use my imagination, then isn't that a hint that it's made up?

I love the imagination argument. "I can imagine that you will come to sanity some day. That should prove my imagination is greater than yours."

[Bram Kaandorp]

I love the imagination argument. "I can imagine that you will come to sanity some day. That should prove my imagination is greater than yours."

Exactly. They're acting as if imagination makes things real.

Which only works in "What the Bleep", and that's only because the makers of that film used their imagination, and not actual scientific fact.

If there is a god, then I don't think that I should have to use my imagination to accept him/her/it, because if I do have to use my imagination, then what's the difference between a real god and just imagining one?

It's exactly the same as "psychic" powers. If psychic powers act in the same way as parlour tricks and stage magic, then why should we have to work with "real" mediums, if anyone can do the same with tricks?

[Gawdzilla]

Exactly. They're acting as if imagination makes things real.

Which only works in "What the Bleep", and that's only because the makers of that film used their imagination, and not actual scientific fact.

If there is a god, then I don't think that I should have to use my imagination to accept him/her/it, because if I do have to use my imagination, then what's the difference between a real god and just imagining one?

It's exactly the same as "psychic" powers. If psychic powers act in the same way as parlour tricks and stage magic, then why should we have to work with "real" mediums, if anyone can do the same with tricks?

"Use your imagination!"

"Keep an open mind!"

"Listen with your heart, not your head."

"Believe what I do or I'll have to kill you."

[blabla]

The term ‘atheism’ was redundant for me till I stepped into the real world at age 18.
Coming from a religion-free upbringing I quickly encountered many people, religious and spiritual alike, trying to infringe on my secular rights.
They actually defined my atheism. Before that, it wasn’t really an issue.

I was lucky enough to have been raised without a religion and have been taught the virtue of independent thinking. I therefore do not feel I can be proud about being an atheist.
I however applaud anybody coming from a strict religious upbringing who, through independent thought, was able to free him/herself from religious dogma. They are the ones who, at least once in a while, can sit back and feel satisfied with themselves.

[Gawdzilla]

Can we have a word for "never been a theist"?

[Psi Baba]

There's no end to this, is there? :)
I like to carry ginger beer in my fanny pack while rooting for my favorite sports team, because I'm an athletic supporter--no, wait. . .

OnTopic (so that Tricky doesn't moderate me ;) )-
Once, a Theist person approached a non Theist person and asked him/her something in the lines of "What about you? What God do you believe in?", to which the non Theist said something in the lines of "None". Thus, the term "Atheist" was born.
This is why I prefer "I am non-theistic" to "I am an atheist." Notice the adjectival form rather than the noun form. The term non-theistic describes your general state of not being theistic, whereas "atheist" has implications of subscribing to a specific philosophy or belief system. OTOH, I like Wolfman's idea of self-identifying as Humanist, but I wonder how often that proclamation is met with, "Oh, so you're an atheist, then."

Can we have a word for "never been a theist"?
HEATHEN!111!11!

[Complexity]

I like that! But christians would say that atheists are deluded.


Just another thing that they are wrong about.

[Humes fork]

I think it is entirely redundant, and counterproductive.

Consider: people don't generally identify themselves as "theists"...they identify themselves by the specific form of theism they subscribe to (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc.). The reason for this is simple: "theist" tells you only that they believe in some kind of god or gods, but nothing else beyond that; whereas a more specific description of their specific theological designation tells me more about what they actually believe.

I'm perhaps coming from a fairly unique perspective as an atheist born in a western nation, as my entire life in Canada was as a fundamentalist Christian, and my entire atheist life has been lived in a country (China) where atheism is the norm. In fact, just as in Canada no theists identify themselves as theists, in China almost no atheists identify themselves as atheists...it is, truly, considered redundant.

Why define myself to others by what I don't believe in? I'd far rather define myself by what I do believe in. I'm a Humanist, so there are specific moral/ethical values that I subscribe to. I'm a rationalist, and a critical thinker.

On my rare visits back to Canada and the U.S., I've tried an experiment. When meeting religious people for the first time, I'll describe myself variously as an atheist, and as a Humanist. When I take the former approach, the response is generally along the lines of "Why don't you believe in god?"; when I take the latter approach, the response is generally along the lines of "What do Humanists believe?" or "Why are you a Humanist?" To me, the latter response is far, far more conducive to positive, meaningful discussion than the former.

When I describe myself as a Humanist, I am describing myself as belonging to a community of people who's shared values and beliefs are, for the most part, similar to my own. We all believe in the value of human rights, democracy, rational thinking, secular leadership, etc. When I describe myself as an atheist, by contrast, I'm identifying myself as belonging to a group that includes people who's values and beliefs are, in some cases, 100% opposed and contrary to those that I hold to be important. Hard-line Communists; social darwinists; and the many, many atheists who despite rejecting god, hold to beliefs that are ludicrous and irrational (belief in homeopathy, belief in Traditional Chinese Medicine, etc.).

I understand why atheists in some western countries tend to build a group identity simply as atheists...but I think it is a sign of immaturity (either of individuals, or of the movement as a whole). And I look forward to the day when, like China, identity as an atheist doesn't really mean much...but rather identity linked to the actual values and beliefs that you hold.

I agree with you. Theism is only one extraordinary claim, one among many. And also one of the more infantile ones (CIA and Mossad at least exist). Being an atheist is like being an adragonist.

And I think that in Sweden you'd find very, very few building a group identity around atheism.

There is also a lot of other disagreements between atheists. Some are Objectivists, some believe in an objective morality and whatnot.

[Gawdzilla]

If you don't like the term, don't use.