An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

"None." 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!". 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 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.

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. 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?

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

Sort of... but its both. 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. It belongs to the people who self-identify as/with it. Males... now that's a good tribe to be in. And we could judge them by their behavior. The tribe is going to be judged by the behavior of those that identify as it. More so from the loudest and most adamant. Because you want to identiy with a tribe, and make sure other are judging it accurately.

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"?

I tend to use the term religion-free.

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.

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.

Hi Chuck, 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.