An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

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.So, what should it be, or is Atheist just fine?Some suggest using the term Heathen. IMHO, this has even more baggage than Atheist, although the term has fallen out of common usage.Another possibility is Brights. Although this isn't strictly Atheism, it does come very close. The Brights Movement is defined as

quote:

---

1. Promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such people.
Brights movement - Wikipedia

---

There is more than just a lack of belief tied to the Brights, but it comes very close.We could also come up with our own term and see if it increases in usage. I, for one, would lean towards "Normals". It's a bit snarky, but then aren't we atheists all a bit snarky? What about Neo-Atheist?What do you guys think?

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that it is theists who are actively rebranding what atheism stands for. Theists are deciding what atheism means, and that definition often differs from what actual atheists believe and do not believe. Atheists have been redefined as a cabal of goat sacrificing demons who are planning the destruction of western civilization.As others have stated, atheism does not always indicate a definite belief in the non-exstence of deities. Even us atheists bend backwards and forwards with terms such as strong and weak atheism in an attempt to fit ourselves into how others are trying to define us.The question is should we start to define ourselves and force others to fit their views into our definitions? Perhaps. I offered Brights and Normals as provocative and snarky examples. Probably not the best road to take. However, I did like Percy's offerings such as unbeliever and skeptic. These terms can actually be starting points for a more productive conversation between atheists and theists. For example, you could say that we are both unbelievers in Zeus, or that we are both skeptical of Bigfoot. Finding common ground may be better than using a term loaded with preconceptions.

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 really comes down to semantics. This is where we separate evidenced beliefs from faith based beliefs. Religious belief is based on faith where there is no evidence. Scientists use evidence to arrive at conclusions which is the opposite of how religion works. Using a definition of belief that covers both religion and science is a copout as well. Like many of us have said, you are free to hold whatever belief you want.If someone arrives at the belief that the Hindu pantheon really does exist after a lifetime of study, mediation, introspection, and life experiences would you feel compelled to believe in the Hindu pantheon as well? If not, then why should atheists feel compelled to believe in your deity for the same reason?

I would think that very few people who refer to themselves as atheists are going to confessional and taking communion "just in case".If a 1,000 foot Zeus came down out of the sky and threw lightning at your feet would you believe in the existence of Zeus? I would think that you would, as would I. Does this mean that you are hedging your bet? No. It is just a very simple admission that if strong evidence is presented for a claim that you will accept the claim as true. That is not hedging your bet. That is being reasonable.

In the same way that we admit that there may be leprechauns. Surely you are not so dogmatic that you would claim, with absolute knowledge, that there are no leprechauns. However, I doubt you also spend time worrying that there are leprechauns. The same for atheists and your deity. It is not hedging. It is merely an admission that our knowledge will always be imperfect. Agnostics are atheists. Agnostics do not have a positive belief in any deity. They claim that one can not attain knowledge of the supernatural (a--without, gnost--knowledge). Many of us have argued that agnosticism is the halfway house for those who have just become atheists. Due to a lifetime of fearing atheism the word "atheism" it is much more palatable to be an agnostic. For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

"That is unknowable" would be the agnostic position, would it not?

In message 71 you stated: It would appear that study, mediation, instrospection, and life experiences are not acceptable to you, either. That is a bit like trying to analyze the golf swing of a non-golfer. Atheism is defined by a LACK OF belief. "Atheist beliefs" is an oxymoron.

In message 71 you stated the following:"Yes, it is I the theist, who after study, mediation, introspection and life experiences does come to a belief.
Is that something the atheist cannot accept?"In return, I asked this question in message 82:"If someone arrives at the belief that the Hindu pantheon really does exist after a lifetime of study, mediation, introspection, and life experiences would you feel compelled to believe in the Hindu pantheon as well?"Your answer in message 97 was "No".So it would seem that a lifetime of study, mediation (meditation?), introspection, and life experiences is not acceptable to you, either. No, it isn't. I have yet to see any evidence of the supernatural, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do think that if there is a supernatural realm someone should have found evidence of it by now, but I am not going to dogmatically rule out the possibility that the supernatural does exist.

You are missing the point. The same sort of claims that you make about God would not convince you that Vishnu exists. We are saying that you have a double standard.

I agree. What I am replying to is his question:"Yes, it is I the theist, who after study, mediation, introspection and life experiences does come to a belief.
Is that something the atheist cannot accept?"When that method arrives at a god that shadow71 does not believe in he does not accept it. That is the point I was trying to make. It goes back to the famous Stephen Roberts quote:"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."I am merely phrasing it in a way that is more accessible to shadow71.

I think you answered your own question.From you in message 71:"Yes, it is I the theist, who after study, mediation, introspection and life experiences does come to a belief.
Is that something the atheist cannot accept?"

Can you accept the fact that after study, introspection, and life experiences that someone can come to a belief in the Hindu pantheon?

I like that one a lot, but it doesn't roll of the tongue.

That is the atheist position as well, so you already have a good understanding of it. Your view of the Hindu pantheon is the same view we have of your beliefs in your God.Would you call yourself an Ahinduist? Or an Azeusist? Isn't it kind of strange to define yourself by deities you don't believe in?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.