An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

If I know that X is a dog then I know that X isn't a cat.If I know that the Earth is millions of years old (albeit tentatively) then I know (albeit tentatively) that it isn't less than a week old.Do you actually dispute these statements?Because at the moment you are in the bewilderingly nonsensical position of saying that you know that the Earth is millions of years old whilst maintaining complete ignorance as to whether it is less than a week old.Which is absurd. What are you talking about? This is about knowledge and the logical consequences of knowledge.If you claim complete ignorance as to whether or not the Earth is less than a week old you logically cannot simultaneously claim to know that life on Earth evolved over millions of years can you?Yet here you are doing exactly that. I cannot know for certain but I consider the existence of gods very unlikely.If you want to get technical my position is that it is far more likely that all gods/fairies/Leprechauns/Etc. are products of human psychology than real entities. Relative likelihood, evidenced conclusions more likely to be correct than un-evidenced ones, induction etc. etc.But frankly the subtleties of relative likelihood are going to be lost on you if you cannot even cope with the idea that knowledge of one thing happening necessarily equates to knowledge that a mutually exclusive alternative hasn't.How can you deny this? It's simply inarguable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This has merit. For example, people do identify themselves as non-smokers and non-drinkers. Perhaps I went overboard on this point.At the same time, I think it would be difficult to find a common belief amongst non-smokers and non-drinkers outside of their shared aversion of these activities. Atheism tends to run into the same "problem".

The "problem" is not with the terminology, which remains accurate. "Atheist" describes one's position on the existence of gods, but does not for example describe one's position on national politics or the color blue or whether the Earth is flat.The problem is that people have the insane tendency to try to describe others (though not usually themselves and rarely people they know well and interact with frequently) with single terms, as if a single word could encapsulate all of what describes a person.Our knowledge of others, especially those we don't know well, is limited, yet our brains try to describe others just as completely based on that small amount of information as if we knew the person well.It's like the cognitive fault that causes us to attribute the actions of others to enduring personality traits, while attributing our own actions to circumstances. If you see a coworker storming around looking all angry, you'll instinctually label him an "angry person," even though (unbeknownst to you) some asshole backed into his car and drove off an hour ago; your coworker is angry because his car was damaged, and anyone would be angry about that.I'm an atheist, and that term accurately describes my position on whether or not gods exist...but I'm a complete person, and my position on whether gods exist or not does not define in totality who I am, just as a person who self-identifies as "Christian" cannot be defined totally by that particular allegiance.

Sure, it's possible for somebody who started out as an atheist to have confirmation bias. But I'm talking about somebody like me, who started out in a theistic family in a highly theistic society.If you and I used a similar method to arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions, doesn't it seem likely that either the method is flawed or that one of us is using it wrong?

That seems to be the question the OP is asking. Not trying to be rude but I really don't care.

On the positive side, hopefully you have a better understanding of what non-believers really think. Part of the reason for finding a new name for atheists is to break away from old stereotypes and preconceptions. I don't know if this is a good reason or not (hence the thread), but it is at least worth discussing.

A friend of the Bah' faith writes: I wonder if the Bah' faith has any opinions on which of the world's religions have gotten the message. --Percy

weird i thought for sure you'd have a snarcky comeback rather than avoiding it altogether

Not sure what you're talking about. You were commenting about religion as cultural backdrop and concluded with a rhetorical question about the Bah' faith. I was just offering information about Bah' from someone of that faith.--Percy

it wasn't rhetorical

We atheists certainly disturb some religious people, but I'd hesitate to use that word to describe them all.

Okay, choose your own term, but absent further clarification your question is rendered moot because as my Bah' friend pointed out, "all the religions as one religion" is "oversimplifying the concept quite a bit."If you're asking about the Bah' faith as a cultural backdrop, I'm afraid I don't know enough about them to have an opinion. I wasn't trying to answer your question, just provide more accurate information about Bah'.--Percy

There comes a time when I really don't care what non-believers really think. Why should I worry about a non-believer who recites anti-believer statements such as Sagan that all believers are delusional. Who the hell cares. I will believe what I know in my heart is true. You will call me delusional.
Will it ever end.?

Here are some psych-talk style approaches to relabeling "atheist"...Theistically uninhibited
Rationally focused
Evidence dependent
Belief challenged
Sense obsessedI might like to be called "deity free", except it sounds a little smug (but not nearly as bad as "bright"). From many believers' points of view, the very concept of atheism is smug anyway.The biggest problem I have with the label "atheist" is that I hate being painted with such a broad brush. If you call yourself "Christian", you can refine yourself a little further by naming your denomination, church, how often you go, etc. You can't say much about your worldview with "atheist". Whether atheist or Christian, you might have a very different worldview than the next guy in your group, with little in common beyond your (non-)belief in god(s).Renaming atheists seems like a losing game, but maybe the term can be refined by spinning off a sect, so to speak: The "anti-theists". One of the worst things about self-identifying as atheist is that I'm sometimes associated with the militant, God-hating, head-up-the-ass variety - the fundamentalists. I haven't met many, but they can be just as obnoxious as the Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone crowd. I'd like to distance myself from them, in the same way that I'm sure some Christians want to disavow their kookier cults.It would be nice to make a further linguistic split between gnostic/agnostic atheists (atheist/nontheist?), but I don't see it happening, except by some whim of culture.Edited by glowby, : typo: missing word

Indeed. This has all happened before and it will happen again.Yesterday, BBC America's rerun of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica (BSG), what James Edward Olmos and the critics called "the best use of TV because of the stories." That statement ("It has all happened before ...") was a leitmotif carried throughout. At the end, when, 150,000 years in our past, they finally arrive to settle on our Earth (not the Earth of their own legend, which had annihilated itself 2000 years prior in a war between organics and robots, echoed by the Twelve Colonies then-present struggle), they had come to a decision to break the cycle, to make peace with the surviving Cylons and allow each other to go their separate ways. Cut to our present-day New York City and two observers' conversation ("Head-Six" and "Head-Baltar"; if you are unfamiliar with the series, I could not explain it here) comparing what they saw with Caprica and Kobold and wonder whether it will all happen again, as the series ends to the tune of a more familiar cover of "The Cylon Song" playing over videos of our current robotic creations, including ones trying to appear ever more human.Even if you are not a sci-fi fan, one of the functions of that genre is to explore key human and political and cultural issues removed from their real-life context. We call it "science fiction" because science is usually involved (worked for Isaac Asimov, whose father thought that it would teach him about science), while in German it's usually "Zukunftsromane" ("future novels"), though "Mglichkeitsromane" ("possibility novels") has also been used. Through Star Trek: TOS ("The Original Series", or "The Old Show"), Gene Roddenberry presented morality plays through which a myriad of issues could be explored and examined without being loaded down by all our cultural baggage. Not the least of which (repeatedly) was what it meant to be human. A question further explored by and through BSG's Cylon "skin jobs."So do humans and Cylons continue to hate and distrust each other for eternity? Or as the anti-human ("annihilate them all!") Number Three expressed it, so long as they allowed any humans to survive, those humans would raise their children to hate Cylons and a few hundred years later humans would return to try to annihilate the Cylons, so the Cylons need to annihilate the humans first. Or, as after the Cylon Civil War, do humans and Cylons learn to trust each other and to work together? OBTW, in BSG, humans were polytheistic whereas Cylons were monotheistic.Or to quote a signature I encountered years ago:

quote:

---

Those who fail to learn the lessons of science fiction are doomed to live them.

---

So then, you ask: So what are our choices? And how will we choose? Will we learn the lessons of science fiction? Or are we doomed to live them?We can let the same thing happen over and over and over and over again. This has all happened before and it will happen again. You do not understand what non-believers think and you do not care. Non-believers do not understand what believers think and they do not care. Far worse, both sides imagine how the other side thinks and what they imagine is a direct threat, a clear and present danger, to themselves. So whatever aggression we commit against the other side is justified, because we are fighting for our very survival!This has all happened before and it will happen again.And the cycle will continue to repeat until we decide to break it!The only way to break the cycle is for both sides to understand each other. Something that you have just come out declaring that you will not do! So your choice is to allow the cycle to continue to repeat itself. Your side has absolutely no idea how non-believers think, nor what they believe. Of course, that does not stop you from making wildly false, idiotic proclamations about what non-believers think and believe and do. Wildly false, idiotic proclamations that prove beyond a doubt to non-believers that you are all a pack of fracking idiots. And non-believers see very clearly how you pack of fracking idiots (duly demonstrated and proven as per immediately above) are zealously trying to seize political power to force your idiocy (again, duly demonstrated and proven as per immediately above) on everybody else.And, uh, just what is it that you believers imagine to be the threat that non-believers pose to you? That they want people to stop and actually think? Or simply that they do not agree with you? I'm sorry, but until you honestly tell us just exactly what your problem with non-believers is, then we have nothing to work with. Oh yeah! That's right! It's all in your fevered and paranoid imagination! Which, of course, leaves us normals shocked and bewildered at your inexplicable paranoid reaction to our very existence.The cycle already exists. Believers see non-believers as some kind of thoroughly evil, even Satanic, enemies intent on the absolutely destruction of everything that is Good. Non-believers see believers as a pack of fracking idiots lost irreparably in delusion. This has all happened before and it will happen again.But if we were to break that cycle! Believers will understand non-believers for what they actually are. And non-believers will understand what believers' fears are. And both sides can eventually come to understand that the other side does not pose the danger that they imagine -- OK, you fracking believers do, in the USA, continue to pose a very real danger to America and The Constitution, and may we loyal Americans be able to keep you away from that power.Shadow71, Taq expressed the hope of greater understanding between the two sides. You rejected that. I would hope that you reconsider your ill-considered choice.