Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Livonya]

I don't like calling myself an atheist as I think it is sort of an offensive word.

I don't believe in the supernatural.  I don't believe in ghosts, demons, dragons, orcs, fairies, megabeasts, elves, or god.

I simply don't believe in the supernatural.

There isn't a term to define people that don't believe in the supernatural.  So why must there be a term for those that don't believe in god(s)?

The fact is that every single person that has posted in this thread is an atheist in one way or another.

Human beings have believed in thousands of different gods and deities.  I doubt that any of you believe in all of those different gods and deities that history has forgotten.

The disbelief in the supernatural is the norm, not the exception.

Even people that believe in the supernatural don't believe in every single supernatural idea.  Instead, people pick and choose.  I believe in my god, but not in (insert whatever).

The fact that I don't believe in god doesn't make me any more of an atheist than the typical religious person.  The only difference between us is like 1%.  I don't believe in 100% of supernatural ideas, and they don't believe in 99% of supernatural ideas.  Not much of a difference in my opinion.

[Pwnzerfaust]

I don't like calling myself an atheist as I think it is sort of an offensive word.

Atheist simply means "no god" or "without god". How can that be construed as offensive? I wear the moniker proudly.

[Spreggo]

I'm a Goudist. We believe that the Great Gouda transcended the realm of worldly dairy products.

[Livonya]

I don't like calling myself an atheist as I think it is sort of an offensive word.

Atheist simply means "no god" or "without god". How can that be construed as offensive? I wear the moniker proudly.

The burden of proof should be on the person that believes in the supernatural, not the other way around.

Generally when someone calls you an atheist it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, or to single you out as being different.  You become the other... the atheist.  Different.

Disbelief in the supernatural is the norm.

[Pwnzerfaust]

I don't like calling myself an atheist as I think it is sort of an offensive word.

Atheist simply means "no god" or "without god". How can that be construed as offensive? I wear the moniker proudly.

The burden of proof should be on the person that believes in the supernatural, not the other way around.

Generally when someone calls you an atheist it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, or to single you out as being different.  You become the other... the atheist.  Different.

Disbelief in the supernatural is the norm.

There's different senses of atheism, too. There's strong atheism, and weak atheism. Strong atheism essentially asserts "there is no god". Weak atheism, however, simply says, "I do not believe there is a god". I suppose weak atheism could technically be called agnosticism, but I myself prefer atheism, since, due to the total lack of evidence for a god, I live my life as though there isn't one.

[Andir]

I don't like calling myself an atheist as I think it is sort of an offensive word.

Atheist simply means "no god" or "without god". How can that be construed as offensive? I wear the moniker proudly.

The burden of proof should be on the person that believes in the supernatural, not the other way around.

Generally when someone calls you an atheist it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, or to single you out as being different.  You become the other... the atheist.  Different.

Disbelief in the supernatural is the norm.

I think you are taking other people's opinions too seriously.  You are an Atheist and a Realist.  You are an Atheist because you don't believe in gods and you are a Realist that takes the world as it is and deals with what they have.  The definition of a Realist is a little shifty and can technically be a "cop out" because it's technically: "a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it accordingly."  By that definition, if you found out that there was a god, you would just accept and deal with it.  That's where I am.  I don't believe that there is one, until it's proven to me.  I fall closer to the firm Atheist in that there is zero evidence of a higher being and therefore my feeling right now is that there is none.  This could also be construed as "ignorance" if taken the wrong way, but it's the facts of life that I deal with, not ideas on how we came to be or where we are going.  It's "fun" to think about, but I'd never change my life because of the fantasy until it became reality.  To me, religion is akin to someone dedicating their life to Harry Potter or Eric Cartman.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

*i cant believe i am posting in this thread again

i think Andir gets it most right.  Some people believe in God.  Some people need proof to believe in God.  These two POV's can in no way be reconciled.  They are each others anti-thesis.  When they debate each other its irrational, because, by definition, their reasonings are polar opposites.

Then there are agnostics, who wont are afraid to cant decide which group is right, so they follow whichever has more traction in their daily enviroment, moving back and forth as needs must suit.  You see politicians doing this all the time on many many many subjects.

i have said it before and i will say it again.  If you believe, believe with all your heart and ACT accordingly.  If you do not believe, then also ACT accordingly.  God has no time for anyone else.
Rev 3:15-16 (NIV) "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. "
God just seems to want people to live up to their own conviction

[Starver]

*i cant believe i am posting in this thread again

Ditto

Then there are agnostics, who wont are afraid to cant decide which group is right, so they follow whichever has more traction in their daily enviroment, moving back and forth as needs must suit.

Strongly agnostic people might be fervent preachers that there is no way to know if there's a God or not, and at the other end might be those that you describe.

(I'm probably fairly strongly agnostic, by that measure, as well as weakly atheist, almost entirely apatheist and various other distinctions that I wouldn't bore you with again...)

[RAM]

Strong and weak are somewhat volatile and non-specific terms...

[Neruz]

If you mean Strong\Weak Atheism\Agnosticism, then actually the terms are quite clearly defined and very specific. Wikipedia has the definitions, indeed it has special pages devote to them (small pages, but pages none the less.)

[Muz]

If you mean Strong\Weak Atheism\Agnosticism, then actually the terms are quite clearly defined and very specific. Wikipedia has the definitions, indeed it has special pages devote to them (small pages, but pages none the less.)

Lol, someone should've mentioned that before all the speeches on defining atheism in this thread. It made me wonder though.. if Theology is the study of stuff related to theism, what is the study of stuff related to atheism? Philosophy?

[Neruz]

Well Theology is the study of God, Athiests declare that there is no God, so the study of no God would still fall under the study of God (since if you study the absense of something you are technically studying the thing) and thus would be part of Theology.

Alternately, you could call it Atheology, although that's more antagonism to Theology rather than study of Atheism.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I think I found a description that fits, actually. Apathetic non-theism, I think. I don't believe in the supernatural, but I'm honestly not too fussed whether it does or doesn't.

[Andir]

Athiests declare that there is no God, so the study of no God

Not really.  A statement or a conclusion is not really a study.  If we are using the keyword study, that would be like saying that anyone that read the Constitution is a Constitutionalists or anyone that read Mein Kampf is a Fascist.  Maybe those aren't the best examples, but hopefully you get my point.

To be an anti-theist, you'd have to purposefully spend your life trying to prove that God doesn't exist, but an Atheist simply lives their life without a god or "godly" studies.

[Neruz]

Athiests declare that there is no God, so the study of no God

Not really.  A statement or a conclusion is not really a study.  If we are using the keyword study, that would be like saying that anyone that read the Constitution is a Constitutionalists or anyone that read Mein Kampf is a Fascist.  Maybe those aren't the best examples, but hopefully you get my point.

To be an anti-theist, you'd have to purposefully spend your life trying to prove that God doesn't exist, but an Atheist simply lives their life without a god or "godly" studies.

In which case they're erroniously terming themselves Atheists.

Strong Atheism (which is what most people think of when they say "Atheism) is the rejection of Theism. You're not just living without Theism, you are actively rejecting it from your life.