The term atheist.

[Dayman]

Why do my fellow non believers even use this term anymore? I've noticed this in my experience: If someone asks me what my religion is, and I say I'm an atheist, well it seems to me if I don't get a neutral response its definitely in the negative. Never outright mean mind you - but I've gotten condescending responses. But, if I say I have no religion - the response is far more positive. It seems atheist has a pretty negative connotation to it. I do not describe myself as such, as it is only one component of my personal philosophy and does not define it as a whole.

Opinions?

[Kiljan Arslan]

well talk to Hitchens about why you get the negative response.

[Dayman]

well talk to Hitchens about why you get the negative response.

I like Hitchens. Everyone likes to see the other side decimated once in a while!

Sam Harris highlighted this nicely.

Sam Harris kind of influenced my idea to do that. However I don't think we need to put ourselves in a category, at all.

Sam Harris? You mean that guy who says torturing enemies is perfectly acceptable in war time?

And? So anything he says is tainted?

[Miraj]

Sam Harris highlighted this nicely.

[Miraj]

Yeah, him. Nice try to derail the thread though. (reported for off topic posting)

[The Good]

Boeing, just use the term non-religious to describe yourself. It's a simple substitute for the term atheist.

[Dayman]

Boeing, just use the term non-religious to describe yourself. It's a simple substitute for the term atheist.

That's what I'm arguing for.

[Gwendylyn]

No religion simply means that you may or may not believe in god, or that you follow no organized religion. It lets people fill in the blank with whatever they want, and for some that means allowing them to believe that atheists don't exist or continue characterizing them as gay satanists who hate christmas.

Negative backlash against the term atheist is sort of like the backlash from saying "I'm a feminist."

Huge negative association with the term which leads to people making assumptions about your beliefs above and beyond the actual definition of the term. Atheist means godless sinner with no moral compass (instead of "doesn't believe in any god") and feminist means lesbian man-hater (instead of "believes in social/political equality between genders").

Couldn't think of another example off the top of my head.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Look what I'm saying is that the works of people like Hitchens, and Harris have more then anything hurt atheists.

[Dayman]

No religion simply means that you may or may not believe in god, or that you follow no organized religion. It lets people fill in the blank with whatever they want.

Well if they delve deeper they would learn. If I state that I hold atheistic thoughts then I'm a "godless sinner with no moral compass".

Look what I'm saying is that the works of people like Hitchens, and Harris have more then anything hurt atheists.

They've helped spark debate which in my mind is the best thing possible.

[Kiljan Arslan]

What they've done is make the public think atheists are a bunch of angry people who are intolerant of others beliefs.

Gwendolyn you mentioned Feminism, heres a good example there Atheisms equivalent of Andrea Dworkin and the rest of the Radical Feminists. (To this day a common caricature of a feminist is a husky angry women, which is what mrs Dworkin was.)

[Dayman]

What they've done is make the public think atheists are a bunch of angry people who are intolerant of others beliefs.

Not one of them are intolerant of other's beliefs.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Yeah really when Mr Hitchens feels happy to attack all religion. And Harris castigates Moderastes.

Theres also the fact that Hitchens implies that any extremist in the Knesset must be a rabi. To me showing a hatred of religion. I must admit I do feel sorry for him, that he must hate so. Plus for the lung cancer.

[chriscase]

There may be some validity in the accusation that atheists are "intolerant", but what does this really mean?

If the Christian God exists, He exists for everyone. And, if He doesn't, he doesn't for anyone. It's not really a question that can ultimately be compromised on. What most deists mean when they say atheists are "intolerant" is that we are not willing to weaken our argument by becoming agnostics. If I say I am not religious, I make no assertion about my estimation of the likelihood that the Christian God exists, so I make to impositions on others' comfort zone. If we are relaxing at a cocktail party, I have no need to do so. But if we are talking turkey, I don't think the Christian God exists, which means I think Christians are wrong, wrong, wrong. And somehow, that bugs them

[Pontifex Maximus]

Why do my fellow non believers even use this term anymore? I've noticed this in my experience: If someone asks me what my religion is, and I say I'm an atheist, well it seems to me if I don't get a neutral response its definitely in the negative.

Sure, because that immediately tells the person that you do not believe in God, hence they can't convert you.

Never outright mean mind you - but I've gotten condescending responses. But, if I say I have no religion - the response is far more positive.

Yes of course. You have not offended the person by indirectly implying 'Your God doesn't exist', and this statement does not mean that you don't believe in God, but a religion at the moment. This means you might just be in the hunt for a church.

Opinions?

Well, damn, I don't even know what to call myself. A prisoner of the establishment maybe?

[Kiljan Arslan]

Actually there isn't the majority of Atheist I have encountered really just don't like it when the religious types get all self righteous. Also tend not to care about religion. Its just that the more extreme the idea the bigger it will sell. Thats why Hitchens and Harris sell so well.

[Dayman]

I wouldn't call them extreme. Hitchens is very brusque but Harris...I wouldn't call him extreme.

What's funny is that out of the "big 4" (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens) Hitchens, even if given the capability to remove all religion from the world would not do so. (because he loves arguing! ). On Richard Dawkins' site there is a video called "the four horsemen" which has all 4 of them sitting down, with there guards down talking about various issues. It really shows that they're just normal people who have happened to speak up about things.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Yes and yet just look at that nice video of Bill Moyers has a nice sit down chat with none other than Reverend Wright. Did Reverend Wright seem like a normal person there? To me a normal person is Stephen Jay Gould, or Carl Sagan.(Well normal when it came to being a hell of a lot more tolerant.)

[Dayman]

They were talking about religion though. When they aren't being attacked by theists they're reasonable people.

[Bond]

Why do my fellow non believers even use this term anymore? I've noticed this in my experience: If someone asks me what my religion is, and I say I'm an atheist, well it seems to me if I don't get a neutral response its definitely in the negative. Never outright mean mind you - but I've gotten condescending responses. But, if I say I have no religion - the response is far more positive. It seems atheist has a pretty negative connotation to it. I do not describe myself as such, as it is only one component of my personal philosophy and does not define it as a whole.

Opinions?

because "non-religious" to me is a PC word used to avoid a conflict that really shouldn't even come up(IE - respecting other ppls beliefs and what not), and im not about to hide my beliefs to just to avoid a situation.

though i'm slowly getting into Buddhism and will soon consider myself one..pretty sure ppl won't have a problem with that :p