Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by S.A.M., Dec 21, 2007.
What is the politically correct term for those who do not believe in God?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
But why must there be a label that describes what someone isn't or doesn't believe in?
What's the politically correct term for someone who doesn't play golf?
What about someone who isn't a racist?
What's the politically correct label that we can use to describe those who don't eat peanut butter and banana sandwiches?
I'm just asking.
What if it is an irrational person who does not believe in God?
Then they're irrational. But their belief or lack of belief in a god isn't the cause. Lack of god belief is a symptom of rational thought. I'm sure there are other ways people arrive at a lack of belief or disbelief in gods.
An irrational rationalist?
Why do unbelievers object to being called unbelievers?
An irrational rationalist? Hahahah!
That just made my day. Thanks, I'm off for now.
No. An irrational unbeliever.
Neither of you seemed to read what I wrote above. My lack of belief in gods arises from rational thought. Others might arrive at a lack of belief or a disbelief of gods for other reasons that may not be rational.
Please read, think and comprehend before making assumptions. It makes you look less silly.
Ah so a politcally correct term for all a******* is derived from how you arrive at your beliefs?
And why do unbelievers object to being described as unbelievers?
I couldn't say, since I'm not one who makes that objection. Perhaps you should ask one. I once believed in many things and now I no longer believe. In the strict, linguistic sense of the word, that makes me an unbeliever. I've undone my previous irrational conclusions.
I guess one of the last places you would expect to encounter a person who doesn't play golf is on a forum discussing golf
I guess one of the last things you would expect to see is people rallying together to strengthen their conviction by expressing different issues why they don't eat peanut butter (usually by pointing out the shortcomings of those who do)
somehow it seems you have glossed over a few issues
I agree with you. To me it seems semantics, since I have heard the term unbeliever associated with the term nigger and it makes no sense to me.
Somehow it seems that you've continued to remain true to form and make absolutely no sense at all. This is why I rarely read your posts... I actually thought I was reading S.A.M. and thought to myself, "this is unusually condescending and intellectually deficient for her" and I was hoping I hadn't offended her with a previous comment. Then I looked up as I was beginning to reply and noticed your screen name.
I'm relieved it wasn't S.A.M. or even Kadark, both of which generally make far more sense.
I guess I will have to concentrate more on reciprocating with your finer qualities
I should have added - one of the last places you would least expect to encounter a person who doesn't play golf is as a moderator on a forum that discusses golf
What, does this forum censor the word "atheist"?
Bceause "unbeliever" implies something about how the person has arrived at their state of beliefs.
From the theist perspective, calling someone an "unbeliever" can imply 'defiant despite better knowledge', 'aimlessly hypercritical', 'deliberately evil'. Having such things implied about oneself is not comfortable, to say the least.
From the atheist perspective, calling someone (or oneself) an "unbeliever" can imply 'rational and depending solely on reason', 'knowing better than the believers'.
But in both cases, the implications are such as if the speaker would be omniscient and perfect.
The more neutral term for what is usually meant by "atheist", is "non-theist".
It doesn't solve all the problems with connotations, though.
"Non-theist" is also the term I prefer to use.
This is not the whole story, mind you.
I'll explain what I mean by using the triade smoker - ex-smoker - non-smoker -
Someone who was once a smoker, but gave up smoking, is at first an ex-smoker. Given enough time and effort, the person will become a non-smoker.
The ex-smoker still thinks they are missing something when they don't smoke, missing something that is in some way (positive or negative) important to them. The ex-smoker still craves the smoking.
The non-smoker doesn't crave smoking anymore.
But like I said - it can take the ex-smoker a lot of time and effort to become a non-smoker.
And also, the transformation isn't simply linear; that is, a person can have times when they are best described as non-smoker, but then revert back to ex-smoker, and then back to non-smoker. This switching can go on for years, especially if the person's sense of self is somehow built around smoking or in relation to it. E.g. if smoking was their main way to relax, then giving up smoking will challenge them to find new ways to relax - which isn't always easy, and can be connected to a lot of other issues (like how open to new things the person is, how much time they have, how much they can afford financially etc.).
Similarly, there is the triade theist - ex-theist - non-theist.
Many people who identify themselves as "atheists" and talk a lot about theism, atheism and related issues, are actually ex-theists.
An ex-theist's worldview and sense of self are still built around theism, albeit in the manner of opposing theism, but in structure and function still quite the same as theism.
To go from ex-theist to non-theist requires a complete overhaul of the person's worldview and sense of self. Which is no easy task.
I know what you mean
when I was an atheist it would never cross my mind to even begin discussing anything (anti-) theological
what business do you think a non-theist has on rallying to their cause or participating in a discussion of theistic values/practices?
When I am in my most non-theist mode, my desire is to diffuse the hostility between the theists and ex-theists, to get them both to have compassion for themselves. I'm saying compassion for themselves, mind you.
Many theist as well as atheist/ex-theist arguments are made by people in anger and hostility, directed against the other party, but also directed against the person themselves.
Many theist as well as atheist/ex-theist arguments require a certain self-hatred if a person is to hold to those arguments.
And this can't be the right way to proceed.
That seems to be the nature of argument in general
Separate names with a comma.