“Atheist” is not a negative word. In some parts of the English-speaking world, Christianity is so engrained that belief in a god is automatically seen as a moral virtue. In the US, atheists are the single most distrusted religious category (even more so than Muslims). Religious people often make atheists into a bogeyman in their sermons and stories. Some atheists don’t describe themselves as atheists because of how negatively many people react to that word and concept. Describing yourself as “not religious” or “not having a belief in gods” can sound less threatening to some religious people, even if it means exactly the same thing as “atheist”.
It's definitely a regional thing, as you said. In my experience in the US South, to even say someone is "not a Christian" would be seen as an insult. But my wife is from the Northern US, where it's apparently a neutral term. The first time she was talking about someone and said, "He's not a Christian," my response was, "Well, that's not a very nice thing to say, bless his heart." (Ok, I'm not Southern enough to actually pull off a "bless his heart", but we did have a fun linguistic discussion of Northern vs Southern verbal etiquette.)
I could picture someone saying as a compliment, "That fellow from the mosque is a nice Christian man," just as a way of saying he's kind.
Wow, as someone from the northern US, "That fellow from the mosque is a nice Christian man," really does not come off as a compliment to me. I know that using "Christian" as a descriptor for someone having characteristics that Christians value can be seen as complimentary, but "that fellow from the mosque" implies to me that this fellow is Muslim and describing them as "Christian" then willfully ignores their non-Christian faith. An insult instead.
Wild how different regional quirks like that can be and how different cultures (even within the same country) can lead to such different understandings
To be clear, that's an extreme example of the usage, and not something I've ever actually heard! It probably shows my 70s childhood understanding of the world more than anything else, where everyone either went to church or should have, and the only time I heard an Arabic-sounding word was when the Shriners were having an event.
Don't forget, not all ignorance is willful. You don't know what you don't know, until you know enough to find out.
Given how weaponized Christianity has become in the US, there are plenty of places where even calling a Christian a Christian might seem like an insult.
Now that's a funny question. It's "pop", and when I was a kid my favorite was RC Cola. I learned to talk in Eastern Kentucky, a bubble of "pop" (as I learned much much later). Then I lived in coke territory for decades, but retained "pop" as my name for fizzy drinks.
Then I married someone from Michigan - land of Faygo, where calling it "pop" is a badge of pride. I guess we were destined to find each other!
“Not religious” is not synonymous with “atheist”, as it includes many people who believe in God but do not participate in organized religion for whatever reason. Lots of new-agey types and nuanced believers, even Christians, might say they are not religious.
Saying you don’t believe in gods, however, is almost exactly synonymous with atheist, and will avoid the reflexive negative reaction from some people to the term atheist. A particularly annoying believer might say “I don’t believe in gods either, I only believe in God!” But other than that, synonymous.
>“Not religious” is not synonymous with “atheist”
That is correct, but I was only listing that as something some atheists say to avoid saying “I’m an atheist”. All sorts of euphemisms exist that are broader than the thing they are sometimes used as a euphemism for.
Yeah I didn't grow up in a place where one theistic religion take the total dominance. So "atheist" being used in a disapproving manner feels rather strange to me. I guess for a place where Christianity is widely practiced being an atheist is not a very popular option.
I just read an article about that. Especially in the US, only a fraction of people who say in surveys that they don't believe in god identify as atheists, there's such a huge social stigma attached to it.
I agree with this. Also, some religious people completely misunderstand the term. Years ago, I was discussing an old friend with my mom and I mentioned the friend was atheist. My mom replied, “He *worships* the ***devil***?!!?!” because she thought that’s what atheist meant. Obviously that’s not the case.
My mom grew up in a very Christian small town in the southern US.
Yeah, a lot of Christians are raised on sermons about how evil and insidious Atheists and Satanists are, and how they’re exactly the same thing. It’s amazing how much misinformation spreads in some Christian circles with absolutely no-one thinking to Google the wild claims their friends and pastors make.
I think part of it is also a desire to distance oneself from those 'problematic' atheists. We've all met one. Someone who feels the need to loudly and emphatically shit on everybody else's religious beliefs every opportunity they get, as if they're so much smarter than the brainwashed masses and have it all figured out. (Eg; just about every white male stand up comedian.)
I personally identify as atheist. But knowing that THAT is the first image a lot of people tend to think of when they hear the term, makes me hesitate to mention it in casual conversation.
It’s not unacceptable and, as an atheist, I think that if you don’t believe in any god then it just makes sense to call yourself an atheist. That said, I understand where these people are coming from. Often the word is associated with arrogant dirtbags that actively hate religion, treat religious people with contempt, and spend lots of time starting arguments about it, which can be very annoying. Personally I think that instead of dropping the label, more nonbelievers should just call themselves atheists and save the label by acting decently and treating people with respect regardless of their religiosity.
Judging from all the stupid posts on the subs I'm in, it seems more and more people are determined to believe that atheism is a set of beliefs, just like religion. You don't believe in God, you believe in "something else".
Perfectly acceptable to call yourself atheist, but some people just don't want to accept what atheist means.
Yeah I've heard people (who weren't atheist) saying that being an atheist means you "believe" in science and the big bang, and the theory of evolution 😅 Science is facts (that are true at least for now), not a set of beliefs. We don't pray to science 🤣
They have a point. I have faith that the scientific method when performed with thoroughness and rigor will result in a relatively stable model of reality. It's possible there are other ways to reach the same conclusion and I am open to the discussion of revisions to the scientific method if there is a way to improve upon it universally, but something tells me in the back of my mind that that isn't going to happen. Not because it's perfect, but because I have faith that it is sufficient.
It comes with traditions, it comes with a community, it comes with expectations, and it comes with a model for reality. Aside from the inherent qualities of study, how different is accepting the scientific method and all that it has created from accepting a different belief system?
Easy. Science can be proven. Beliefs rely on faith. I don't have faith that gravity exists, I know it does. Until some Quantic physics or something even more advanced comes into play, the current science stays as facts, not beliefs. I wouldn't be converting to a different set of beliefs when that happens, I'll just accept that the current level of science was just a threshold to reach that new level. I don't think any theists would openly admit that there might be a greater god than their god though. Not to mention that the Bible itself mentions other gods (not by name afaik) yet Christians still think there is only one god. And that leads me to my main point, the Bible can be interpreted in various ways (that's why there are so many sub-sects of Christianity), whereas the basics of science are universally agreed upon.
The basics of the scientific method are, I think, universally agreed upon, but the results and implications of experiments and research are often not agreed upon.
The Bible mentions a few “gods” by name (Baal and Ashteroth (sp?) for two) but also calls the God of the Bible the one true God. That could be interpreted either as, that god is the most powerful of all the gods that are running around, or that all the other gods are made up and that one is the only one who isn’t made up.
“Scien[tific facts] can be proven.”
Yes, but to play devil’s advocate (no pun intended haha), “It matters whether or not something can be proven” is, in itself, a belief/view. So, if your worldview includes the belief that “prove-ability” is not very important, science and religion can be seen as similar.
judging by the worst representatives of the group is not very smart, is it? by this logic people will get insulted by me being a man, because there are terrible people who did terrible things and they was same sex as me.
Unfortunately, any people in any group who are acting decent usually go unnoticed because decent behavior does not draw attention. Some shitshow on the other hand, is always more interesting
I'd say for the majority of people it's a neutral term just meaning "doesn't believe in any deity".
Online, there is such a thing as the "reddit atheist" stereotype. These people are more anti-theist than atheist and you'll see them pop up in comment threads saying things like "invisible sky daddy" and "fairy tale bullshit" and "religion is cancer".
For me personally, I am an atheist and will happily say so in real life contexts but occasionally I do avoid the label online because of the connotation above. My thinking is that even if I don't believe that actual spiritual beings exist separate from humans, I believe that seeing her friends at Sunday church does a lot of good for my elderly neighbour. I believe in the food the Sikh community gives out to the homeless. I believe in the comfort that faith brings a lot of people.
I think the irony is that people who identify as atheists online can come across as being just as dogmatic as the most vocal believers. I totally get it as a Christian myself, because Christians online, generally speaking, seem to be so much the opposite of what I find in my faith.
I think this is a situation where a term online might have a different contextual meaning than the same word in a conversation with a friend.
Edit: clarifying “online Christians”
Yeah they tend to treat "science and logic" more as a sports team than a method.
Which seems super rude to all the religious scientists and monasteries and stuff that discovered half our shit.
lol I have definitely seen that before. Science is really based on observation and testing and doesn't automatically rule out religious stuff. If one day we discovered solid evidence of some kind of magical being then science will happily incorporate it into our existing knowledge system.
basically if you've kept one ounce of doubt towards "magical science" and have a critical mind, you are most likely agnostic not atheist. Since every explanation we make about life and science will always be refutable, it is reasonable to hold beliefs in some higher truth... so yeah being atheist is laughable and a boomer/old gen X people thing pretty much... and if you are gen Y Z or A or B and think being atheistic is cool, then try to remember what boomer or grey haired person around you said it and look at how they navigate through life and picture yourself as them. It should raise some serious concerns and possibly help consider there's more out there. Best way you can picture an atheist is imagine the 4 dudes standing by the fence in "King of the Hill" drinking beers and saying "Yep" all the time (empty minds !)
>basically if you've kept one ounce of doubt towards "magical science" and have a critical mind, you are most likely agnostic not atheist.
You are most likely both, since atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Gnosticism requires faith, which is a trademark of religion, not atheism. Most atheists will readily admit that we can't possibly be certain of the origin of reality. What we **can** do is minimize our assumptions and test each other's assertions as we search for truth.
Being refutable is an integral part of the logic of science. If I say there's a dragon in my garage, but it doesn't do anything and you can't see it or in any way detect its existence. What's the point of that statement? It is not refutable so there's no need to put our mind to it. What's the point of pursuing some unknown unfalsifiable "higher truth" when our existing system of developing and applying knowledge have already achieved so many marvelous things? Being an atheist is not about "cool" or something. To me it means being practical and stop bothering about some unfalsifiable existence.
This is my exact issue, too. Online atheists often complain about religion being shoved down their throats (and for good reason, let's be honest) but at the same time they are so anti-theist that it circles back around to shoving anti-religion down people's throats too.
Absolutely. Theism helps a lot of people. It doesn't make it true though.
You are correct about Sikhs. I'm in Scotland, and the Sikh community is especially well known for helping the homeless. It helps the homeless and it gives the Sikhs a sense of giving back and community.
I'm an atheist and I have no problem using the term. At the same time, I respect the religions of my friends, Sikhism, Islam, Christian or whatever.
Unfortunately, religion brings so much death. And has done so with consistency throughout history. And right this very moment, we are supporting religious based wars and killing children in its name. .
It has no place in a rational world. Don’t pander to thinking that degrades humanity. Don’t try and remain neutral, and allow this concept to continue to undermine our species.
Do you really believe that in a world without religion, we wouldn’t find other reasons to kill? You could argue the same thing about ideology or really any other system of belief and come to the same conclusion. The fact of the matter is that people evolved to develop tribal mentalities and biases against one another. Your bias against religion reflects that same deep-rooted human truth that you’re so willing to pin on the "other", whether you’ll admit that or not
It can't be eradicated, is the problem. You can sometimes convince people to leave their most obviously terrible beliefs behind, or even to switch religions, but getting people to drop religions and religion-like belief systems entirely is not possible.
It’s only unacceptable to call someone an atheist if that person does not identify as one.
Due to the way we use negatives in English the term
“atheist” has a problem: To *some* English speakers “not believing in a God” (simply an absence of belief) and “believing there is no God” (a belief) is not the same thing, so when someone says atheist it’s not always clear which one is meant.
There actually is a word for both. If you believe there is no god, then you are an atheist. if you have no religious beliefs, you are an agnostic.
It’s important to note that atheists do have beliefs. They *believe* there is no god. Agnostic is probably the most neutral term when it comes to religion
Agnosticism is more a "belief" than mere atheism. The agnostic says something like, "I keep an open mind" or "I can't say for sure." They have a position, even if it's ambivalent.
But a disbelief is not just a belief in the alternative; it's something different. There are tons of things we all don't believe in but don't have a position on. For instance, I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster but that doesn't make me an antipasto.
This got way more existential than I was expecting. But I see what you mean. I think 😅
I guess I meant atheism is more absolute in their beliefs. But yeah you’re right, agnosticism is still a belief
No, an agnostic is someone who is unsure whether a god exists or not. Basically it’s halfway between an atheist and a believer.
Think of it in order from strongest faith to anti faith:
a) Has faith in a god(s) -> A believer
b) Has faith in the possibility of a god(s) -> Agnostic
*Believes that it’s possible a god(s) might exist (and it’s possible a god might not exist).*
c) Doesn’t have faith in a god(s) -> Atheist type 1
d) A step further than simply not believing in a god(s); they have a clear belief there is no god at all -> Atheist type 2
Basically, *a* and *d* are beliefs whereas *c* is an absent of belief.
*b* is someone at that point right between *a* and *c*. He/she doesn’t have a belief like *a*, but he/she is too open to the possibility of a god(s) to identify as *c*.
This is incorrect. Anyone who comes across this argument and is curious about what’s true, just google it. It’s pretty cut and dry and this person is objectively wrong
Some sources as more proof that you are correct:
BBC pdf - [https://equality.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2017/06/Briefing-note-Atheism.pdf](https://equality.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2017/06/Briefing-note-Atheism.pdf)
Dictionary definition - [https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/](https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/)
The APA organization - [https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe)
I'm agnostic, and I'll just leave this here
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god.
Agnosticism is a lack of certainty.
Most atheists are agnostic, because certainty requires faith, and most atheists do not practice faith.
>Atheism is a lack of belief in a god.
That is simply another way to word what I wrote.
>Agnosticism is a lack of certainty.
That is also is simply another way to word what I wrote.
>Most atheists are agnostic, because certainty requires faith, and most atheists do not practice faith.
You’re describing atheist type 1 from my description. Someone with no faith, not open to the possibility of a god, but not actively faithful in the non-existence of a God.
Why are you commenting when you’re literally just saying the same thing but worded differently??
You are misusing the word agnostic. Agnosticism is not a state between atheism and theism, it is an admission that we cannot have complete certainty in our beliefs.
I am not saying the same thing as you, you just don't understand the difference.
A) gnostic theist
B) makes no sense, faith is accepting something as true without requiring evidence. You can't really "have faith" in something being possible. The inverse of this (someone who believes but lacks certainty/faith) is an agnostic theist.
C) agnostic atheist
D) gnostic atheist / anti-theist
>D) gnostic atheist / anti-theist
I'd object to that definition.
Usually, an anti-theist is defined as someone who opposes belief in a god. It doesn't have any real overlap with gnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist could be an anti-theist, just as easily as an agnostic atheist could.
That's fair, I was trying to put the right terms next to the definitions he provided. Anti-theism is a position directly in opposition to theism, and it doesn't require gnosticism to conclude that theistic religions are harmful.
I'm not sure you know what the word "faith" actually means, so let's clear that up first:
>complete trust or confidence in someone or something
You're saying that an agnostic is a person who has complete confidence in the possibility of God. The idea of having complete confidence in a possibility is nonsensical.
1) “Faith” doesn’t always mean “complete confidence”; that’s just one definition. Many people refer to faith as a quantity e.g. *he has complete faith*, *she has a lot of faith*, etc.
2) “Faith” can also be used as a synonym of “belief”. That’s the meaning I was using in that sentence you’ve quoted.
"faith" and "belief" are not interchangeable. If you understand the difference between critical thinking and faith-based thinking, then you won't conflate their meanings in this way.
It's more of a culture/political/religious thing than a language thing. It's like the word socialist. In the US they both have very negative meaning as a result of decades of political propaganda. But in China these words are very positive, as most Chinese people aren't religious at all and socialism is the official ideology in China.
Yeah I think I'll agree with that. Take the tradition of venerating one's ancestors as an example. Some people practice that like a religion while others might just pay their respect once in a while with some flowers. It's not worshiping god but still its not completely rejecting supernatural beliefs either.
The word "atheist" is completely fine unless
1. You are in an extremely religious area like Texas
2. You use it in an offensive manner (this applies to any word if you make it sound bad)
Otherwise it's fine. Where I live (Melbourne) nobody cares about how you use the word and honestly I've never heard of anyone being offended by it.
"Atheist" is not offensive, if that's what you are asking. But it is a pretty 'loaded' term that can often generate intense conversations. Not often, but when people do push you on the question it can get pretty intense very quickly.
That's what they are talking about in that thread - avoiding the confrontation rather than looking for a personal label.
>Especially the first reply here. Doesn’t “atheist” literally mean someone who has no belief in gods?
Yes
>Does this word have an inherent disapproving or dismissive tone in it?
No, but there are some ignorant religious individuals who believe it means "hates god." They will react poorly to someone labeling themselves "atheist" but not as strongly as someone who says they "aren't religious."
There's nothing inherently bad about the label "atheist", some people just don't react well to it though.
It is a pretty neutral term and I see no problem in using it at the present time.
Going forward though I can see problems with the word.
"Atheist" means "not theist". This a strange way to label somebody. People are generally labelled by what they ARE rather than what they ARE NOT.
If I follow the logic of that then I am also an "amurderer", "agolfer", "aphilatelist" since I *dont* murder people, play golf or collect stamps.
The term "atheist," then, is clearly a word that originates with *theists*. As an atheist myself I see this as being **their** word for what I am. They are describing me in their negative terms and not my own positive ones. It is like describing a black-skinned person as a "not-white".
I prefer to call myself, simply, "normal".
>describing a black-skinned person as a "not-white".
Isn't that what the term "POC" is for?
Describing people by what they are not, is a pretty common thing in society? It's useful.
We call people "undecided voters" (defining them by fact that they are decided).
We have the term "queer" (not cisgender/heterosexual).
Even if we got rid of the word "atheist", we'd still need an equivalent term, in order to discuss theism and non-theists.
It's not unacceptable. Maybe it can be said that sometimes it has the connotation of someone having near-evangelical anti-religious beliefs or being militant about their dislike for theists, as opposed to just being non-religious, but I think that specific stigma behind the word 'atheist' mostly comes from people who think negatively of non-religious people in general.
It's a sensitive issue, and I'd say look into labels like 'agnostic', etc, but there's nothing wrong on the surface with calling yourself an atheist if you don't believe in any gods.
I suspect this depends on where you live and the wider cultural context.
For example, the UK is a fairly non religious country. Regular church attendance, especially amongst young people, is unusual. I'm in my 30s, can only think of one person my age who regularly goes to church - and she's an immigrant. Saying you're an atheist in the UK is very, very normal.
The US - especially the Deep South / Bible Belt - is a far more religious society, where church attendance is a social expectation. It's not "do you go to church" it's "which church do you go to". The perception of atheists - is far more negative there - and will mean people are less happy to be called atheists.
I think it's very much this. I'm in my late 40s and some people I know are religious but that's a definite minority and most people are atheists. I don't know anyone who'd have a problem with the word because it's just a neutral descriptive term in Scotland which isn't a very religious country so there's no real stigma.
I don't believe in god so I would be an atheist, but I'd never use the word because for me it's too tied with edgy 12 year olds who make athiesm their religion and edgy YouTubers who inevitably slide into bigotry
Pretty much I just rarely discuss religion and if someone brings it up I'd say I respect all beliefs but I personally think it's irrelevant to my life and I don't care
I call myself an "apatheist", which has gained more traction online recently
I was mid-teens before I realised that religion was even a thing people *actually* believed in instead of it just being cultural set-dressing, like Christianity was for my family. I never sat down and went *do I believe in a god or not?*
In other words, I'm basically apathetic to religion in general, have never spent any time thinking about it and don't intend to start – the people I know who actively call themselves atheist feel quite strongly about their lack of belief and generally came from religious families
Yeah I'd agree with that, like my family did Xmas and Easter eggs and stuff when I was younger but divorced from any belief, and even the religious people I do know will at most go to church a few times a year if it's a holiday or not eat bacon but otherwise it doesn't really seem a key part of who they are
This is like saying “I only have sex with men, but I would never use the word ‘gay’ because it’s too tied to people wearing assless chaps in the pride parade.” If those are the only people willing to claim the word, then that will be the only association. Part of the reason the “flagrant” people end up associated with the “controversial” words is because the dominant majority tries to declare “offensive” to belong to the minority at all. So only the people willing to “flaunt” it use the words, because everyone else hides from the social judgment.
Well sexuality is more relevant to who you are as a person since who you end up in a relationship with is a big part of your life.
Not believing in god feels about as relevant to my daily life as not being a football fan so I guess maybe that's the thing, any word associated with identifying as non religious will naturally become tainted because the type of people who make it part of their identity/personality tend to be annoying at best.
Fwiw also in both countries I've lived in non religious people are the majority not the minority so that might also affect my perception.
i believe that is because most people under "atheist" imagine those online atheists who say shit like "fairy tale" or "skydaddy" under everyone who even mentions believing in God
No. Atheist is the term for someone who doesn't believe in gods/deities. It is not attached to a generalized negative connotation, and is not in any way insulting to an atheist to be called an atheist. (People of faith do dislike being called an atheist, and will often find it insulting.)
It really depends on the culture and context. Who you’re talking to, about what you’re talking.
Some people don’t understand the concept, or don’t accept it, so will become offended, or defensive, or have another weird reaction.
But with a sane person it’s a normal term.
Atheist means that you don't believe in gods while most people understand it as someone without religion. To my understanding Buddhism is an atheist religion.
For a lot of people the term also doesn't apply.
They don't see any proof, that would make them agnostic.
It's not inherently bad. There are a lot of people who give it a bad reputation. Some of them spout some really offensive anti-Islam rhetoric, for example. Often they are people who like to argue as a hobby, even when the person they're talking to is clearly not interested in doing so.
If you say something like "I'm not really religious" or just "I don't go to church" you mostly avoid identifying with those people.
It depends who you ask. For the more extremely religious being an atheist is tantamount to being a heretic. In some countries / cultures being branded an atheist can be dangerous.
Well here’s the thing. You can call people who play golf golfers but do you have a term for people who don’t play golf? I feel it is kinda the same thing. I don’t want a label for something I don’t do.
I don’t play golf either. I don’t meet up with people who don’t play golf weekly and discuss why we don’t play. It’s really just nothing.
It's all about context.
Some people who are proactive about telling people they're atheist are comparable to people who are proactve about telling people they're vegan. They proselytize, and denigrate people who aren't, and *they're* the reason for the stigma.
That's completely different from saying "yeah, I'm an atheist" if someone asks you what you believe. And then be prepared to clarify what that means to you.
Rule of thumb: If nobody asked, labeling yourself isn't going to be constructive.
There's the "hard atheist" who believes that there are no gods, and the "soft atheist" who hasn't been convinced of the existence of a god.
If the label fits, you can call anyone anything you want.
You can call yourself whatever you want. I don't call myself an atheist because I don't even give religion an opportunity to be heard. To call myself an atheist would mean that I want to or acknowledge that the other side has legitimacy. I avoid discussing it or change the subject if possible.
The problem with the term “atheist” is that it can be used for someone who doesn’t believe in gods, but it can also mean someone who believes there *are no gods*. Because there is ambiguity, people hearing “atheist” will make assumptions about the person and which category they fit into. Therefore, some atheists may not say they are atheist and will use other words or phrases to reduce or eliminate the ambiguity.
In some countries it's very socially unacceptable to be an atheist, but that's a social thing it really has no bearing on the word itself, which I would say is very neutral in its connotation.
Many religious people think that atheism means having an active belief that there is no god. This is not the correct definition, which is a lack of an active belief in god. Some atheists take the first position but it isn't necessary.
This is a difficult question because it’s about culture in America. I’m someone who used to call myself an atheist, but now say non religious for the same reasons as the picture, so I’ll elaborate.
There is a community of atheists online and to a lesser extent in person that make it their whole personality. They can’t let anything happen without saying “well actually, your sky fairy isn’t real hehehe” and stuff like that. And aside from that, the association with the label “atheist” is very much looked down upon in the US (one time I told a girl in school I was one, and she gasped and told me that meant I hated god.) So it does have a negative connotation, even in real life, and it’s not worth defending myself every time I bring it up anymore.
As a British person, it's completely normal and acceptable. In fact, 37.2% of our population is non religious. But it sounds like in the US, it's different. For us, calling someone a "Christian" is just stating their religion, just as calling somebody an "atheist".
It's a complicated question, but I'd say it's much more cultural and historical than linguistic, per se. Historically in many countries atheism was associated with communism (rightly or wrongly), hence pejorative terms like "godless communist," etc. In countries in which overt Christian identity is a significant element in national and cultural identity (I'm not speaking at all of theology or even religious doctrine here), it can be difficult to assert one's atheism without risking being thought of as unpatriotic or even seditious. In more recent times so-called "political atheists" of the Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins type have given the word a bit of a black mark for other reasons, often combining their philosophy with support for certain aggressive foreign policy positions, etc. As with all such terms, what people precisely mean by "atheist" or "atheism" varies quite significantly.
I come from an extremely catholic country where being an atheist makes you sound as bad as a pedophile or a mass-murderer. I don't believe in gods but I am still looking for answers to some existential questions, hence I don't fully deny a possibility of an existence of a higher entity a.k.a. I'm an agnostic. I've noticed it doesn't elicit such an outrage as atheism.
In some scenarios you can use word "agnostic", i believe many dont know tgis exist, so this might be helpful. There are some differences between atheism and agnosticism, as i remember it atheism - you dont believe in any gods and deny their existence, and second one - you dont believe in gods, but "one or many of them might exist somewhere but we wont know because of the lack of evidence". But i absolutely agree that if you can you definitely should avoid specific terms if youre not 100% sure if others wont use stereotypes against you, people are cruel sometimes. Religion meant to gather us and instead made us even more distant from each other
In a language/semantic sense, the word just means not- theist. "Theist" meaning a person who holds a belief in a creator- adding the "a" in front of a word means "not" that word. So "atheist" doesn't mean anything more than *not* being a person who believes in a creator.
An atheist will not be bothered by being called an atheist, it's not offensive or dismissive or anything.
The person in the screenshot is talking about how some people associate religion with morality. So, to a religious person, theism = moral, so atheism = amoral, or immoral. The reason they don't want to use the word atheist is so that some religious folks won't call them immoral.
Similar to veganism, atheism on the Internet developed a negative reputation, so someone might not identify as one when they descriptively are to avoid being associated with the people that give it that reputation.
It's not unacceptable at all to use it descriptively though.
It depends on how religious the region you are in. I live in northeast US, and there is no negative connotation whatsoever. Atheist is the most common word to refer to someone with no belief in god, and nearly all atheists where I live describe themselves as Atheist.
I may not be totally qualified to answer (I’m a Christian) but from my experience, atheists are generally more anti-theistic than they are religious-neutral. Meaning they go out of the way to be rude to religious people, telling us that our Gods aren’t real and that we’re somehow the obsessed ones. This is definitely the stigma that the commenter was mentioning.
For proof of this, go see r/antitheistcheesecake or my comment history where I said “please don’t wear religious artifacts if you don’t believe in them, you never know how offensive that might be to someone” and see the replies from those that aren’t OP.
I generally don’t get mad or triggered or anything whenever I hear the term atheist, I will be a little bit on guard though.
I disagree. And using Reddit as proof is not a good argument, because Reddit is not reality. There is the stereotype of the “Reddit atheist” for a reason.
I’m atheist (and so are a lot of my family and friends), but we don’t go around announcing that to the world because it’s generally very unimportant to us. I couldn’t care less what people choose to believe in, unless it becomes harmful.
Like what others have said, if people ask me about my religious beliefs I usually just say I grew up Christian but I don’t really practice anymore.
There is most certainly a silent majority of atheists that act this way and not like the exchanges you’ve had on reddit.
I’m disagreeing with your opinion that “atheists are generally more anti-theistic than they are religious-neutral. Meaning they go out of their way to be rude etc. etc.”
I never said you said every atheist is like that.
I hear anti-Christian remarks daily from people all around in the real world that don’t know I’m actually Christian. Also from those that I am. Not once have I met someone that is atheist have anything remotely kind to say about my religion, and I understand that the general consensus of Christianity hasn’t been very good, especially recently, but a lot of people don’t even give Christians a shot at any kind of friendship.
Maybe you should evaluate why you’re talking about religion so much, if that’s your experience.
I (and I’m sure most of the silent majority of atheists) frankly hardly ever think about it, much less talk about it on a day-to-day basis.
It’s possible that me and you have very different experiences then, the majority of the time religion is already a topic if interest because I’m currently taking AP World History, I’m not as much of a nuthead as you’re trying to make me out to be.
You said in your original comment that you may not be qualified to answer, and I would tell you that you’re correct. The silent majority of atheists could give a shit about religion and wouldn’t care enough to engage in a lot of discussions about it.
My issue with you is not that you explained why there may be a stigma with the word atheist online, which is very true. But my issue is that you refuse to comprehend that the majority of atheists are not like that. Just like the majority of Christian’s aren’t pedophiles who hide behind the church or zealots spreading hate on the streets.
It’s seriously like talking to a brick wall.
Just read the comments in this thread, many atheists don’t go around declaring they’re atheists for various reasons. I’m sure you’ve had many normal conversations with atheists without even realizing it, unless a prerequisite for talking with you is disclosing religious beliefs.
Some religious Christian people, mostly older people, have been told that atheists are devil-worshippers. It isn't logical or correct, it's just what has happened. So if someone has been accused of satanism every time they say they are atheist, they might prefer the results of just saying "not religious" (some of the sort of Christian that cause this issue think that "non-religious" means you are Christian but just don't have time for church)
I call myself agnostic most of the time. The chances some deity actually exist according to the current scientific evidence tends toward 0%. So in the end it just doesn't matter at all.
But atheist, heathen or satanist is also fine. Fun fact, modern non-theist satanism is actually a lot about self care, being excellent to each other, tolerance and compassion.
Why would you be calling someone an atheist? Are you making accusations. It's not your business to label them. They're capable of doing that themselves.
“Atheist” is not a negative word. In some parts of the English-speaking world, Christianity is so engrained that belief in a god is automatically seen as a moral virtue. In the US, atheists are the single most distrusted religious category (even more so than Muslims). Religious people often make atheists into a bogeyman in their sermons and stories. Some atheists don’t describe themselves as atheists because of how negatively many people react to that word and concept. Describing yourself as “not religious” or “not having a belief in gods” can sound less threatening to some religious people, even if it means exactly the same thing as “atheist”.
It's definitely a regional thing, as you said. In my experience in the US South, to even say someone is "not a Christian" would be seen as an insult. But my wife is from the Northern US, where it's apparently a neutral term. The first time she was talking about someone and said, "He's not a Christian," my response was, "Well, that's not a very nice thing to say, bless his heart." (Ok, I'm not Southern enough to actually pull off a "bless his heart", but we did have a fun linguistic discussion of Northern vs Southern verbal etiquette.) I could picture someone saying as a compliment, "That fellow from the mosque is a nice Christian man," just as a way of saying he's kind.
Wow, as someone from the northern US, "That fellow from the mosque is a nice Christian man," really does not come off as a compliment to me. I know that using "Christian" as a descriptor for someone having characteristics that Christians value can be seen as complimentary, but "that fellow from the mosque" implies to me that this fellow is Muslim and describing them as "Christian" then willfully ignores their non-Christian faith. An insult instead. Wild how different regional quirks like that can be and how different cultures (even within the same country) can lead to such different understandings
To be clear, that's an extreme example of the usage, and not something I've ever actually heard! It probably shows my 70s childhood understanding of the world more than anything else, where everyone either went to church or should have, and the only time I heard an Arabic-sounding word was when the Shriners were having an event. Don't forget, not all ignorance is willful. You don't know what you don't know, until you know enough to find out.
Given how weaponized Christianity has become in the US, there are plenty of places where even calling a Christian a Christian might seem like an insult.
What coke do you drink?
Now that's a funny question. It's "pop", and when I was a kid my favorite was RC Cola. I learned to talk in Eastern Kentucky, a bubble of "pop" (as I learned much much later). Then I lived in coke territory for decades, but retained "pop" as my name for fizzy drinks. Then I married someone from Michigan - land of Faygo, where calling it "pop" is a badge of pride. I guess we were destined to find each other!
“Not religious” is not synonymous with “atheist”, as it includes many people who believe in God but do not participate in organized religion for whatever reason. Lots of new-agey types and nuanced believers, even Christians, might say they are not religious. Saying you don’t believe in gods, however, is almost exactly synonymous with atheist, and will avoid the reflexive negative reaction from some people to the term atheist. A particularly annoying believer might say “I don’t believe in gods either, I only believe in God!” But other than that, synonymous.
>“Not religious” is not synonymous with “atheist” That is correct, but I was only listing that as something some atheists say to avoid saying “I’m an atheist”. All sorts of euphemisms exist that are broader than the thing they are sometimes used as a euphemism for.
Yeah I didn't grow up in a place where one theistic religion take the total dominance. So "atheist" being used in a disapproving manner feels rather strange to me. I guess for a place where Christianity is widely practiced being an atheist is not a very popular option.
I just read an article about that. Especially in the US, only a fraction of people who say in surveys that they don't believe in god identify as atheists, there's such a huge social stigma attached to it.
I agree with this. Also, some religious people completely misunderstand the term. Years ago, I was discussing an old friend with my mom and I mentioned the friend was atheist. My mom replied, “He *worships* the ***devil***?!!?!” because she thought that’s what atheist meant. Obviously that’s not the case. My mom grew up in a very Christian small town in the southern US.
Yeah, a lot of Christians are raised on sermons about how evil and insidious Atheists and Satanists are, and how they’re exactly the same thing. It’s amazing how much misinformation spreads in some Christian circles with absolutely no-one thinking to Google the wild claims their friends and pastors make.
This right here.
I think part of it is also a desire to distance oneself from those 'problematic' atheists. We've all met one. Someone who feels the need to loudly and emphatically shit on everybody else's religious beliefs every opportunity they get, as if they're so much smarter than the brainwashed masses and have it all figured out. (Eg; just about every white male stand up comedian.) I personally identify as atheist. But knowing that THAT is the first image a lot of people tend to think of when they hear the term, makes me hesitate to mention it in casual conversation.
It’s not unacceptable and, as an atheist, I think that if you don’t believe in any god then it just makes sense to call yourself an atheist. That said, I understand where these people are coming from. Often the word is associated with arrogant dirtbags that actively hate religion, treat religious people with contempt, and spend lots of time starting arguments about it, which can be very annoying. Personally I think that instead of dropping the label, more nonbelievers should just call themselves atheists and save the label by acting decently and treating people with respect regardless of their religiosity.
Judging from all the stupid posts on the subs I'm in, it seems more and more people are determined to believe that atheism is a set of beliefs, just like religion. You don't believe in God, you believe in "something else". Perfectly acceptable to call yourself atheist, but some people just don't want to accept what atheist means.
Yeah I've heard people (who weren't atheist) saying that being an atheist means you "believe" in science and the big bang, and the theory of evolution 😅 Science is facts (that are true at least for now), not a set of beliefs. We don't pray to science 🤣
They have a point. I have faith that the scientific method when performed with thoroughness and rigor will result in a relatively stable model of reality. It's possible there are other ways to reach the same conclusion and I am open to the discussion of revisions to the scientific method if there is a way to improve upon it universally, but something tells me in the back of my mind that that isn't going to happen. Not because it's perfect, but because I have faith that it is sufficient. It comes with traditions, it comes with a community, it comes with expectations, and it comes with a model for reality. Aside from the inherent qualities of study, how different is accepting the scientific method and all that it has created from accepting a different belief system?
Easy. Science can be proven. Beliefs rely on faith. I don't have faith that gravity exists, I know it does. Until some Quantic physics or something even more advanced comes into play, the current science stays as facts, not beliefs. I wouldn't be converting to a different set of beliefs when that happens, I'll just accept that the current level of science was just a threshold to reach that new level. I don't think any theists would openly admit that there might be a greater god than their god though. Not to mention that the Bible itself mentions other gods (not by name afaik) yet Christians still think there is only one god. And that leads me to my main point, the Bible can be interpreted in various ways (that's why there are so many sub-sects of Christianity), whereas the basics of science are universally agreed upon.
The basics of the scientific method are, I think, universally agreed upon, but the results and implications of experiments and research are often not agreed upon.
The Bible mentions a few “gods” by name (Baal and Ashteroth (sp?) for two) but also calls the God of the Bible the one true God. That could be interpreted either as, that god is the most powerful of all the gods that are running around, or that all the other gods are made up and that one is the only one who isn’t made up.
“Scien[tific facts] can be proven.” Yes, but to play devil’s advocate (no pun intended haha), “It matters whether or not something can be proven” is, in itself, a belief/view. So, if your worldview includes the belief that “prove-ability” is not very important, science and religion can be seen as similar.
Science is a *method*. The facts are what science produces, not science itself.
I've actually met people that do basically worship science as their religion, but its absolutely not the norm for atheists.
Thanks, I get it now. Basically this word sometimes got represented by people with their extreme views and behavior so its reputation was damaged.
Yeah, basically that, What exactly the bad reputation is changes from location to location though.
judging by the worst representatives of the group is not very smart, is it? by this logic people will get insulted by me being a man, because there are terrible people who did terrible things and they was same sex as me. Unfortunately, any people in any group who are acting decent usually go unnoticed because decent behavior does not draw attention. Some shitshow on the other hand, is always more interesting
I'd say for the majority of people it's a neutral term just meaning "doesn't believe in any deity". Online, there is such a thing as the "reddit atheist" stereotype. These people are more anti-theist than atheist and you'll see them pop up in comment threads saying things like "invisible sky daddy" and "fairy tale bullshit" and "religion is cancer". For me personally, I am an atheist and will happily say so in real life contexts but occasionally I do avoid the label online because of the connotation above. My thinking is that even if I don't believe that actual spiritual beings exist separate from humans, I believe that seeing her friends at Sunday church does a lot of good for my elderly neighbour. I believe in the food the Sikh community gives out to the homeless. I believe in the comfort that faith brings a lot of people.
I think the irony is that people who identify as atheists online can come across as being just as dogmatic as the most vocal believers. I totally get it as a Christian myself, because Christians online, generally speaking, seem to be so much the opposite of what I find in my faith. I think this is a situation where a term online might have a different contextual meaning than the same word in a conversation with a friend. Edit: clarifying “online Christians”
Yeah they tend to treat "science and logic" more as a sports team than a method. Which seems super rude to all the religious scientists and monasteries and stuff that discovered half our shit.
lol I have definitely seen that before. Science is really based on observation and testing and doesn't automatically rule out religious stuff. If one day we discovered solid evidence of some kind of magical being then science will happily incorporate it into our existing knowledge system.
basically if you've kept one ounce of doubt towards "magical science" and have a critical mind, you are most likely agnostic not atheist. Since every explanation we make about life and science will always be refutable, it is reasonable to hold beliefs in some higher truth... so yeah being atheist is laughable and a boomer/old gen X people thing pretty much... and if you are gen Y Z or A or B and think being atheistic is cool, then try to remember what boomer or grey haired person around you said it and look at how they navigate through life and picture yourself as them. It should raise some serious concerns and possibly help consider there's more out there. Best way you can picture an atheist is imagine the 4 dudes standing by the fence in "King of the Hill" drinking beers and saying "Yep" all the time (empty minds !)
>basically if you've kept one ounce of doubt towards "magical science" and have a critical mind, you are most likely agnostic not atheist. You are most likely both, since atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Gnosticism requires faith, which is a trademark of religion, not atheism. Most atheists will readily admit that we can't possibly be certain of the origin of reality. What we **can** do is minimize our assumptions and test each other's assertions as we search for truth.
Being refutable is an integral part of the logic of science. If I say there's a dragon in my garage, but it doesn't do anything and you can't see it or in any way detect its existence. What's the point of that statement? It is not refutable so there's no need to put our mind to it. What's the point of pursuing some unknown unfalsifiable "higher truth" when our existing system of developing and applying knowledge have already achieved so many marvelous things? Being an atheist is not about "cool" or something. To me it means being practical and stop bothering about some unfalsifiable existence.
This is my exact issue, too. Online atheists often complain about religion being shoved down their throats (and for good reason, let's be honest) but at the same time they are so anti-theist that it circles back around to shoving anti-religion down people's throats too.
Absolutely. Theism helps a lot of people. It doesn't make it true though. You are correct about Sikhs. I'm in Scotland, and the Sikh community is especially well known for helping the homeless. It helps the homeless and it gives the Sikhs a sense of giving back and community. I'm an atheist and I have no problem using the term. At the same time, I respect the religions of my friends, Sikhism, Islam, Christian or whatever.
Unfortunately, religion brings so much death. And has done so with consistency throughout history. And right this very moment, we are supporting religious based wars and killing children in its name. . It has no place in a rational world. Don’t pander to thinking that degrades humanity. Don’t try and remain neutral, and allow this concept to continue to undermine our species.
Do you really believe that in a world without religion, we wouldn’t find other reasons to kill? You could argue the same thing about ideology or really any other system of belief and come to the same conclusion. The fact of the matter is that people evolved to develop tribal mentalities and biases against one another. Your bias against religion reflects that same deep-rooted human truth that you’re so willing to pin on the "other", whether you’ll admit that or not
lol. So your argument is that because irrational things can happen, we should make no attempt to be rational.
It can't be eradicated, is the problem. You can sometimes convince people to leave their most obviously terrible beliefs behind, or even to switch religions, but getting people to drop religions and religion-like belief systems entirely is not possible.
It is statistically true though that more wars and deaths have occurred due to political or monetary incentives than religion.
And? That isn’t relevant to the point.
It kind of is relevant
It’s only unacceptable to call someone an atheist if that person does not identify as one. Due to the way we use negatives in English the term “atheist” has a problem: To *some* English speakers “not believing in a God” (simply an absence of belief) and “believing there is no God” (a belief) is not the same thing, so when someone says atheist it’s not always clear which one is meant.
Most atheists are agnostic, but agnostics aren't necessarily atheists. Someone who is certain there is no god is a gnostic atheist.
There actually is a word for both. If you believe there is no god, then you are an atheist. if you have no religious beliefs, you are an agnostic. It’s important to note that atheists do have beliefs. They *believe* there is no god. Agnostic is probably the most neutral term when it comes to religion
Agnosticism is more a "belief" than mere atheism. The agnostic says something like, "I keep an open mind" or "I can't say for sure." They have a position, even if it's ambivalent. But a disbelief is not just a belief in the alternative; it's something different. There are tons of things we all don't believe in but don't have a position on. For instance, I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster but that doesn't make me an antipasto.
This got way more existential than I was expecting. But I see what you mean. I think 😅 I guess I meant atheism is more absolute in their beliefs. But yeah you’re right, agnosticism is still a belief
No, an agnostic is someone who is unsure whether a god exists or not. Basically it’s halfway between an atheist and a believer. Think of it in order from strongest faith to anti faith: a) Has faith in a god(s) -> A believer b) Has faith in the possibility of a god(s) -> Agnostic *Believes that it’s possible a god(s) might exist (and it’s possible a god might not exist).* c) Doesn’t have faith in a god(s) -> Atheist type 1 d) A step further than simply not believing in a god(s); they have a clear belief there is no god at all -> Atheist type 2 Basically, *a* and *d* are beliefs whereas *c* is an absent of belief. *b* is someone at that point right between *a* and *c*. He/she doesn’t have a belief like *a*, but he/she is too open to the possibility of a god(s) to identify as *c*.
This is incorrect. Anyone who comes across this argument and is curious about what’s true, just google it. It’s pretty cut and dry and this person is objectively wrong
Some sources as more proof that you are correct: BBC pdf - [https://equality.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2017/06/Briefing-note-Atheism.pdf](https://equality.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2017/06/Briefing-note-Atheism.pdf) Dictionary definition - [https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/](https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/) The APA organization - [https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe) I'm agnostic, and I'll just leave this here
Just for the hell of it I googled it to see what nonsense you’re finding and literally the first thing I found agreed with what I wrote.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Agnosticism is a lack of certainty. Most atheists are agnostic, because certainty requires faith, and most atheists do not practice faith.
>Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. That is simply another way to word what I wrote. >Agnosticism is a lack of certainty. That is also is simply another way to word what I wrote. >Most atheists are agnostic, because certainty requires faith, and most atheists do not practice faith. You’re describing atheist type 1 from my description. Someone with no faith, not open to the possibility of a god, but not actively faithful in the non-existence of a God. Why are you commenting when you’re literally just saying the same thing but worded differently??
You are misusing the word agnostic. Agnosticism is not a state between atheism and theism, it is an admission that we cannot have complete certainty in our beliefs. I am not saying the same thing as you, you just don't understand the difference.
>Just Google it. There are many various incorrect definitions of these terms online and a simple Google search will not suffice.
A) gnostic theist B) makes no sense, faith is accepting something as true without requiring evidence. You can't really "have faith" in something being possible. The inverse of this (someone who believes but lacks certainty/faith) is an agnostic theist. C) agnostic atheist D) gnostic atheist / anti-theist
>D) gnostic atheist / anti-theist I'd object to that definition. Usually, an anti-theist is defined as someone who opposes belief in a god. It doesn't have any real overlap with gnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist could be an anti-theist, just as easily as an agnostic atheist could.
That's fair, I was trying to put the right terms next to the definitions he provided. Anti-theism is a position directly in opposition to theism, and it doesn't require gnosticism to conclude that theistic religions are harmful.
What?? B makes total sense. Either you believe something is possible or you don’t. It’s very straightforward.
I'm not sure you know what the word "faith" actually means, so let's clear that up first: >complete trust or confidence in someone or something You're saying that an agnostic is a person who has complete confidence in the possibility of God. The idea of having complete confidence in a possibility is nonsensical.
I know exactly what faith is. Faith isn’t the only factor in one’s religious status; what one believes is possible (is open to) is a factor too.
>b) Has faith in the possibility of a god(s) -> Agnostic How exactly does one have complete confidence in the possibility of something?
1) “Faith” doesn’t always mean “complete confidence”; that’s just one definition. Many people refer to faith as a quantity e.g. *he has complete faith*, *she has a lot of faith*, etc. 2) “Faith” can also be used as a synonym of “belief”. That’s the meaning I was using in that sentence you’ve quoted.
"faith" and "belief" are not interchangeable. If you understand the difference between critical thinking and faith-based thinking, then you won't conflate their meanings in this way.
[удалено]
That’s straight misinformation. A simple google search will prove you wrong.
The appropriate term is *Deism*, right?
Deism is when you believe in a god that was more of a creator, but doesn’t really get involved in anything
No involvement, Including sending "prophets", which should make this group believe in God but not religions? That's how I have understood it.
It's more of a culture/political/religious thing than a language thing. It's like the word socialist. In the US they both have very negative meaning as a result of decades of political propaganda. But in China these words are very positive, as most Chinese people aren't religious at all and socialism is the official ideology in China.
[удалено]
I am Chinese living in China for my life.
I would say that most Chinese people hold supernatural beliefs. Many are, technically speaking, atheists but not philosophical naturalists.
Yeah I think I'll agree with that. Take the tradition of venerating one's ancestors as an example. Some people practice that like a religion while others might just pay their respect once in a while with some flowers. It's not worshiping god but still its not completely rejecting supernatural beliefs either.
The word "atheist" is completely fine unless 1. You are in an extremely religious area like Texas 2. You use it in an offensive manner (this applies to any word if you make it sound bad) Otherwise it's fine. Where I live (Melbourne) nobody cares about how you use the word and honestly I've never heard of anyone being offended by it.
"Atheist" is not offensive, if that's what you are asking. But it is a pretty 'loaded' term that can often generate intense conversations. Not often, but when people do push you on the question it can get pretty intense very quickly. That's what they are talking about in that thread - avoiding the confrontation rather than looking for a personal label.
>Especially the first reply here. Doesn’t “atheist” literally mean someone who has no belief in gods? Yes >Does this word have an inherent disapproving or dismissive tone in it? No, but there are some ignorant religious individuals who believe it means "hates god." They will react poorly to someone labeling themselves "atheist" but not as strongly as someone who says they "aren't religious." There's nothing inherently bad about the label "atheist", some people just don't react well to it though.
It is a pretty neutral term and I see no problem in using it at the present time. Going forward though I can see problems with the word. "Atheist" means "not theist". This a strange way to label somebody. People are generally labelled by what they ARE rather than what they ARE NOT. If I follow the logic of that then I am also an "amurderer", "agolfer", "aphilatelist" since I *dont* murder people, play golf or collect stamps. The term "atheist," then, is clearly a word that originates with *theists*. As an atheist myself I see this as being **their** word for what I am. They are describing me in their negative terms and not my own positive ones. It is like describing a black-skinned person as a "not-white". I prefer to call myself, simply, "normal".
But doesn't calling yourself normal kind of imply that religious people aren't normal? Idk just seems odd.
Yes, it does imply that. That is exactly the intention. There is nothing "normal" about the behaviour of religious people.
Seems a bit like a blanket statement. I've met plenty of lovely religious people.
>describing a black-skinned person as a "not-white". Isn't that what the term "POC" is for? Describing people by what they are not, is a pretty common thing in society? It's useful. We call people "undecided voters" (defining them by fact that they are decided). We have the term "queer" (not cisgender/heterosexual). Even if we got rid of the word "atheist", we'd still need an equivalent term, in order to discuss theism and non-theists.
That makes sense! Never considered it from this perspective before. Thanks
Outside the US, it’s generally fine. The Americans tend to have ideas about public expressions of religion that the rest of us find a bit intense.
It's not unacceptable. Maybe it can be said that sometimes it has the connotation of someone having near-evangelical anti-religious beliefs or being militant about their dislike for theists, as opposed to just being non-religious, but I think that specific stigma behind the word 'atheist' mostly comes from people who think negatively of non-religious people in general. It's a sensitive issue, and I'd say look into labels like 'agnostic', etc, but there's nothing wrong on the surface with calling yourself an atheist if you don't believe in any gods.
I suspect this depends on where you live and the wider cultural context. For example, the UK is a fairly non religious country. Regular church attendance, especially amongst young people, is unusual. I'm in my 30s, can only think of one person my age who regularly goes to church - and she's an immigrant. Saying you're an atheist in the UK is very, very normal. The US - especially the Deep South / Bible Belt - is a far more religious society, where church attendance is a social expectation. It's not "do you go to church" it's "which church do you go to". The perception of atheists - is far more negative there - and will mean people are less happy to be called atheists.
I think it's very much this. I'm in my late 40s and some people I know are religious but that's a definite minority and most people are atheists. I don't know anyone who'd have a problem with the word because it's just a neutral descriptive term in Scotland which isn't a very religious country so there's no real stigma.
I don't believe in god so I would be an atheist, but I'd never use the word because for me it's too tied with edgy 12 year olds who make athiesm their religion and edgy YouTubers who inevitably slide into bigotry Pretty much I just rarely discuss religion and if someone brings it up I'd say I respect all beliefs but I personally think it's irrelevant to my life and I don't care
I call myself an "apatheist", which has gained more traction online recently I was mid-teens before I realised that religion was even a thing people *actually* believed in instead of it just being cultural set-dressing, like Christianity was for my family. I never sat down and went *do I believe in a god or not?* In other words, I'm basically apathetic to religion in general, have never spent any time thinking about it and don't intend to start – the people I know who actively call themselves atheist feel quite strongly about their lack of belief and generally came from religious families
Yeah I'd agree with that, like my family did Xmas and Easter eggs and stuff when I was younger but divorced from any belief, and even the religious people I do know will at most go to church a few times a year if it's a holiday or not eat bacon but otherwise it doesn't really seem a key part of who they are
This is like saying “I only have sex with men, but I would never use the word ‘gay’ because it’s too tied to people wearing assless chaps in the pride parade.” If those are the only people willing to claim the word, then that will be the only association. Part of the reason the “flagrant” people end up associated with the “controversial” words is because the dominant majority tries to declare “offensive” to belong to the minority at all. So only the people willing to “flaunt” it use the words, because everyone else hides from the social judgment.
Well sexuality is more relevant to who you are as a person since who you end up in a relationship with is a big part of your life. Not believing in god feels about as relevant to my daily life as not being a football fan so I guess maybe that's the thing, any word associated with identifying as non religious will naturally become tainted because the type of people who make it part of their identity/personality tend to be annoying at best. Fwiw also in both countries I've lived in non religious people are the majority not the minority so that might also affect my perception.
Not at all.
For some reason many people think very lowly of athiests. Theyre distrusted and seen as immoral despite that being complete garbage
i believe that is because most people under "atheist" imagine those online atheists who say shit like "fairy tale" or "skydaddy" under everyone who even mentions believing in God
No. Atheist is the term for someone who doesn't believe in gods/deities. It is not attached to a generalized negative connotation, and is not in any way insulting to an atheist to be called an atheist. (People of faith do dislike being called an atheist, and will often find it insulting.)
It really depends on the culture and context. Who you’re talking to, about what you’re talking. Some people don’t understand the concept, or don’t accept it, so will become offended, or defensive, or have another weird reaction. But with a sane person it’s a normal term.
It's perfectly acceptable unless you're around hyper religious people who might endanger an atheist if labeled as such.
Atheist means that you don't believe in gods while most people understand it as someone without religion. To my understanding Buddhism is an atheist religion. For a lot of people the term also doesn't apply. They don't see any proof, that would make them agnostic.
It's not inherently bad. There are a lot of people who give it a bad reputation. Some of them spout some really offensive anti-Islam rhetoric, for example. Often they are people who like to argue as a hobby, even when the person they're talking to is clearly not interested in doing so. If you say something like "I'm not really religious" or just "I don't go to church" you mostly avoid identifying with those people.
I think the problem is that a lot of people get offended because they don't actually know what an "atheist" actually is.
It depends who you ask. For the more extremely religious being an atheist is tantamount to being a heretic. In some countries / cultures being branded an atheist can be dangerous.
Well here’s the thing. You can call people who play golf golfers but do you have a term for people who don’t play golf? I feel it is kinda the same thing. I don’t want a label for something I don’t do. I don’t play golf either. I don’t meet up with people who don’t play golf weekly and discuss why we don’t play. It’s really just nothing.
It's all about context. Some people who are proactive about telling people they're atheist are comparable to people who are proactve about telling people they're vegan. They proselytize, and denigrate people who aren't, and *they're* the reason for the stigma. That's completely different from saying "yeah, I'm an atheist" if someone asks you what you believe. And then be prepared to clarify what that means to you. Rule of thumb: If nobody asked, labeling yourself isn't going to be constructive.
There's the "hard atheist" who believes that there are no gods, and the "soft atheist" who hasn't been convinced of the existence of a god. If the label fits, you can call anyone anything you want.
You can call yourself whatever you want. I don't call myself an atheist because I don't even give religion an opportunity to be heard. To call myself an atheist would mean that I want to or acknowledge that the other side has legitimacy. I avoid discussing it or change the subject if possible.
The problem with the term “atheist” is that it can be used for someone who doesn’t believe in gods, but it can also mean someone who believes there *are no gods*. Because there is ambiguity, people hearing “atheist” will make assumptions about the person and which category they fit into. Therefore, some atheists may not say they are atheist and will use other words or phrases to reduce or eliminate the ambiguity.
As an atheist I just refer to myself as non-religious because "atheist" has picked up some "anti-religion" connotations on the internet
In some countries it's very socially unacceptable to be an atheist, but that's a social thing it really has no bearing on the word itself, which I would say is very neutral in its connotation.
Many religious people think that atheism means having an active belief that there is no god. This is not the correct definition, which is a lack of an active belief in god. Some atheists take the first position but it isn't necessary.
No, atheist is a perfectly acceptable thing to call someone who is non-religious. Now if you add a "fucking" to that....
It is not that it is unacceptable, but that definition can vary and some people prefer other labels. Agnostic, atheist, religiously non affiliated, …
This is a difficult question because it’s about culture in America. I’m someone who used to call myself an atheist, but now say non religious for the same reasons as the picture, so I’ll elaborate. There is a community of atheists online and to a lesser extent in person that make it their whole personality. They can’t let anything happen without saying “well actually, your sky fairy isn’t real hehehe” and stuff like that. And aside from that, the association with the label “atheist” is very much looked down upon in the US (one time I told a girl in school I was one, and she gasped and told me that meant I hated god.) So it does have a negative connotation, even in real life, and it’s not worth defending myself every time I bring it up anymore.
As a British person, it's completely normal and acceptable. In fact, 37.2% of our population is non religious. But it sounds like in the US, it's different. For us, calling someone a "Christian" is just stating their religion, just as calling somebody an "atheist".
It's a complicated question, but I'd say it's much more cultural and historical than linguistic, per se. Historically in many countries atheism was associated with communism (rightly or wrongly), hence pejorative terms like "godless communist," etc. In countries in which overt Christian identity is a significant element in national and cultural identity (I'm not speaking at all of theology or even religious doctrine here), it can be difficult to assert one's atheism without risking being thought of as unpatriotic or even seditious. In more recent times so-called "political atheists" of the Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins type have given the word a bit of a black mark for other reasons, often combining their philosophy with support for certain aggressive foreign policy positions, etc. As with all such terms, what people precisely mean by "atheist" or "atheism" varies quite significantly.
I come from an extremely catholic country where being an atheist makes you sound as bad as a pedophile or a mass-murderer. I don't believe in gods but I am still looking for answers to some existential questions, hence I don't fully deny a possibility of an existence of a higher entity a.k.a. I'm an agnostic. I've noticed it doesn't elicit such an outrage as atheism.
In some scenarios you can use word "agnostic", i believe many dont know tgis exist, so this might be helpful. There are some differences between atheism and agnosticism, as i remember it atheism - you dont believe in any gods and deny their existence, and second one - you dont believe in gods, but "one or many of them might exist somewhere but we wont know because of the lack of evidence". But i absolutely agree that if you can you definitely should avoid specific terms if youre not 100% sure if others wont use stereotypes against you, people are cruel sometimes. Religion meant to gather us and instead made us even more distant from each other
In a language/semantic sense, the word just means not- theist. "Theist" meaning a person who holds a belief in a creator- adding the "a" in front of a word means "not" that word. So "atheist" doesn't mean anything more than *not* being a person who believes in a creator. An atheist will not be bothered by being called an atheist, it's not offensive or dismissive or anything. The person in the screenshot is talking about how some people associate religion with morality. So, to a religious person, theism = moral, so atheism = amoral, or immoral. The reason they don't want to use the word atheist is so that some religious folks won't call them immoral.
Similar to veganism, atheism on the Internet developed a negative reputation, so someone might not identify as one when they descriptively are to avoid being associated with the people that give it that reputation. It's not unacceptable at all to use it descriptively though.
It depends on how religious the region you are in. I live in northeast US, and there is no negative connotation whatsoever. Atheist is the most common word to refer to someone with no belief in god, and nearly all atheists where I live describe themselves as Atheist.
I may not be totally qualified to answer (I’m a Christian) but from my experience, atheists are generally more anti-theistic than they are religious-neutral. Meaning they go out of the way to be rude to religious people, telling us that our Gods aren’t real and that we’re somehow the obsessed ones. This is definitely the stigma that the commenter was mentioning. For proof of this, go see r/antitheistcheesecake or my comment history where I said “please don’t wear religious artifacts if you don’t believe in them, you never know how offensive that might be to someone” and see the replies from those that aren’t OP. I generally don’t get mad or triggered or anything whenever I hear the term atheist, I will be a little bit on guard though.
I disagree. And using Reddit as proof is not a good argument, because Reddit is not reality. There is the stereotype of the “Reddit atheist” for a reason. I’m atheist (and so are a lot of my family and friends), but we don’t go around announcing that to the world because it’s generally very unimportant to us. I couldn’t care less what people choose to believe in, unless it becomes harmful. Like what others have said, if people ask me about my religious beliefs I usually just say I grew up Christian but I don’t really practice anymore. There is most certainly a silent majority of atheists that act this way and not like the exchanges you’ve had on reddit.
Again, I never said every atheist is like this, I was explaining why there might be a stigma.
I’m disagreeing with your opinion that “atheists are generally more anti-theistic than they are religious-neutral. Meaning they go out of their way to be rude etc. etc.” I never said you said every atheist is like that.
I hear anti-Christian remarks daily from people all around in the real world that don’t know I’m actually Christian. Also from those that I am. Not once have I met someone that is atheist have anything remotely kind to say about my religion, and I understand that the general consensus of Christianity hasn’t been very good, especially recently, but a lot of people don’t even give Christians a shot at any kind of friendship.
Maybe you should evaluate why you’re talking about religion so much, if that’s your experience. I (and I’m sure most of the silent majority of atheists) frankly hardly ever think about it, much less talk about it on a day-to-day basis.
It’s possible that me and you have very different experiences then, the majority of the time religion is already a topic if interest because I’m currently taking AP World History, I’m not as much of a nuthead as you’re trying to make me out to be.
You said in your original comment that you may not be qualified to answer, and I would tell you that you’re correct. The silent majority of atheists could give a shit about religion and wouldn’t care enough to engage in a lot of discussions about it. My issue with you is not that you explained why there may be a stigma with the word atheist online, which is very true. But my issue is that you refuse to comprehend that the majority of atheists are not like that. Just like the majority of Christian’s aren’t pedophiles who hide behind the church or zealots spreading hate on the streets. It’s seriously like talking to a brick wall. Just read the comments in this thread, many atheists don’t go around declaring they’re atheists for various reasons. I’m sure you’ve had many normal conversations with atheists without even realizing it, unless a prerequisite for talking with you is disclosing religious beliefs.
Some religious Christian people, mostly older people, have been told that atheists are devil-worshippers. It isn't logical or correct, it's just what has happened. So if someone has been accused of satanism every time they say they are atheist, they might prefer the results of just saying "not religious" (some of the sort of Christian that cause this issue think that "non-religious" means you are Christian but just don't have time for church)
I call myself agnostic most of the time. The chances some deity actually exist according to the current scientific evidence tends toward 0%. So in the end it just doesn't matter at all. But atheist, heathen or satanist is also fine. Fun fact, modern non-theist satanism is actually a lot about self care, being excellent to each other, tolerance and compassion.
Only if you live in a backwater town full of rednecks in the south of the US
I say “I’m not religious.” In the United States, the word “atheist” has associations that I’d rather not deal with.
It's acceptable, it's just that they became annoying on the internet and that's why some people don't like to label themselves with that title.
Why would you be calling someone an atheist? Are you making accusations. It's not your business to label them. They're capable of doing that themselves.
I'm just intrigued by those YouTube comments and wonder why they would say stuff like that.
Atheist is someone that believes there is no god. Someone who doesn’t believe in anything is an agnostic.
not related to English