Why I do not call myself an atheist

[Paradox]

If you were to take a classical approach to defining atheism you may find that after a lengthy conversation I may fit under the term 'atheist'. But because language is fluid and is constantly changing we have a 'modernized' definition for atheism. In a cultural context, at least here in the states, atheism is understood as a term that implies the position that god does not exist. While this isn't even true to today's technical definition this is simply the way the word is thrown around in most contexts. The word atheist is always used in contrast to the word theist, making them opposites in today's context.

As a result of the polarizing words in a culture huge on labels we have also twisted the word agnostic to mean something entirely different from its original meaning. Agnosticism is thrown around in today's context as a mediator of the two polarizing words described above. It allows one to say, "I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic". In other words, "It's not that I believe there is no god, its that I don't really know if there is one or not." This of course bastardizes the true meaning of all three words to some degree, but nevertheless it is true of today. Especially in the USA.

So when called on to state my position on the controversial matter I do not ascribe to any of the 3 labels. Instead I call myself a Christian. Not because I am afraid of being ostracized, but because as long as they're allowed to destroy the meaning of the words I wish I could accurately label myself as I will actively seek destroying the meaning of their own words. I call myself Christian because I accept the notion of God dying. I accept the idea that a death like this, sacrificial or not, would be beneficial to us all. I even accept the idea that any remote positive traits of the belief in god can, should be and are "resurrected" in us as a community of believers (believers who believe in this notion). I accept that because of this death on the metaphorical cross, we now have God residing in us in such a way that allows us to maintain the responsibility of respecting the sanctity of humanism and community. I believe this philosophical framework allows for the idea of humanism and other positive values to be reinforced through the ideas of a religious dogma I have no hijack and that was in all likelihood void of value that may have once been contained in its original state anyway.

Anyway, I wanted to share that and see if you all thought it was as ridiculous as it sounds when I say it out loud.

[Plu]

Anyway, I wanted to share that and see if you all thought it was as ridiculous as it sounds when I say it out loud.

Yes, yes it does. But I like the concept, in a way.

[Graceless]

Huh.

So, you co-opt the metaphors and mannerisms of a bankrupt and nonsensical mythology in order to give a greater appearance of legitimacy to your secular humanism (which doesn't need such trappings in the first place)?

... Yeah, it does sound kind of ridiculous. I don't see why you would play such word games with yourself, except maybe to superficially fit in with mainstream Christians. Do humans really need the divine to have dignity?

EDIT: Apologies if I sound rude. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Johan]

It sounds pretty rediculous to me. Actually it sounds like a lot of work for no real benefit. It also sounds kind of childish to me. I dont like what they did to my word so I'm going to try to fuck up their word. Theists are usually the ones who buy into that eye for an eye crap. I like to think that atheists are able to see better solutions than an eye for an eye.

I generally dont tell anyone that I'm atheist. Its none of their business. If it comes up at all I just say that I'm not religious and that cures all 99% of the time. If pushes or tries to save me I might tell them I'm atheist but more likelyiI'll find some other way to let them know that I'm not interested and their current line of discussion is nothing but annoying to me.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I tell people outright who I am, an atheist. If they don't like it tough titties. Go chew on a plastic nipple.

[GSOgymrat]

Honest communication should clarify not obfuscate. If a particular word is a point of contention use more than one word to clarify what you are trying to communicate. I call myself a Humanist because it best describes my values and it is more precise than saying atheist or agnostic, which says nothing about my beliefs in rationality, compassion, etc.  If someone then asked me "are you an atheist?" I would say "I don't believe in God if that is what you are asking," which is typically what they mean.

I'm remind of Emo Phillips describing himself as religious...

[youtube:832qtzml]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLPr5biDhs[/youtube:832qtzml]

[Colanth]

EDIT: Apologies if I sound rude. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You sound befuddled, as in "why would an atheist care what people who believe in stone-age mythology care about my not accepting their myths?"  Rudeness would be telling him that you agree with him when you can't understand why he said what he did.

I prefer to avoid confrontation where it's not needed, so I call myself a non-theist in public.  If the religiobots don't realize that it's the same word as atheist, just using a prefix from a different language, that's not my concern.

[stromboli]

I generally don't get confrontational with people because I am outnumbered where I live, but they will know I am a skeptic if not an outright atheist. I like the word skeptic. It isn't as confrontational as atheist.

[NeoLogic26]

Personally, I don't believe in submitting to the "common usage" argument when it comes to bastardizing a well-understood (by people with half a brain cell, anyway) set of terms. The word "theist" means belief in god(s) and "atheist" means without belief in god(s). Just because some idiots have misconstrued the meaning, doesn't mean we need to retreat from a label that is accurate when used appropriately.

Would you argue that the common misuse of homophones such as "there/their" and misuse of words such as "lose/loose" should just be left to common usage or should people stand their ground when it comes to the mangling of their native tongue?

[Colanth]

I generally don't get confrontational with people because I am outnumbered where I live, but they will know I am a skeptic if not an outright atheist. I like the word skeptic. It isn't as confrontational as atheist.

I had a conversation with a friend a few months ago, in which I referred to something (I can't remember what now, but it was some characteristic) just having evolved that way.  His response was "I believe in God", as though that had some relevance, and as if I had said that I don't.  Around here you don't need a billboard stating that you're an atheist for people to assume that you are.  Just don't praise Jebus often enough and they'll draw the conclusion.  Tell them that you're a non-theist, though, and many of them will assume that you're one of them, not one of those "godless heathens".

[Graceless]

If someone asks me or it becomes somehow relevant, I freely and plainly cop to being an atheist. It works out fairly well.

To quote Doctor Seuss: "Those who care don't matter, and those who matter don't care."

[Paradox]

All wonderful points. I would like to respond to a few:

Huh.

So, you co-opt the metaphors and mannerisms of a bankrupt and nonsensical mythology in order to give a greater appearance of legitimacy to your secular humanism (which doesn't need such trappings in the first place)?

... Yeah, it does sound kind of ridiculous. I don't see why you would play such word games with yourself, except maybe to superficially fit in with mainstream Christians. Do humans really need the divine to have dignity?

EDIT: Apologies if I sound rude. It just doesn't make sense to me.

1) I co-opt the metaphors and mannerisms of a mythology that has forcefully co-opted the English language (and others) itself. The metaphors of English literature and idioms are so often "owned" by the Judeo-Christian world. It is difficult, at times, to appeal to one's sense of humanism without "borrowing" language from the Christian mythology. Bob Dylan once said that the difference between a good artist and a great artist is that one "borrows" from others while the other "steals". When I am forced to "borrow" their language my point is weakened by the fact that my rhetoric belongs to them. When I "steal" their language my point is strengthened by the transference of ownership (even if the transference is superficial). Remember when Paul "stole" language and mannerisms from Plato and used it to strengthen his Christian worldview to those around him? (See //http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/april/mtpub2.asp

2) Word game or not, I do not seek to fit in with mainstream Christians. In fact playing these word games allows me to push against mainstream Christianity where their points are weakest, thus I am the opposite of approval-seeking.  Christianity is not weak in their possible application of metaphoric language and flexibility in philosophical frameworks. Where they are weak is in the limitations that certain dogmas place on their secular humanism (and further making their humanism needlessly religious). For example, the Christian dogma that holds that Jesus is the one truth, light and way to God weakens the point that Jesus does make about loving the marginalized. How is one to love on, or assist, the marginalized when they are also forced to hold that "salvation" is delivered only to those who, first, come to believe and accept a particular credence. I am called therefore, by Christian dogma, to love and assist those who I am to believe to be lacking eternal salvation. With the dogma that there is eternal life and death I am forced to care more about their salvation than their "worldly" needs my humanism ultimately falls short. It is not necessary to co-opt this language to support my humanism. However, it is simply another tool that I have every right to use. So the question is why NOT use it?

You didn't sound rude at all, I understand your incredulous outlook. Humans truly do not need the Divine to have dignity. I did not want to convey a sense of necessity of divinity in my framework, nor did I want to convey a sense of necessity in general. I apologize if I did.

It sounds pretty rediculous to me. Actually it sounds like a lot of work for no real benefit. It also sounds kind of childish to me. I dont like what they did to my word so I'm going to try to fuck up their word. Theists are usually the ones who buy into that eye for an eye crap. I like to think that atheists are able to see better solutions than an eye for an eye.

I generally dont tell anyone that I'm atheist. Its none of their business. If it comes up at all I just say that I'm not religious and that cures all 99% of the time. If pushes or tries to save me I might tell them I'm atheist but more likelyiI'll find some other way to let them know that I'm not interested and their current line of discussion is nothing but annoying to me.

1) It doesn't take a lot of work to co-opt their language. The metaphors and idioms are already there, right in front of you. The word Christian is already obscure, it takes little effort it in obscuring it further. The best way to render the meaning behind a word irrelevant is to make the word so obscure that any consensus on its real meaning becomes non-existent.

2) This is not an eye for an eye. This is stealing their tactics and putting it in our toolbox to use at our disposal. Judeo-Christian language currently dominates language in literature and even every day life. This is taking that dominance and turning it against the dogma that rules a majority of people's lives.

3) You're right. My position on the matter is no one's business. I don't always answer the question, sometimes I do defer. But sometimes I get the sense that value could potentially had by carrying out the conversation, so in those cases I enjoy disclosing my position.

Honest communication should clarify not obfuscate. If a particular word is a point of contention use more than one word to clarify what you are trying to communicate. I call myself a Humanist because it best describes my values and it is more precise than saying atheist or agnostic, which says nothing about my beliefs in rationality, compassion, etc.  If someone then asked me "are you an atheist?" I would say "I don't believe in God if that is what you are asking," which is typically what they mean.

This is a great point. Most of the time honest communication ought to be the goal in a conversation. However it is not unethical to use various rhetorical methods when debating or attempting to deliver a point. I suppose I should clarify that I may adopt this philosophical framework only in occasions when I wish to make the arguments I have made above. I should not use the word Christian as a label for myself if I do not wish to expand on that to make a rhetorical argument.

[Solitary]

I prefer to call myself a freethinker rather than an atheist to avoid confrontation with religious fanatics. If push comes to shove I tell them I'm free from religious dogma and think for myself and don't listen to religious authority like a small child does. I'm surprised it has never came to taking the gloves off.  8-)  Solitary

[Satt]

My Facebook profile, under religious views, says "Agnostic / Poly-Atheist". Basically, I tell people it means that I don't know if there is a god or not, but there are thousands of gods I don't believe in. I have had a LOT of people delete me that I have know for many years over that simple change on my profile. It's sad really.

[Johan]

1) It doesn't take a lot of work to co-opt their language. The metaphors and idioms are already there, right in front of you. The word Christian is already obscure, it takes little effort it in obscuring it further. The best way to render the meaning behind a word irrelevant is to make the word so obscure that any consensus on its real meaning becomes non-existent.

Fair enough. Let me put it this way instead. It sounds like effort, big small or otherwise, for no real benefit. If it makes you happy then it makes you happy. But other than that, no good is likely to come from it.

2) This is not an eye for an eye. This is stealing their tactics and putting it in our toolbox to use at our disposal. Judeo-Christian language currently dominates language in literature and even every day life. This is taking that dominance and turning it against the dogma that rules a majority of people's lives.

Its an eye for an eye in the sense that its vindictive. You feel like you've been wronged and your solution is to wrong them back. Seems kind of childish and pointless to me but that's just me.