Why I do not call myself an atheist

[Bobbotov]

I became an atheist because people were not afraid to use the word or felt a need to cloak it some other term. When I started to question religion I sought out people who called themselves atheists to find out more of what it meant (and back then there weren't too many). More than anything these words are labels that have utility. Labels are necessary so we don't take the bottle that says "poison" thinking it is "medicine."

I think a lot of people are enculturated to religion and do not give it much deep thought if any at all. My other still calls herself a Christian but does not read the Bible or go to  church and has very little problem with my being an atheist. She does pray but I think that falls into the category of wishful thinking more than anything.

Actually, many Christians do a disservice to their own avowed faith. Ted Haggard anyone? Jim and Tammy Faye, Robert Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart , pedophile priests and so many others do more harm to their own religion than any atheist ever could.

So the use of the word atheist does not present a problem to me in the least. And similar to what someone said in this thread if it bothers anybody I couldn't give a rat's ass.

In any case here is something that might clarify the various positions (labels).

[ApostateLois]

If I say I'm an atheist, people know what I mean: that I don't believe in God. If I were to say I'm a Christian, they would also know what I mean: that I believe in the God of the Bible, that I am born again, accepted Jesus into my heart, yada yada. But since I don't believe those things, I see no point of describing myself as something that I am not. Christians are confused enough as it is, why befuddle them even more by giving new meanings to a word? "Atheist" answers the simple question, "Do you believe that God, or a god, exists?" No, I do not. Now, I could also use non-theist, humanist, or freethinker, and I guess these sound less offensive to the delicate sensibilities of Christians;  but sometimes I just like to get right to the point, like when the JWs come marching up to my door to talk about the end times and Jesus.

[Colanth]

Actually, many Christians do a disservice to their own avowed faith. Ted Haggard anyone? Jim and Tammy Faye, Robert Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart , pedophile priests and so many others do more harm to their own religion than any atheist ever could.

What seems kind of funny to me is that if you tell a theist that you're an atheist, most of them are horrified.  (And if they're Christian, I think most of their horror comes from terror.)

But if you tell a Catholic that there's proof that some priest raped an altar boy, they come up with excuses.  If you tell some Fundamentalist homophobe that his preacher confessed to having sex with men, he comes up with excuse.  But we, who didn't do anything wrong?  We're the ones more guilty than the priest or the minister.

It takes a certain lack of ability to think to come up with that kind of response.

[antediluvian]

Paradox:
You are either an atheist or you are not.
Be true to yourself.
If you are an atheist, stop being afraid to say what you are.

[Paradox]

Paradox:
You are either an atheist or you are not.
Be true to yourself.
If you are an atheist, stop being afraid to say what you are.

I feel that I am true to myself. I am not fearful of my position on the subject of god(s) or how any theist(s) or atheist(s) may react to my position. The label I ascribe to is essentially a rhetorical argument that in the very least strengthens my own views of humanism and with a little luck I can get people to think outside the societal normativity box that is religion. I admit that it may indeed by quite the fruitless enterprise, but nevertheless I cannot see myself regretting the attempt later on in life.

When someone asks my position on the subject I don't want to simply defer to the label 'atheist' because I this gives them leverage over me in the conversation. From there they get the power of inquiring further and framing the structure of the conversation that benefits them the most. Labeling myself as a Christian and then quickly turning around and saying, "but this is how I interpret my Christianity - - - " this tactic shocks them and as this is a response they could not have possibly anticipated they are left with no means of domineering the conversation. If debate follows they are left with only the Dogma of their religion pitted against the humanism they once could in some small cling on to when debating atheists. Perhaps in only having their dogma at their side they'll see how weak it truly is and instead focus on humanity when returning to their preconceived notions of Christianity. That in and of itself would be a small, but worthwhile, victory.... IMO.

[Johan]

The label I ascribe to is essentially a rhetorical argument that in the very least strengthens my own views of humanism and with a little luck I can get people to think outside the societal normativity box that is religion.

I think its far more likely that this tactic will only succeed in getting people to think you're weird.

[Brian37]

That is a bullshit argument.

You are right words are fluid and do change. "Gay" originally simply meant "happy". Then it went on to be used as a slur to demonize homosexuality. Yet even with that gays adapted the word and still use it.

I am an atheist and the childish fear mongering attempts to demonize the word do not mean we have to let them hijack it.

No, if you don't believe in a god you are an atheist, why should you hide from it?

Fuck any theist who fear the word "atheist", that is their baggage not mine.

[Mister Agenda]

You have a right to identify according to your understanding and conscience.

'Atheist' is not a very informative descriptor, I identify that way primarily because it's so misunderstood that I think it needs more exposure. 'Freethinker' would tell people more about my position than just 'atheist'..and that's another commonly misunderstood one. Sigh.

[Bobbotov]

It sounds like going to France and pretending you are French. Your inability perhaps to speak French will give you away. If you do speak French fluently what has been gained? It sort of makes you a religious mole.

[SGOS]

I keep thinking of that movie, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  You can try and act like them and keep your real identity hidden, but eventually, you give yourself away.  Some body snatcher that looks like your grandfather or your 12 year old child eventually catches on and lets out a long inhuman howl while he points his finger at you, an outsider.  Everyone now knows you're an imposter and starts chasing you down the street so they can catch you, put you to sleep, snatch your body, and replace your soul with something they grew in a large pea pod.  Eventually, everyone is the same, and all doing whatever it is that body snatchers are supposed to do when their task is completed.  No humans have ever survived in a body snatcher movie, so you know there is no point in hiding from them.

[Bobbotov]

I keep thinking of that movie, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  You can try and act like them and keep your real identity hidden, but eventually, you give yourself away.  Some body snatcher that looks like your grandfather or your 12 year old child eventually catches on and lets out a long inhuman howl while he points his finger at you, an outsider.  Everyone now knows you're an imposter and starts chasing you down the street so they can catch you, put you to sleep, snatch your body, and replace your soul with something they grew in a large pea pod.  Eventually, everyone is the same, and all doing whatever it is that body snatchers are supposed to do when their task is completed.  No humans have ever survived in a body snatcher movie, so you know there is no point in hiding from them.

A great metaphor for the way religious people treat atheists.

[sdelsolray]

Paradox:
You are either an atheist or you are not.
Be true to yourself.
If you are an atheist, stop being afraid to say what you are.

I feel that I am true to myself. I am not fearful of my position on the subject of god(s) or how any theist(s) or atheist(s) may react to my position. The label I ascribe to is essentially a rhetorical argument that in the very least strengthens my own views of humanism and with a little luck I can get people to think outside the societal normativity box that is religion. I admit that it may indeed by quite the fruitless enterprise, but nevertheless I cannot see myself regretting the attempt later on in life.

When someone asks my position on the subject I don't want to simply defer to the label 'atheist' because I this gives them leverage over me in the conversation. From there they get the power of inquiring further and framing the structure of the conversation that benefits them the most. Labeling myself as a Christian and then quickly turning around and saying, "but this is how I interpret my Christianity - - - " this tactic shocks them and as this is a response they could not have possibly anticipated they are left with no means of domineering the conversation. If debate follows they are left with only the Dogma of their religion pitted against the humanism they once could in some small cling on to when debating atheists. Perhaps in only having their dogma at their side they'll see how weak it truly is and instead focus on humanity when returning to their preconceived notions of Christianity. That in and of itself would be a small, but worthwhile, victory.... IMO.

To alleviate your quandary, I have a suggestion.  Whenever someone asks you these or similar "identity" questions, simply reply, "None of the above."  Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and nothing lost.  Plus is can be funny if you time it right.

[josephpalazzo]

Paradox:
You are either an atheist or you are not.
Be true to yourself.
If you are an atheist, stop being afraid to say what you are.

I feel that I am true to myself. I am not fearful of my position on the subject of god(s) or how any theist(s) or atheist(s) may react to my position. The label I ascribe to is essentially a rhetorical argument that in the very least strengthens my own views of humanism and with a little luck I can get people to think outside the societal normativity box that is religion. I admit that it may indeed by quite the fruitless enterprise, but nevertheless I cannot see myself regretting the attempt later on in life.

When someone asks my position on the subject I don't want to simply defer to the label 'atheist' because I this gives them leverage over me in the conversation. From there they get the power of inquiring further and framing the structure of the conversation that benefits them the most. Labeling myself as a Christian and then quickly turning around and saying, "but this is how I interpret my Christianity - - - " this tactic shocks them and as this is a response they could not have possibly anticipated they are left with no means of domineering the conversation. If debate follows they are left with only the Dogma of their religion pitted against the humanism they once could in some small cling on to when debating atheists. Perhaps in only having their dogma at their side they'll see how weak it truly is and instead focus on humanity when returning to their preconceived notions of Christianity. That in and of itself would be a small, but worthwhile, victory.... IMO.

For consolation, you're not the only one. Neil deGrasse Tyson has expressed similar concerns about what he refers as the "label atheist".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

[Sal1981]

I don't believe in anything supernatural; call me what you like, but for me that constitutes my atheism.

[Mister Agenda]

SGOS, that's a hilarious analogy, but since atheists have become more visible, the Christians have become more than happy to claim people on the borders of belief as acceptable...at least they're not an atheist!