“I am an atheist.”
All you can connote from that sentence is that I don’t believe in theism.
I find it ridiculous, that absence of a belief, however popular that belief may be, is given a -ism. It goes to show the influence of theism in modern thinking.
I’m no longer going to call myself an atheist, as I would be playing the theist’s game.
I tend to agree with you, except that I don’t think it’s just a theist’s game. The atheist has much to gain from considering themselves an ‘ism’ too.
Also, one could argue that there’s a difference between an ‘ism’ atheist, and other types of atheist. For example, dogs and babies are most likely atheistic, they simply have no concept of God in their heads. People who have considered (perhaps even once believed in) God, and come to a conscious conclusion that He doesn’t exist, are probably worth distinguishing from the other sort with a word of their own.
Well, my opinion on that was addressed in the opener. I don’t think the negation of a belief, however popular, deserves an -ism.
Because somebody is an Atheist only in the presence of a theist, I conclude that the atheist is playing on the theist playing field.
A person who has considered the theist theory, as all probably have, and then concluded that it’s not true, for lack of a better word right now, should not, ideally as with every other belief they negate, be categorized into an -ism.
theism is just another belief in a sea of a shitload of beliefs. I should not be categorized for negating one belief out of the whole.
But perhpas it’s the label most _______ go by, whether it’s correct or not perhaps? I’m only suggesting, you could discuss with everyone who asks after they find out what it is you believe, but the majority, top _____ go by ______, even though it may not be correct term usage for yourself.
delete…
As I said, just because the belief it negates is so popular, it does not warrant an -ism. The term was coined out of convenience, I agree, but still I don’t think it should have been, because the actual concept it was first used to denote is now blurred and miss-used.
What do you call those who negate evolution as a theory? Nothing. There is no term coined for them. Evolution is just a theory. There are those who believe it and those who don’t.
The same goes with theism. It is a theory. Some believe it and some don’t. There is no need for a term that categorizes those who don’t believe it.
The bulk of atheist literature online is written by Americans, and is a mix of anti-Christendom, pro-Darwinism, spiritual-critisism and materialism. This atheisim is a sub-culture which evolved in a leftist reaction towards the constant nonsense preached theistically and enforced upon common people.
Actually, a lot of the time they get called Christians regardless of whether they are religious…
Exactly.
This is why I said atheists play a theist game, and therefore give theism much more credit than it deserves. The things these so called atheists are attributing to atheism by association are theistic in motivation. Anti-theist. The term in my opinion is still giving too much importance to theism.
I can’t believe the philosophical community is running along with this. Dawkings, who associates himself with atheism, should just be a scientists who doesn’t believe in theism, plain and simple. He should be approaching and count-arguing the theistic belief via science, or philosophy. But reason aside, I think he’s doing it for shock effect. To bring atheism(in reality he’s preaching for science, not atheism) into mainstream the same way theism was brought into mainstream. From a human perspective, I can see how easing up on fundi theist beliefs can be beneficial, but from a philosophical, and scientific perspective, the guy is a sellout. Honorable in his intention, though.
Such thing as logic is not everybody’s strong suit. Non-evolutionist does not imply pro-Christian. Statistically, more than half of non-evolutionists are pro-Christian, so inductively, they would not be incorrect to associate non-evolutionists with Christians; strictly in America, though.
Once again I will add this link:
Atheism is a term of derision used against “non-believers”, for example it is not uncommon for Muslims or Hindus to accuse Christians of being athiests, or vice versa. It would be like calling me an atruck-driver because I don’t drive nor care to drive a truck, its pointless to even create such a term.
Given the popularity of the alternative, I think it is a useful label.
For the most part in American society, people are considered to be theists until it is mentioned otherwise. Granted, that depends on the location and culture-group the person associates with . . . but in most towns if you see someone walking down the street, they are a theist.
To distinguish those who fail to comply to that standard makes sense to me. It doesn’t give you any real information about them, other than they aren’t theists but the fact remains that just being a non-theist is strange.
Maybe they have to play the “theist’s game”, and try to reduce the effect of propagada capmaign A, with propaganda capmaign B. 
But yes, it shouldn’t really HAVETO be done, but it’s the way they try to stop the brainwashing, etc.
Only if it remains closed-minded, prejudiced and dogmatic does it become an ‘-ism’.
If it simply denies the absurd contentions of theists certainty and absolute ‘truth’ then it is only a reaction with no definite position other than in a common shared disagreement in reference to a particular theory concerning God.
I would say someone who doesn’t believe in fairies isn’t an afairiessist.
One would have to invent a negative terms for every possible reality.
This is why man – the rational kind, reason in the opposite direction.
They claim something is possible when there is evidence to support it.
For every other possibility he remains indifferent and awaits convincing proof.
The effect of propaganda campaign A is not reduced by propaganda campaign B. As a matter of fact, the opposite becomes true, so much so that it leads me to believe that campaign B is a double agent for campaign A.
I agree. Intellectual limbo is not something everybody can endure; theism is but an immediate remedy, turned callously dogmatic for those who cannot.
My point exactly. A reasonable man can make the distinction between such things as race, gender, height, which man is born in, and theism which is just a belief system that is adopted. With a little reason, theism will become what it rightly is. Just another theory explaining the origins of life. A weak one at that, but that’s beside the point. We would be indulging and giving undue credit to the self-righteous theists by categorizing non-theists.
I can’t argue with that. Because religion and the question of God is such a big deal, it’s a big deal for those who don’t believe. For the phrase was probably coined at a time when people started doing the crazy thing of not believing in God! What do we call these people? Atheists. Not sure, but that’s my guess, never looked up the origin. But you’re right mostly. I’d only argue that evolution is basically a fact, most won’t agree when I say there is within a species evolution, and one common ancestor evolution, micro and macro, for most people say they are the same thing, I’m only arguing here that “Part” of evolution is a fact, and to be an aevolutionist would just be plain stupid and very unpopular.
I always thought Isms were a doctrine of Self. I have noticed that all so-called isms conclude that the power or God or what have you is within your self instead of submitting to an outside authority. Sounds very atheistic to me since they both exclude any outside authority or entity.
Actually, evolution is not, and will never be fact. It is a very well proven theory, but it’s not fact.
Nothing concerning Origin of Species is even close to proven. In fact there is much evidence that the idea of all life evolving from one single cell to be mathematically and logistically improbable.
Care to back that up?
Molecular genetics has pretty much sealed the case on that one. Phylogeny is a big field. Start with Woese, then move onto the genome projects, and it becomes quite clear that all life does, indeed, have a common ancestor.
You have a very thin grasp of the theory of evolution.
My point was that a theory can never become fact, and it doesn’t matter how well proven it is.