Just because I don't believe in what you do (which puts me in good company because neither does 2/3 of the planet) why do I get a trite and condescending name? I don't address you as "self-delusioner" or "fool." Why don't you address me as "non-christian" or "atheist"?
2006-07-14 05:00:42 · 34 answers · asked by ksjazzguitar 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No, I'm not joking.
2006-07-14 05:02:06 · update #1
freelancenut:
"unbeliever" is still judging me in reference to your belief, which I (and most of the world) don't accept. I actually prefer the term "heathen", at least it has some charactor. Would you be offended if I just called you "theist"? And refused to ever acknowledge what your beliefs are? My world view is not based on my non-belief in what you belief. It is based on what I believe: a rational observation of the natural world and an abandonment of superstition.
2006-07-14 05:11:25 · update #2
Relative to my beliefs, you are delusional. Should we call all christians "deluders"? Would that be as uncondescending as "unbeliever"?
2006-07-14 05:13:02 · update #3
r_u_really_that_scared:
But neither of your quotes uses the condescending term "unbeliever". (Once again I am amazed at the lack of critical thinking skills.) Even if it does, that doesn't justify using it. Jesus calls gentiles dogs, that doesn't mean that we should. The OT is full of god sanctioned rape, murder, plunder and genocide. Does that make it acceptable?
2006-07-14 15:33:53 · update #4
Well, since they want to insist upon using a semi-derogatory label for you ... how about we refer to "them" as uninformed?
2006-07-14 05:20:15 · answer #1 · answered by Arkangyle 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The fact that you are an "unbeliever" is relative to the beliefs of the person who is calling you that. They believe in something and you do not....so to them you are an unbeliever. But you could just as easily call a Christian (or any other religion that you do not believe in) an unbeliever because they do not believe what you believe. I'm sure there are people who can be condescending about it, but that's a problem with that person, and not the word they use or you. It's just a descriptive fact. Would you be upset by a group of people wearing green shirts calling you un-green as you wear your blue shirt?
2006-07-14 05:10:20 · answer #2 · answered by Scotch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evidently, the people you have a problem with over this, are mainly Christians. You don't believe as they do, and they call you an "unbeliever". You would also be an "unbeliever" to a hindu, muslim, jew, taoist, pagan, wiccan, satanist, vampire, or any other group whose beliefs you don't share. Christians, at least, aren't going to do anything about it but pray for you.
Now, I'm a Christian. I don't believe that there is no God. To an atheist, I could be an "unbeliever".
I do love this question, though. The answers do tend to show about how mature the person is.
2006-07-14 05:37:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unbeliever doesn't bother me.
I'm not a believer cause I test things before I believe. If the test is inconclusive I will give the idea the benefit of the doubt but I don't believe it all the way.
So sure, I'm an unbeliever.
Nadia--now being called unfaithful does bother me a bit.
Oddly enough I don't mind 'infidel' in certain contexts--prolly 'cause The Great Agnostic Ingersoll redeemed that term :)
2006-07-14 05:04:46 · answer #4 · answered by mikayla_starstuff 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is your problem if you think unbeliever is condescending. If you do not like what they believe in, then you should be happy you are an unbeliever.
As my belief goes, I know that Christians are lesser in their belief than I. I believe Jesus released me from the law to belief, so that is perfectly fine if I am an unbeliever. (So, if I don't believe based on what I believe Jesus did, then I am a true believer. Get it?)
They are simply calling you an unbeliever of their religion. It is their definition of unbelief, don't make it yours.
2006-07-14 05:05:44 · answer #5 · answered by ridethestar 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I understand exactly what you are saying. I am devoutly religious and yet get labeled "unbeliever". Some even say that I don't believe in god simply because I do not believe in their particular god. It is insulting. I would settle for "pagan" or "heathen" but I hate being labeled as a non-believer when I do have beliefs.
2006-07-14 05:43:54 · answer #6 · answered by Witchy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you rather be called unfaithful?!
Unbeliever isnt condescending, it's jsut what you are when you don't believe in something!
We say unbeliever when tlkin about this paticular subject which is believing in God! and the fact is that you do not believe your are an unbeliever, thats' a fact i dont see where the problem is with this word
2006-07-14 05:04:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not a matter of believing in what I do or not. If you don't believe in Jesus or God the creator of all things, His is the existence of life. That mean you don't believe in all that is around you and how it got here. Actually most Christians use all words, not all the time is it unbeliever and I guess it is a matter of personal preference.
2006-07-14 05:32:03 · answer #8 · answered by hateizmybestfriend 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't necessarily meant to be condescending. It's just a way of describing the differences in opinion. But it does work both ways--the term Christian takes on a condescending tone sometimes too. I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with you, no matter what label we get saddled with.
2006-07-14 05:13:49 · answer #9 · answered by cj_justme 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would you even let the names that others label you with to heart. They are just words and they only have the meanings that we attach to them. And besides why do we need all of these religious labels? What I have found from researching different religions and many may get bent up about this their is not one that is better than the other.
2006-07-14 05:12:01 · answer #10 · answered by karias68 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You said: "I don't address you as 'self-delusioner' or 'fool.'
I'm thinking that might not be a bad idea.
Or, perhaps we could invent an ancient Greek philosopher... 'Dumbassticus'... who espoused the embracement of all things supernatural and delusional. Thus, as people who conform to the philosophical ideals of Dumbassticus, Christianity and other faith-based religious groups could be captured and encapsulated under a single label... 'Dumbasses'.
2006-07-14 05:19:29 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋