It was brought to my attention that "non-believer" is an offensive term. When people talk about Christians, they link of Christ based faiths together, Cathiloc, Baptist, Methodist, whatever, or Religion to cover Christianity, Judiasm, Islam and such.
So what is a non-offensive word to list atheists, agnostics, pagans, wiccans, and all other non God or Christ based groups together? What is appropriate?
2006-11-19 05:52:30 · 29 answers · asked by sweetie_baby 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Kent, to answer your question. I put it that way, as it is often the way it is on the forum. When people ask questions of any faith based group, they tend to list it as religion. It was merely my observation, thanks for asking though.
2006-11-19 06:03:31 · update #1
Don't you worry about political correctness.
If they have something they believe they are, "agnostic" "spiritualist" "non believer" whatever they will surely correct you.
You can't please everyone all the time.
If you say they are a non believer I think all of those you listed pretty much FIT that well, so there's nothing to worry about.
2006-11-19 06:01:03 · answer #1 · answered by Fluffy 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
If you're looking for a term to describe folks who aren't Christian, non-Christian is probably the best bet.
Some folks have an issue with non-believer because they do believe in *something* - just not necessarily the same belief as others. Non-believer is a very subjective and unclear term, at best.
If you're looking for a broader term that covers folks outside Christianity, Judaism and Islam, non-Abrahamic tends to be one of the more common.
2006-11-20 02:23:21 · answer #2 · answered by ArcadianStormcrow 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about "non-Christian". The term "Religion", though, is not just Christian, Jew, and Muslim. Buddhists and Hindus have religions, as do Pagans and Wiccans (they, too, believe in a god or gods).
Speaking of offensiveness, why is "Wiccans" not in Yahoo's spell checker? I'm not Wiccan, but I would think that that word would be included.
2006-11-19 06:37:16 · answer #3 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For a group of people who do not believe in any deity/ies (Christ or otherwise), "Atheist" fits. For those who believe in some type of deity/ies but not in the Christian deity, "Non-Christian" would fit. To include all those who believe in at least one deity (Christ as well as others), "Theist" is a good descriptive word. To include all modern pagan religions, "Neo-Pagan" works well.
2006-11-19 11:47:10 · answer #4 · answered by Witchy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Un-believer" and "non-believer" make it sound like all of us have abandoned god and don't believe that there is a greater power above. It's true that some have, they're called atheists I believe, but there are those of us who believe in something. Just not your god.
To say we're nonbelievers in Jesus, okay, that might include more of us than when you simply say nonbeliever but saying it in any context makes it seem and feel like Christianity is the only religion and I realise that christians think that their religion is the only way but the rest of us don't.
And I for one don't say christian and mean Baptist, Methodist or other religions. A christian is a christian and a baptist is a baptist. And I sure wouldn't mistake christianity with catholosism.
2006-11-19 06:07:48 · answer #5 · answered by spirenteh 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You can't group athiests and agnostics with pagans/wiccans...
They are not the same... with Athiests you could call them "Non-believers" because they don't believe in any form of a higher power (or power greater then themselves)...
With Agnostics... they believe in a higher power... and many still believe in the older Christian theologies...
With Pagans/Wiccans... You are better off to describe them as "Pagan"... which in itself means "earth dweller" or "country dweller"... (in earlier centuries... Pagan religions were not prominent in the cities... they were in rural areas... which is where the term originated) .
Another term that is commonly accepted as non-offensive... is "Non-Judeo"... which simply means not of the Judeo-Christian concepts/Theology...
2006-11-19 06:02:15 · answer #6 · answered by grimmy19812000 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm an atheist who isn't offended by the term "non-believer" I don't see belief in the unbelievable as a virtue or something people should be proud of.
However, I don't want to be lumped in with pagans and wiccans as I am a non-believer as far as their religious philosophies goes as well.
Atheists in general are a motley crew and we come to atheism from a variety of directions. I don't think there is a term that describes us other than a-theist.
2006-11-19 05:59:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
the first thing that comes to mind would be "other paths." that could refer to other beliefs, non-beleifs or apparent lack of beliefs.
thank you, by the way, for making the effort.
I'm curious as well (not pointing a finger) why you would seek to include Islam or Judaism within a common umbrella with your fellow Christians, but seek to position ways that are not momotheistic or book-based as "non god" along with atheists? Again, not a criticism, just curious.
2006-11-19 05:58:41 · answer #8 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
a non-believer may represent anybody, if i told you that george bush was the first man on mars then you`d be a non-believer. So a non-believer is a relative term, because for muslims you as a christian are a non-believer and they are for you non-believers, or for other religions it`s the same thing. So why should the term non-believer be considered offensive?
2006-11-19 05:56:42 · answer #9 · answered by Sir Alex 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
I'm not offended by the term non-believer. I guess some people might be because you're defining them in terms of what YOU believe - you believe, they don't, so they are a non-believer. I could just as easily say that I am logical, you believe in god, so you are delusional, but I could more easily see how you could take offense to that.
How about Godless? I like that term. Or Infidel. Probably most people won't agree with me.
2006-11-19 05:56:57 · answer #10 · answered by eri 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
non violent movements replaced into the will of the hour coz non-violent emotions have been the basis reason of their movements he asked the ppl to renounce non-violence--so as that at short be conscious--a minimum of we've been waiting to keep away from the outcomes yet whilst u do a learn , u will discover that by potential of combating non-violent movements and preaching, helping harijans, etc- replaced right into a thank you to root out the ideal reason: violent emotions he worked to root out the violent emotions all his existence, it replaced into basically that he asked the ppl directly to renounce those movements coz by potential of the time ppl's emotions had taken the astounding course, it would have been too previous due so u stated them,...yet observe the failings that are hidden between the coated too,my costly
2016-12-10 11:51:02 · answer #11 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋