Why should we be boxed into a group of dont believes, after all dont we only not believe in one more religion than the rest. Christians dont believe in hundreads of religion, atjiests are the same, plus 1.
I mean is there anythin out there that is defined by what it isnt or doesnt believe in?
I wouldnt mind as much if we were grouped into atheists and arationalists, but it just isnt like that.
2007-03-10 18:39:34 · 13 answers · asked by A Drunken Man 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You're right, the word isn't really needed. After all, there isn't a word to define people that don't believe in Santa Clause.
2007-03-10 18:43:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
People like to label things. You don't believe in a religion, so there is a desire to label you as such. There are many other terms for people who have no religion. They are tailored more to peoples individual beliefs. I'm an atheist and I like the term. My boyfriend is a secular humanist. He explains it to people who don't get it as an atheist with a conscience. He chose this because he was unsatisfied with the view of the word atheist. If you don't like being called an atheist, do some research there is probably a community and a word or phrase that you would feel happier with.
2007-03-10 18:53:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at it this way:
Jewish people are just known as the people who don't believe in Jesus Christ.
And to Muslims, Christians are known as the ones who don't believe in Muhammad.
I group atheists as people who believe in evolution and not God. So make of that what you want; that's how I do it. Other denominations of Christianity are also viewed by what they don't believe in comparison with Catholicism.
2007-03-10 18:48:40 · answer #3 · answered by pamiekins 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the other hand, why not? There needs to be some sort of starch behind the label, what would you have it be? I am quite satisfied to fill in any form with a blank spot for "religion" with: None. (My last encounter with such was on a Saudi Arabian visa application.)
2007-03-10 18:44:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, I really don't understand the question. Atheists are defined by what we don't believe, period. The very definition is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. How else are we supposed to be defined?
2007-03-10 18:45:22 · answer #5 · answered by ReeRee 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Identify as a Bright. I love the concept of the Brights.
http://the-brights.net/
-- A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
-- The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
2007-03-10 18:46:37 · answer #6 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Have you read any Sam Harris? He makes a similar argument in the "End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation"
Good books.
2007-03-10 19:12:53 · answer #7 · answered by MTU 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically we shouldn't have to be grouped or labeled at all... We are just people, in the default of no belief... the others are the ones what have added something extra to their lives...
2007-03-10 18:47:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be neato torpedo if people referred to me as a physican (not physician)! I just made that word up, but I think it's real cool. I don't think it would work for all atheists, but it would for me since I believe that all existence is purely physical.
2007-03-10 19:14:33 · answer #9 · answered by juhsayngul 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I never think of atheist as being defined by what they don't believe. I simply think of them as people who reject God, as opposed to many who accept God.
I Cr 13;8a
2007-03-10 18:50:18 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋