look here
Why are we referred to as non-believers? It's just plain offensive. The word believer is given as something good and we are "non" or not good. Why arne't WE called interlectuals and believers called non-interlectuals.
Its just like calling people "non-whites" You 'belivers are all racist against athiests. ADMIT IT.
2007-06-13 08:17:50 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think you guys mis understood me. I AM AN ATHIEST AND AM EXPRESSING MY VIEW AGAINST NON-ATHIESTS.
2007-06-13 08:22:16 · update #1
I cant spell interlectual. SO WHAT?
2007-06-13 08:23:26 · update #2
I agree with you. Its insulting. Notice they totally missed the point, as usual.
2007-06-13 08:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's the funniest thing I've seen all day!
interlectual --> intellectual
Your example is pretty poor, as well. If you had a room with 10 people of different races, and you wanted to address everyone but the white person, the group would be called "non-whites". It's not offensive - it's just easier than calling the rest of them out one at a time.
There are believers and there are those that don't believe. Non-believers. How is this an issue?
2007-06-13 08:25:20 · answer #2 · answered by mickmel 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
An 'interlectual' would be able to spell intellectual. Not all athiests have intellect.
And why can't a religious person be intellectual? Quite a few are.
And racists against athiest? Maybe if you said "You f*cking white athiest" yeah.
You don't believe in religion, therefore you are a non-believer in religion.
2007-06-13 11:56:35 · answer #3 · answered by sparkle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interlectuals?
Doesn't that word say a lot here!
Anyway, if you wish to use a different term, go ahead. Faith doesn't imply a lack of intellect though. Nobody would argue that Augustine or Aquinas were not intellectuals.
Non-believer is implicit in its meanig. It is understood that such is a person who simply doesn't believe in Christianity. I have no problem adopting that moniker. I follow up though with the notion that I do believe in a great deal; simply not that which the Christians do.
2007-06-13 08:24:48 · answer #4 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know what you mean, I don't like being defined in terms of what I don't accept, it is very negative and so many theists assume that an atheist is some sort of failed Xtian who just hasn't got the moral fibre to obey the scriptures, rather than someone who may have the highest moral conscience but rejects unsubstantiated dogma and superstition!
That's how the Brights movement got formed, the adoption of a positive word to sum up a secular, naturalistic world-view. Alas, I have many problems with the way the Brights are developing, and I think I'll just stick with Atheist, but you might want to google 'the Brights' and see what you think!
2007-06-13 08:26:16 · answer #5 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't get the idea Satan has any ideals I would wish to stand for, so I would back God, if he were truly good. Honestly, I think it might come down to a third faction fighting both camps just to regain a shred of decency on the planet.
2016-05-19 03:04:37 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe in the possibility of multiple spiritual deities but not one...the closest term I can find to that is 'soft polytheist'.
The term 'atheist' bothers me b/c it implies the person does not believe in any kind of spiritual anything. To me, 'non-believer' has meant non-Christian and I gladly embrace that concept. I view the term as meaning 'non-evil'.
2007-06-13 08:26:52 · answer #7 · answered by strpenta 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Give it time. My estimate is 100 years. I think within that time the word "believer" will be dead.
There will be normal people, and then there will be a small fringe of people called "religious people". They will be the last of the holdouts as religion dies off for good, and they will be the ones with the special title, as they will be the minority.
2007-06-13 08:24:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
First of all learn to use spell check, it is intellectuals not interlectuals
You are are over analyzing the phrase. Non is simply a prefix to indicate a condition. It is not positive or negative.
I'll be willing to bet that non is a compliment to many.
Be who you are and be proud of it.
2007-06-13 08:25:27 · answer #9 · answered by Ann P 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Interesting.
The word, "Gentile" meant an unbeliever, yet there are in the N.T. believing Gentiles.
Me thinks you are creating a controversy where none exists, or you are just wanting to pick a fight with everyone who you claim are "believers."
2007-06-13 08:23:49 · answer #10 · answered by Hogie 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
in the usa the christians are raceist against the atheists thay are the lowest form of life over there
2007-06-13 09:10:25 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋