# I cringe when I hear the word Atheist



## nooneknowsmyname (Feb 4, 2013)

I'm sorry but I just do... I don't know why, it's just a natural reaction. I do NOT believe in god but for some reason I don't like the word atheist...


----------



## TheNord (Aug 18, 2013)

Most Atheist "discussion" is really just ego masturbation, where Atheists attribute their ability to recycle logical arguments with amazing repetition to their own intellectual superiority. Christopher Hitchens didn't exactly help the Atheist image either.


----------



## leftnips (Aug 8, 2013)

Blame the media. Not all atheist are modeled by one individual.


----------



## Ryukil (Jun 2, 2011)

Probably because it is generally used in a negative way. Also, I don't really think not believing in God should define an individual the way that it does. You're not an "atheist" in the sense that you should be wearing a scarlet A wherever you go (see what I did there?); you're just a person who doesn't happen to believe in God - this should be secondary. It shouldn't make you anathema.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TheNord said:


> Most Atheist "discussion" is really just ego masturbation, where Atheists attribute their ability to recycle logical arguments with amazing repetition to their own intellectual superiority.


As long as theists keep using illogical arguments atheists will need to keep recycling logical arguments. 

People have been banging on about the archaic mythical characters like Jesus for far longer so it's far more repetitive.



> Christopher Hitchens didn't exactly help the Atheist image either.


Hitchens was great.  I'm sure he helped many people stay atheist or deconvert to atheism/agnosticism.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Ryukil said:


> Probably because it is generally used in a negative way.


It's only used negatively in countries with high levels of religiosity. There are many countries where you can assume people are atheist unless they say otherwise.



> Also, I don't really think not believing in God should define an individual the way that it does. You're not an "atheist" in the sense that you should be wearing a scarlet A wherever you go (see what I did there?); you're just a person who doesn't happen to believe in God - this should be secondary. It shouldn't make you anathema.


Indeed. All it actually says is that you don't believe something that some other people do.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

nooneknowsmyname said:


> I'm sorry but I just do... I don't know why, it's just a natural reaction. I do NOT believe in god but for some reason I don't like the word atheist...


Probably because your society in general doesn't have a positive view of it. I assume you're from the US?


----------



## cooperativeCreature (Sep 6, 2010)

Aye. The stigma of atheism.

That's why I prefer to label myself as infidel instead.


----------



## Monroee (Aug 26, 2009)

My brother had said this not too long ago to me, about how awful the word "atheist" sounds, that it just sounds like some sort of evil word. It's because of the negative connotations with it. For a long time (and still), atheism is seen very negatively, and spoken of with such disdain from the religious. Kind of like some sort of dirty curse word. That even when we logically know there is nothing bad about atheism and some of us are happily atheists, we still subconsciously associate the word negatively, and that's why it tends to sound bad. 

Kind of similar to how most us cringe at the words "penis" and "vagina" and "poop", just sounds gross, but that's in part associated with what they are describing. If those words were for everyday neutral things, they probably wouldn't sound bad to us. And yes, I just compared atheist to poop. :b


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Monroee said:


> My brother had said this not too long ago to me, about how awful the word "atheist" sounds, that it just sounds like some sort of evil word. It's because of the negative connotations with it. For a long time (and still), atheism is seen very negatively, and spoken of with such disdain from the religious. Kind of like some sort of dirty curse word. That even when we logically know there is nothing bad about atheism and some of us are happily atheists, we still subconsciously associate the word negatively, and that's why it tends to sound bad.
> 
> Kind of similar to how most us cringe at the words "penis" and "vagina" and "poop", just sounds gross, but that's in part associated with what they are describing. If those words were for everyday neutral things, they probably wouldn't sound bad to us. And yes, I just compared atheist to poop. :b


The same thing can be said of the word Muslim or Christian depending on where you are from. It's simply that other groups often get viewed with suspicion/dislike.


----------



## WhatBITW (Jan 26, 2013)

I don't really have a problem with the word but I don't think it should be used as a label beyond the point of differentiating non-believers from theists. Atheism isn't a religion, although many ignorant religious people seem to think it is.


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

*Never understood the meaning of agnostic*

Is it secondary to atheism, to soften the judgement?


----------



## anyoldkindofday (Dec 16, 2012)

I just kinda get annoyed by people my age talking about how and why they are atheist or comedians bashing religion. Over here like 90% of people my age or below are atheist(not based on facts, but probably not far from the truth), I don't see why people still make a big deal out of it.


----------



## Mysterious Dr D (Aug 8, 2013)

I cringe when atheism is associated with people like this...


----------



## gunner21 (Aug 4, 2012)

twitchy666 said:


> Is it secondary to atheism, to soften the judgement?


It's just a PC and non-controversial way of saying that you don't believe in god.


----------



## trymed (Jun 28, 2013)

leftnips said:


> Blame the media. Not all atheist are modeled by one individual.


Atheists aren't even a group....... They don't have a dogma or a code... there is no atheist hiarchy.... people would want to judge atheists are just cognitively impaired


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

I've never been to eager to label myself 'atheist', it carries a fairly negative connotation.

I prefer agnostic, because most people I'm associated with don't even know what the means.


----------



## dburger (Aug 22, 2013)

Atheism means you don't believe god exists. Agnostic means that whether or not god exists cannot be proven. So it's possible to have agnostic atheists (believe there is no god but don't know for sure) and agnostic theists (believe there is a god but don't know for sure).


----------



## dburger (Aug 22, 2013)

Just to clarify, I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I live as if there is no god because I believe it in my heart of hearts to be true, but I don't KNOW that there is no god. I'm open to the tiny possibility, but that's my attitude towards everything. Nothing is 100% certain.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

dburger said:


> Atheism means you don't believe god exists. Agnostic means that whether or not god exists cannot be proven. So it's possible to have agnostic atheists (believe there is no god but don't know for sure) and agnostic theists (believe there is a god but don't know for sure).


Indeed. No one can credibly claim to have absolute knowledge on the subject.

Most atheists already acknowledge that. However, most theists claim they know god exists, which makes them appear ridiculous.


----------



## justpassinby (Oct 21, 2008)

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed. No one can credibly claim to have absolute knowledge on the subject.
> 
> Most atheists already acknowledge that. However, most theists claim they know god exists, which makes them appear ridiculous.


Being absolutely certain that one cannot be absolutely certain is a blatant contradiction. So, what you said there not only appears ridiculous, it is ridiculous.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

justpassinby said:


> Being absolutely certain that one cannot be absolutely certain is a blatant contradiction.


That statement doesn't violate my statement that no one can credibly claim absolute knowledge on the subject.

My statement isn't ridiculous. It's grounded in reality and entirely reasonable.



> So, what you said there not only appears ridiculous, it is ridiculous.


If someone thinks they or others can claim absolute knowledge on the subject then they are both delusional and ridiculous.


----------



## justpassinby (Oct 21, 2008)

ugh1979 said:


> That statement doesn't violate my statement that no one can credibly claim absolute knowledge on the subject.
> 
> My statement isn't ridiculous. It's grounded in reality and entirely reasonable.
> 
> *If someone thinks they or others can claim absolute knowledge on the subject then they are both delusional and ridiculous*.


Are you absolutely sure?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

justpassinby said:


> Are you absolutely sure?


Sure enough.


----------



## justpassinby (Oct 21, 2008)

ugh1979 said:


> Sure enough.


I'll leave your logical fallacy here.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

justpassinby said:


> Being absolutely certain that one cannot be absolutely certain is a blatant contradiction. So, what you said there not only appears ridiculous, it is ridiculous.


"I'm absolutely certain that no one can be absolutely certain of anything" is indeed a contradiction as you are making a claim of absolute certainty while saying that we can't be certain of anything.

However ugh was only saying that we cannot be absolutely certain of god which is only one subject. Theres no contradiction there because hes only talking about one thing.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

I guess we as atheists don't present ourselves as very welcoming or cool or easy going ect sometimes so there is a stigma associated with "atheist". I can see why an atheist wouldn't want to be apart of that "group". Also atheism sometimes is seen as anti-theism or against the right to have a religion. 

Personally, I find it extremely annoying when I hear people say "I don't believe in god but I would never call myself an atheist". I think if you don't like the perception atheism has then you should try to change it and promote the term the way you want rather then hide from it.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

The Silent 1 said:


> "I'm absolutely certain that no one can be absolutely certain of anything" is indeed a contradiction as you are making a claim of absolute certainty while saying that we can't be certain of anything.
> 
> However ugh was only saying that we cannot be absolutely certain of god which is only one subject. Theres no contradiction there because hes only talking about one thing.


Exactly.

Justpassinby doesn't seem to realise the strawman in her argument.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TerminalBlue said:


> I guess we as atheists don't present ourselves as very welcoming or cool or easy going ect sometimes so there is a stigma associated with "atheist". I can see why an atheist wouldn't want to be apart of that "group".


Levels of atheism correlate with liberalism far more than they do with theism, which is typically conservative, and I wouldn't say liberals are less easy going than conservatives. Theism/conservatism is far more focused on doctrine/rules rather than being easy going.

As for how welcoming atheists are, maybe that's because atheists don't proselytise as much as religious people?


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Mysterious Dr D said:


> I cringe when atheism is associated with people like this...


That's all over the place in this forum. :no


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Mysterious Dr D said:


> I cringe when atheism is associated with people like this...


Why?



millenniumman75 said:


> That's all over the place in this forum. :no


Do you believe having an imaginary friend is a sign of a mature intelligent mind?


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

nooneknowsmyname said:


> I'm sorry but I just do... I don't know why, it's just a natural reaction. I do NOT believe in god but for some reason I don't like the word atheist...


I like how it sounds. I suppose you've had the negative stigma ingrained into you?

So what do you think of "freethinker?" "Secular humanist?" "Non-theist?" "Non believer?"


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Dark Alchemist said:


> I like how it sounds. I suppose you've had the negative stigma ingrained into you?


Indeed much of the US population has an ingrained stigma regarding atheists and the term atheism due to the US government/media during the Cold War associating it with Communism and thus being an attribute of the enemy.

It holds no such stigma in other developed countries.


----------



## Radical But Legal (Aug 11, 2013)

I know what you mean. I used to be an atheist, but there were just so many egoistical douchebags on that side that it isn't even funny. Now I'm just agnostic. Much better in my opinion. All religion just seems really stupid to me, doesn't matter which one. However, I don't want to completely rule out the fact that some kind of higher power does exist.


----------



## Gareth Timms (Aug 24, 2013)

dburger says it better than i do but Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with a knowledge claim. Atheism and theism deal with a belief claim. The 2 terms are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in a god but don't claim to know there is no god. 
To add on it further the atheist and theist label can be applied to any god claim. If someone says the sun is their god then I'm a theist because i believe the sun exists i just might not agree with any supernatural claim that goes with it.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Radical But Legal said:


> I know what you mean. I used to be an atheist, but there were just so many egoistical douchebags on that side that it isn't even funny. Now I'm just agnostic. Much better in my opinion. All religion just seems really stupid to me, doesn't matter which one. However, I don't want to completely rule out the fact that some kind of higher power does exist.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Levels of atheism correlate with liberalism far more than they do with theism, which is typically conservative, and I wouldn't say liberals are less easy going than conservatives. Theism/conservatism is far more focused on doctrine/rules rather than being easy going.
> 
> As for how welcoming atheists are, maybe that's because atheists don't proselytise as much as religious people?


Good points. I guess I'm just not easy going although I am generally liberal politically but conservative personality. I think atheism is seen as a "conservative" point of view in the way that atheists are typically "unwilling to compromise" on the principles they require for proof of a god's existence.

I'm atheist and whenever I debate, I argue from a position that can't really be defeated. I carry that confidence which can also be misinterpreted as arrogance. Not to say that I'm never arrogant.


----------



## GetOutOfMyHouse (Jan 9, 2012)

...


----------



## Julesp (Aug 19, 2013)

Yep, it's the egoistic nature of some atheists that makes the whole term for me so reclusive.

What I've come to think is that people who actually believe in god, (possibly stay quiet about it) and live a happy life because of the positive feeling they get from their religion definitely have it better than some miserable atheists.

The bottom line is, if believing gives someone a positive life experience, it's better than not believing.

Whether someone believes in something or doesn't, it's really not their choice. It's how they were conditioned to be. Even though for atheists religious people may sound like utterly mad, they just can't understand their whole life experience and mind-structure which has lead them to be religious.

There's always a good reason why people are as they are.

Why even label yourself as "agnostic", "atheist" or whatever?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TerminalBlue said:


> Good points. I guess I'm just not easy going although I am generally liberal politically but conservative personality. I think atheism is seen as a "conservative" point of view in the way that atheists are typically "unwilling to compromise" on the principles they require for proof of a god's existence.


The only compromise would to be to entertain such unsubstantiated claims and not criticise them. Turning a blind eye isn't for everyone.

If atheists are being "conservative" with what constitutes evidence then so be it, as being "liberal" with what can pass for credible evidence isn't always intellectually honest.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Monroee said:


> That even when we logically know there is nothing bad about atheism and some of us are happily atheists, we still subconsciously associate the word negatively, and that's why it tends to sound bad.


I would say it's pretty much the exact opposite here.
"Atheist" isn't bad at all, but saying you're "religious" is likely to make people apprehensive.
People can be Christian or some other religion for cultural/traditional reasons.. even as a kind of relief and hope for good in the world. But if they call themselves "religious", that has pretty strong connotations which aren't good.



justpassinby said:


> I'll leave your logical fallacy here.


There was no fallacy in what he said, though you sure were eager in trying to trap him.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

GetOutOfMyHouse said:


> I cringe when they say it with pride...


Why? You think its something to be ashamed of?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

GetOutOfMyHouse said:


> I cringe when they say it with pride...


Why? To me it says a lot about them and their reasoning skills.

I cringe when religious people say with pride they are followers of their religion. To me it's like an admission that they don't reason and evidence in much regard, and just makes me think they are intellectually dishonest or worse.


----------



## Royals (Jul 20, 2012)

Any name causes stigmatization and predujice. So rather than being called Christian or Athiest I rather use believer and non believer.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Royals said:


> Any name causes stigmatization and predujice. So rather than being called Christian or Athiest I rather use believer and non believer.


I think you just contradicted yourself.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

These sort of labels aren't all that important to me. There was a big debate not too long ago against many prominent non-believers about what label they should use, but honestly it's just not that important to me. I think its odd when I see people who share so many key beliefs at each others throats over something like a label. If someone ever asks if you are an atheist or a theist or whatever, just explain your personal position to them.


----------



## GetOutOfMyHouse (Jan 9, 2012)

...


----------



## Mlochail (Jul 11, 2012)

I geuss I'm an 'agnostic atheist.' I do not really believe in higher something but that's still separate from the possibility the it could exist. 

To be certain we would have to know everything that is contained in the universe (and possibly beyond) and be able to undertsand everything in correlation to everything. This ofcourse is mind boggling.

Since we are millions if not billions of years away from that day, I can not say I'm certain but there's no reason to consider otherwise.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

The Silent 1 said:


> "I'm absolutely certain that no one can be absolutely certain of anything" is indeed a contradiction as you are making a claim of absolute certainty while saying that we can't be certain of anything.
> 
> However ugh was only saying that we cannot be absolutely certain of god which is only one subject. Theres no contradiction there because hes only talking about one thing.


Why should pronouncing on one subject as opposed to infinite subjects reduce the measure of a conviction?

"One cannot be absolutely certain about anything" and "one cannot be sure about God" are equally asseverative. "I know God" and "one cannot know God" are equally asseverative.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

fredbloggs02 said:


> Why should pronouncing on one subject or infinite subjects reduce the absurdity of an absolute conviction?


Because claiming that a certain subject is currently unknowable is a vastly different claim from claiming that all subjects are unknowable. If you can't see the clear distinction there, I don't know what else to say. Its like saying: "No one can claim to know what happened prior to the big bang" and someone else claiming "No one can claim to know anything about cosmology." The difference between those statements is clear.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

The Silent 1 said:


> Because claiming that a certain subject is currently unknowable is a vastly different claim from claiming that all subjects are unknowable. If you can't see the clear distinction there, I don't know what else to say. Its like saying: "No one can claim to know what happened prior to the big bang" and someone else claiming "No one can claim to know anything about cosmology." The difference between those statements is clear.


Likening God to cosmology as opposed to the time before the big bang is a subtle criticism of God, I'll give you that. But then you go on to say Ug is less contradictory because he is speaking about one subject as opposed to all, whereas in truth, to the believer God is all things.

From a bird's eye measure of absurdity, those who believe they discover digestible truths in relation to a greater unfathomable totality are surely every bit as absurd as those who believe they discover totality as opposed to little digestible truths. The first are the same as those who make the distinction between "big" and "small" whilst conceding they do not know the fullness they envisage beyond is subject to measure.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

fredbloggs02 said:


> Likening God to cosmology as opposed to the time before the big bang is a subtle criticism of God, I'll give you that.


No I am likening the question of god's existence to the question of what there was before the big bang. I'm making a single point here, that theres a big difference between claiming one thing is unknowable and claiming that all things are.



fredbloggs02 said:


> But then you go on to say Ug is less contradictory because he is speaking about one subject as opposed to all, whereas in truth, to the believer God is all things.


Not all believers in god feel this way, but regardless if we go this route you can define god as whatever you please.



fredbloggs02 said:


> From a bird's eye measure of absurdity, those who believe they discover digestible truths in relation to a greater unfathomable totality are surely every bit as absurd as those who believe they discover totality as opposed to little digestible truths. The first are the same as those who make the distinction between "big" and "small" whilst conceding they do not know the fullness they envisage is subject to measure.


Well big and small are relative terms. But that first group of people you mention don't pretend to comprehend the "big picture" that is clearly out of their scope, whereas that second group claims to have "discovered" totality when in truth they are simply making assertions.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

GetOutOfMyHouse said:


> No, but when they say it with pride I feel like they're trying to patronize people and their beliefs, that's it, but probably that's not always the case.


Just saying they're atheist somehow translates it to patronizing people and their beliefs? I find that hard to believe. I think they'd have to say a little more than that.



> and I've seen some atheist behaving almost like islamic fundamentalists.


You've seen atheists blow themselves up in a crowded market or throw acid in the face of an unveiled woman or preach that infidels should be killed?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Moasim said:


> I geuss I'm an 'agnostic atheist.' I do not really believe in higher something but that's still separate from the possibility the it could exist.
> 
> To be certain we would have to know everything that is contained in the universe (and possibly beyond) and be able to undertsand everything in correlation to everything. This ofcourse is mind boggling.
> 
> Since we are millions if not billions of years away from that day, I can not say I'm certain but there's no reason to consider otherwise.


You are the typcical atheist then.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

fredbloggs02 said:


> "One cannot be absolutely certain about anything" and "one cannot be sure about God" are equally asseverative. "I know God" and "one cannot know God" are equally asseverative.


There's a huge difference you need to realise there. The first statement is equally assertive as you say, and valid, but the second is assertive but makes the huge mistake of being totally unfounded in relation to the first statement, which is a positive assertion of knowledge that can't be known, as opposed to the negative assertions of knowledge that the 3 other claims state.

Surely you can see the difference in not claiming knowledge as opposed to claiming knowledge, regardless of the level of assertiveness?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

The Silent 1 said:


> No I am likening the question of god's existence to the question of what there was before the big bang. I'm making a single point here, that theres a big difference between claiming one thing is unknowable and claiming that all things are.
> 
> Not all believers in god feel this way, but regardless if we go this route you can define god as whatever you please.
> 
> Well big and small are relative terms. But that first group of people you mention don't pretend to comprehend the "big picture" that is clearly out of their scope, whereas that second group claims to have "discovered" totality when in truth they are simply making assertions.


Exactly.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Dark Alchemist said:


> You've seen atheists blow themselves up in a crowded market or throw acid in the face of an unveiled woman or preach that infidels should be killed?


Indeed, I think he is trying to draw parallels with those with assertive rhetoric with those who murder or physically harm others in the name of their differing beliefs.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

It's an odd term to describe someone with, because it's like saying someone is a non-athlete or an anti-cinema fan.

Unfortunately though, most of the world is theistic so it's a needed description.


----------

