As atheists, lets make the 'ism' of atheism obsolete

I get really fed up of the word atheism. I do not follow any atheism guide, for none exists, I do not follow any atheism dogma, for none exists, I do not follow any atheism manifesto, for none exists. In essence there really is no such thing as atheism. I am atheistic, I was born and raised without the crap of supernatural belief systems.


In Wiktionary, item 3 places the ism of atheism in a category with "overtones of dogma".


It's up to us atheists to encourage the obsolescence of the word, since it is based on falsities, just as the N word was eventually dropped from most reasonable language. Sometimes language self-corrects as the decades roll along, sometimes language needs a little help. Atheism is pushed upon atheists by the religious majorities of the world with the sole purpose of bad-mouthing us. Let's stop it.


Atheism is nothing, we atheists are by no means homogeneous at all as a group. Most of our character is determined by our upbringing during our formative youth years. Atheists are all over the place philosophically, economically, politically, spiritually (gag), many atheists even chose to not even dump the religious values pushed upon us for 20 centuries.


Edit: To be clearer, my gripe is not with the root of the word, I am absolutely fine with the atheos component... it is the "ism" component, the doctrine, the philosophy, it is an etymological issue.

Views: 909

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I dont have a problem with the word Atheism or Atheist. The word Atheist goes directly to the point. Humunist and Agnostic leave the door open for a god to pop in somewhere. I want people to know that I believe god to be bullshit with no possibility of that silliness in my belief system.
Agreed, I have zero problem with atheist. I am in total agreement with you, about the bullshit that is god/jesus/religion/value system, it's all the same fuck-up. But the definition a 'democratic majority' of religious earthlings ascribe to atheism will never describe me. I belong to no 'ism'.
It was sarcasm.

Suppose I care about ducks. If someday I am appointed or elected to office and become newsworthy, a journalist somewhere will tire of writing of my concern for ducks and start writing of my duckism.


Whoa, doctrines and philosophies are intensely personal issues. Otherwise, we humans would have but one doctrine and one philosophy. I'm also sure there are disputes among etymologists.

BTW, read enough posts here and you will conclude there are many atheisms.


(clears throat)...

Yes, I've been reading tons of posts here for three years

Yes, I'm aware there are many definitions, both here and in reference materials

THAT is my very point, there are so many definitions, none is correct, BECAUSE there is no such thing as atheism, as atheists, we defy the very doctrine concept.

"...we defy the very doctrine concept."

Your words suggest the intent of a warrior.

How many people does your "we" have? How well are they armed?

I believe there is a directionality problem because the "ism" wouldn't be viewed so negatively if more people didn't view freethinkers as harmful to society. If we all changed the name, we would just be backing down from the real problem. We could all change the negative view of "ism" in contrast, if we continue to keep up the good work and positive Atheist business.

Well, it's not about a positive or negative view of anything, the word 'atheist' has exactly the same pejorative value as atheism, I have zero concerns with that aspect. My issue is with the ism, it's about there is not such thing as atheism, in the sense that there is no doctrine, no manifesto, and that's the way it should be. If atheists ever coalesced into a certain doctrine or philosophy, I'd be disappointed. There is no such thing as atheism, and I wouldn't want there to be.


Humanists follow Humanism, it is an official doctrine, it exists, atheists do no "follow" anything.


It's about having integrity, a word such as atheism does not say anything.

TNT, you wrote "...the word 'atheist' has exactly the same pejorative value as atheism...."

Don't you, in truth, have to say you see the same pejorative value in the two?

You are free to attach identical values to the two terms; others are free to attach differing values. Surely you don't intend to deny others that freedom.

What meaning is TNT attaching to the word atheist or atheism?


On the contrary, after reading his original post, I assume, he is saying it has no meaning other than 'non-belief in God or gods'. And that it is other people who are attaching a whole new manifesto of meaning to the word, which TNT wants to get away from.


Maybe TNT needs to clear this up a bit and re-explain his position.

ahem... me... her...

'atheist' has a few definitions that revolve around some sense of non gods, with variations, I'd like to see a definition improvement, but I'm not messing with atheist, I have no trouble calling myself an atheist and explaining it to people.


'atheism' I see as a vacuous word with no meaning, or 'the word of a thousand meanings'. We are not a 'movement' nor a group, nor a philosophy. In the sense that, as Dawkins said (and I don't quote him often) "organising atheists is like herding cats". Mind you, there has been a trend towards Humanism among recent atheists, but 'Humanist' and 'atheist' are not inseparable. Humanism is a system of beliefs and ideologies, there is no such equivalent for atheism, so to me there is no atheism, there are only atheists, with all our diversity.





Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service