Wikipedia has for a long time maintained a list of prominent atheists. This has now been removed and replaced by a list of non-theist. One of the important goals for us is to make the use of the term "Atheist" accepted. I would therefore call upon all of you to do what you can to bring back this list and make the proper term "atheist" cannon, also on Wikipedia

Views: 751

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To someone who identifies themselves as atheist this is the proper term. Anyone not happy with the term would never identify with it. That Atheism is a belief system is plain wrong, and this fact can be confirmed by anyone with ease. If someone chooses to uphold that impression regardless that is their choice
If by vacuum you mean the right to choose my view of the world without being labelled against my will, then thank you. I hope you are as happy with your vacuum as I am with mine. If not then you lost me but then ...

I read a few months back that wiki had known federal offense felons working there
'oops' is all they could say

ah paperless society
so easily mislead
books still rule; paperless bill paying and mail though, can't beat that
True The Britannica article on atheism is an absolute gem.This per postcard would be less nice though.
I had the chance to revisit the Britannica article a few days ago, and I must admit that it is hands down the most brilliant prose ever written on the subject. I would suggest that all non believers atheists agnostics and so forth read this before venturing out in a debate on the subjects.
I KNOW!!! Paper checks are such a pain in the a** I wish someone would tell my mother in law this Yoda-esque wisdom. Do love snail mail letters though ...shiny cards...and stickers.
My point exactly.The term atheist is important because some people ( like me) are atheist. As a Humanist you are possibly also an atheist, but not necessarily. Humanist and non-believers have things in common with atheist, but are not the same. Therefore only those who are and refere to themselves as atheists should be called atheist. The same should obviously apply the other way around as well.
I remember when the Danish Atheist Society was just starting up. Atheism was not something people spoke about at all. We changed this by calling us atheists, never anything else, and by never wrapping things. In 7 years we have gone from 15 members to more than 1000.

So Pantheists, Deists,Agnostics,and Atheists are not the same, while Humanists and non-believers overlap. And if anyone dosen't think it matters, just try calling a Catholic Protestant.
My son just turned three. He's an "atheist". He's an "atheist" no matter what he might believe later in life, as everyone is born at this position. No one is born with a belief in fairy tales; we develop the capability to believe in that tripe as we experience the world around us while growing up (he does, however, believe the people inside the TV are real).

This being the case; would it be proper to call my son an atheist? I think not. He is at the default position, which is no belief that a larger version of me is floating around the clouds watching him to make sure he doesn't rub his ding-ding on my coffee table when I'm out of the room and send him off to burn in a fire pit for all eternity if he does.

Shouldn't we all then be at this same default position? Sure; there was a major attempt to indonctrinate me in "The Stupid" when I was younger, and I even considered myself a Christian at that point. I came to my senses, though. There's really no such thing as a Christian, as the vast majority of the story is make-believe. At that point in my life I also pretended I was Luke Skywalker but no one called me a Jedi; I see no difference.

This was a lot of rambling just to make the point that I really don't care if people refer to me as atheist. I don't need a label; they do. They're the one's making claims about Jedi Mind Tricks and ghosts. I just sit idly by on the sidelines and give them my best "WTF?" look while "The Stupid" is coming out of their mouths. The rest of the sane world just wants to know what they're on about.
Your son has the benefit of youthful ignorance. You however is not in the same situation.
This is the reason you cannot take the same position as your son . If you choose to ignore the theological side of the world you do so, knowing that you live in a society where the majority fells otherwise.With knowledge comes the necessity to take sides, even if the side that you take is the one of those who sit on the sidelines
I think you misunderstood my response; I don't sit on the sidelines by any stretch of the imagination. I make it well known that I have no belief in the supernatural, and I actively seek to interact with those who do to induce a healthy dose of skepticism (or consequently squelch lies spread by creationists and such). I am a very active non-believer in all senses of the word.

My point was merely that I resent even having to refer to myself (or you/other like-minded non-believers for that matter) as atheists, when in fact we're at the base position; the theists are the ones who should have the titles, not the base set of humanity.
In a sane world, yes, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Unfortunately, since the majority are believers, they set the tone. In that scenario, we pretty much have to insist on a label for ourselves in order to be seen as distinct by the opposition. I don't think that means atheists must declare themselves as such. People are free to choose their own labels. But personally, I think it's a much more powerful statement to embrace the negative term. It's kind of a dare. "That's right, I'm an atheist. What are you gonna do about it?" Risky, I know, because they could, in fact, do something about it. But it's a risk I feel I have to take in order to get the point across.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service