Being a non believer but not identifying as an athiest.

Mutant z

There seems to be this notion if you dont believe in a supreme being or don't believe in any religion automatically you have to identify as an athiest, well i refuse to put myself into any category least of all one which includes Richard Dawkins who claims to speak for all self proclaimed athiests. By identifying as an athiest i would automatically be putting myself in a club and i dont want to be a part of anyone's club but my own.

Dawkin's doesnt represent me or my views never has done my opinions are my own and not influenced by membership of a particular organisation, we are all independent individuals with our own opinions what any self proclaimed athiest says is their opinion alone no one elses. I only speak for myself no one else i certainty don't want anybody to claim to speak on my behalf just because i don't believe in a diety they also happen to not believe in, no one represents me but myself.

GLaDOS

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you have to worship Dawkins. I think he's a bit of a dick personally.

Atheism is just a non-belief in a god or gods. Anything else ascribed to it is just posturing.

Mutant z

GLaDOS wrote: »

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you have to worship Dawkins. I think he's a bit of a dick personally.

Atheism is just a non-belief in a god or gods. Anything else ascribed to it is just posturing.

I just find Dawkins bordering on the obsessive for a man who claims to have no time for religion he does little else but talk about religion in fact I've never heard him in any discussion where he hasnt brought up Christianity, some of these Athiests dont realise they are just as fundamental in their beliefs as those they claim to oppose.

looksee

Describing yourself as an atheist is not a political statement, or a declaration that you belong to any sort of club or group, or that you identify with anyone else who calls him/herself an atheist. It is simply saying that you do not have a belief in any god or gods. Saying that also does not mean that you are any more or less independently minded, astute, intelligent etc, those are separate things to prove. Or not.

begbysback

You want to have your own club? Go ahead, start one up - maybe call it the Nonostics?

BrokenArrows

Whats people obsession these days with identifying with things.

Atheist is just a word which means you dont believe in a god.

Thats like saying you dont want to identify a vegetarian because it associates you with some vegetarian who you dont like.

And why do you need to "identify" as anything at all? Belief or disbelief in a god is not something which comes up on a regular basis. If the world offends you so much just say "i dont believe in god".

TPD

Its like me claiming I'm not white because I don't agree with what some white people have done / do. It just describes how many gods you believe in, it doesn't associate you with anyone else who believes in the same number of gods.

Mutant z

TPD wrote: »

Its like me claiming I'm not white because I don't agree with what some white people have done / do. It just describes how many gods you believe in, it doesn't associate you with anyone else who believes in the same number of gods.

Well atheism is often seen as an organisation by other religions and in fairness some athiests do little else but say how much they hate religion, i myself have very little time for religion but i dont let it define my life, there are some atheists who talk about nothing else but religion, i dont want to be part of that.

TPD

Mutant z wrote: »

TPD wrote: »

Its like me claiming I'm not white because I don't agree with what some white people have done / do. It just describes how many gods you believe in, it doesn't associate you with anyone else who believes in the same number of gods.

Well atheism is often seen as an organisation by other religions and in fairness some athiests do little else but say how much they hate religion, i myself have very little time for religion but i dont let it define my life, they are some atheists who talk about nothing else but religion, i dont want to part of that.

So don't take part in that. People assuming you're an asshole because you're an atheist is the same lapse of logic as people assuming I'm an asshole because I'm white.

begbysback

Mutant z wrote: »

Well atheism is often seen as an organisation by other religions and in fairness some athiests do little else but say how much they hate religion, i myself have very little time for religion but i dont let it define my life, there are some atheists who talk about nothing else but religion, i dont want to be part of that.

I may be a little ignorant here but my understanding is that an atheist is defined as one who has researched and found there to be no existence/proof of god - not just one who doesnt believe in a god - have you researched?

seagull

I think you'll find the majority of atheists consider Dawkins a dick. His claim to speak for all atheists has less basis than the pope claiming to speak for all Christians. In fact, it would probably be further from the truth than the pope claiming to speak for all Buddhists.

Mutant z

begbysback wrote: »

I may be a little ignorant here but my understanding is that an atheist is defined as one who has researched and found there to be no existence/proof of god - not just one who doesnt believe in a god - have you researched?

Well an athiest is one who claims to not believe in god an agnostic is not sure about it either way so it could well be an agnostic which you could also be describing.

Michael OBrien

Mutant z wrote: »

I only speak for myself no one else i certainty don't want anybody to claim to speak on my behalf just because i don't believe in a diety they also happen to not believe in, no one represents me but myself.

And you are free to identify as whatever you feel comfortable with, despite BEING an atheist, by definition.
What you are is not the same as what you choose to define YOURSELF as.
The RD reference is meaningless as RD does not represent atheists, he is just an atheist who is outspoken and famous. He may represent his organisation, that is it.
If you DID believe in a god (at least one) and did not want to use Theist as a label then you don't have to either, but blaming William Lane Craig or the Pope for that decision is not logical.
A person has more than one label, being terrified of labels misses the fact that labels are tools for communication, not some rigid box that you are stuck in.
I am a human (gasp.. a label), a hetrosexual (gasp...another label), atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, anti-theist, irish national and a bachelor.
Each of these labels are almost guaranteed to be also used by people I disagree with on something. So what?.

Also there seems to be a move to bash RD among some atheists as if this makes you 'better' in some way. RD has helped atheism gain acceptance across the globe, and for that I appreciate his work. I don't have to agree with EVERY action or statement he makes however in the same way that one can like a form of sport or politics or philosophy and not have to agree with every famous person commonly known to hold that similar interest.

One eyed Jack

seagull wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of atheists consider Dawkins a dick. His claim to speak for all atheists has less basis than the pope claiming to speak for all Christians. In fact, it would probably be further from the truth than the pope claiming to speak for all Buddhists.

I'd be fairly certain he has never claimed to speak for all atheists, nor has he ever to my knowledge claimed that he represents anyone but himself and his foundation either (before it merged with CFI at least). In fact he's been rather quiet the last couple of years, due to ill health I suppose, but even atheist activism generally appears to have grinded to an abrupt halt in the absence of public figures like Dawkins (marmite really) and Christopher Hitchens. The likes of Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are far too pacifist really to spark much of an interest in a movement that had gained so much momentum in the 90's and 2000's in the West. It's almost as though atheism has kinda gotten lost in the social justice stew IMO with more and more people simply identifying as no religion or non-religious.

looksee

begbysback wrote: »

I may be a little ignorant here but my understanding is that an atheist is defined as one who has researched and found there to be no existence/proof of god - not just one who doesnt believe in a god - have you researched?

What would you research exactly? All you can do is read other people's views and since they are essentially researching 'nothing' your thoughts are as good as theirs. It doesn't matter how you come to the conclusion, if you do not believe in a god or gods you are atheist.

smacl

begbysback wrote: »

I may be a little ignorant here but my understanding is that an atheist is defined as one who has researched and found there to be no existence/proof of god - not just one who doesnt believe in a god - have you researched?

No research required. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. How they arrived at that position has no bearing on this.

Mutant z

I take all points and yes of course Dawkins doesnt speak for athiests, but i have rejected all thiests and i simply dont want to be part of another one, others can call themselves what they wish but i refuse to identify as anything other than non religious which is how i describe myself when the issue of faith comes up.

looksee

That's fine, that is your prerogative, so why are you getting your knickers in a knot about being an atheist?

Michael OBrien

Mutant z wrote: »

I take all points and yes of course Dawkins doesnt speak for athiests, but i have rejected all thiests and i simply dont want to be part of another one, others can call themselves what they wish but i refuse to identify as anything other than non religious which is how i describe myself when the issue of faith comes up.

Great. Ray Comfort repeatedly says he is non religious too. So good company there.
As I stated you don't have to USE the label 'atheist' but you are one. If you are male and not married, you are a bachelor, however if you don't like that label and prefer 'non married' you are free to use it instead. You would still be a bachelor however.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Great. Ray Comfort repeatedly says he is non religious too. So good company there.
As I stated you don't have to USE the label 'atheist' but you are one. If you are male and not married, you are a bachelor, however if you don't like that label and prefer 'non married' you are free to use it instead. You would still be a bachelor however.

Any language (in this case english) is more flexible than that, it evolves, so the OP isn't necessarily an atheist, but an atheist by a definition which you use at least. It's languages are the communication tool, but it's common understandings of words which help us communicate our ideas with each other.

smacl

Mutant z wrote: »

I take all points and yes of course Dawkins doesnt speak for athiests, but i have rejected all thiests and i simply dont want to be part of another one, others can call themselves what they wish but i refuse to identify as anything other than non religious which is how i describe myself when the issue of faith comes up.

Rejected all theists or simply choose to disagree with them with regards to the existence of gods? I've no problem with theists for the most part but just don't share their belief in gods. What I do strongly object to is theistic organisations and individual god botherers trying to foist their belief system and attendant morality on my family, most notably through the only state funded education available to most people. In my experience, this actually comes down to a small minority of religious extremists and members of various church hierarchies. Most theist in my experience are very much live and let live and couldn't care less about other people's religion.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any language (in this case english) is more flexible than that, it evolves, so the OP isn't necessarily an atheist, but an atheist by a definition which you use at least. It's languages are the communication tool, but it's common understandings of words which help us communicate our ideas with each other.

Yes and no, the word atheist is a well defined and understood term. You can choose it to mean something else, but this is liable to lead to miscommunication and confusion rather than communication. I think this thread illustrates this quite well, in that the OP has taken a notion of atheist to mean something more than it actually means because as a word it is often misused, sometime quite divisively so.

Fian

Mutant z wrote: »

I just find Dawkins bordering on the obsessive for a man who claims to have no time for religion he does little else but talk about religion in fact I've never heard him in any discussion where he hasnt brought up Christianity, some of these Athiests dont realise they are just as fundamental in their beliefs as those they claim to oppose.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope. Being an atheist means you don't believe there is a god, or worship one. It has never meant you substitute by worshiping Dawkins.

He makes a good living by setting himself up as the opponent of all aspects of religion and adopting contrarian positions. Being an atheist does not mean you have to consider anyone who raises their children with religious beliefs a child abuser.

Christopher Hitchens on the other hand is worth reading for persuasive coherent arguments as to the non-existence of god. He is not going out of his way to offend anyone, his arguments are insightful.

begbysback

looksee wrote: »

What would you research exactly? All you can do is read other people's views and since they are essentially researching 'nothing' your thoughts are as good as theirs. It doesn't matter how you come to the conclusion, if you do not believe in a god or gods you are atheist.

Not sure I would describe reading other people's views as researching nothing, more after researching their views you find "nothing".

Surely everyone who considers themselves an atheist has done some research, whether introspective or other?

If not, then is it common for a man to be atheist one day, and agnostic on another day?

salmocab

Atheists by and large do not ram their beliefs or lack of down peoples throats just like religious people by and large dont push theirs, unfortunately like in so many parts of life there is a minority who think they need to push their views as if other peoples views bother them.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any language (in this case english) is more flexible than that, it evolves, so the OP isn't necessarily an atheist, but an atheist by a definition which you use at least. It's languages are the communication tool, but it's common understandings of words which help us communicate our ideas with each other.

I did say that already. Labels are communication tools that help one person quickly understand an aspect about another person (in this circumstance about their beliefs regarding a god). Labels are flexible but not infinitely so.
Now is the OP an atheist? Well by his own statement he alludes that he in fact is, according to common usage, but does not like to use the label. He never once said why he would not qualify as an atheist, only that he does not wish to be labeled as such.
Now one could quibble about the edges of such stances, as in possible deism, or pantheist or panentheist or whatever, and if that line of argument was brought up we can reconsider that 'atheist' is the closest term that matches his stance on the god issue.
But if his argument is he dislikes the label because he dislikes some atheists, then that is not a reason to dismiss the label that applies to him, only that he can refer to himself as something else if it makes him more comfortable socially.
Also 'non religious' only refers to not holding any religion, which is a separate label and depending on his definitions of religion may refer to anything from not having any belief tied to any religion on earth, or more narrowly, not linking to any established organised religion.
However not being religious does not address having or not having a belief in a god. The OP did say he does not hold such a belief so that goes further than non religious.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Yes and no, the word atheist is a well defined and understood term. You can choose it to mean something else, but this is liable to lead to miscommunication and confusion rather than communication. I think this thread illustrates this quite well, in that the OP has taken a notion of atheist to mean something more than it actually means because as a word it is often misused, sometime quite divisively so.

For what it's worth I've personally actually always agreed that atheism by definition was an absence of belief in a deity or deities, some people have corrected me on that and said it's a lack of belief in a deity or deities, but that to me at least always sounded like as though the implication is that a person lacks something, when really there's nothing to lack in the first place!

Why I disagreed with Michael's assertion is because I can think of a good few examples where there are ambiguous terms which are only informed by context and an agreed standard. I was also thinking of an article written in the Huffington Post where the author describes themselves as an 'Atheist Muslim' -

Why I Call Myself an ‘Atheist Muslim’

Michael OBrien

salmocab wrote: »

Atheists by and large do not ram their beliefs or lack of down peoples throats just like religious people by and large dont push theirs, unfortunately like in so many parts of life there is a minority who think they need to push their views as if other peoples views bother them.

Its not like beliefs have consequences do they? ... oh wait they do.
There are plenty of theists that push their beliefs into a secular society, and atheists are condemned by many of the mainstream religions and non belief in a god is viewed by theists politically and socially as immoral and dangerous. This lie has to be challenged or it will continue to corrupt and damage the society an atheist lives in.

Outspoken atheists have every right to oppose religious views and challenge their veracity as anyone else. This idea that 'proper' atheists are supposed to be quite and docile and just 'get on with it' is to not live in the real world. Its to compare the impact of religious beliefs with belief in unicorns.

smacl

begbysback wrote: »

Surely everyone who considers themselves an atheist has done some research, whether introspective or other?

Not necessarily. You could be raised without religious beliefs, so the whole notion of the existence of a God or gods would be so far fetched it wouldn't merit any further investigation. Do you believe in fairies, cockatrices and unicorns? If not, why not? Have you researched the possibility they might exist? People believe all sorts of stuff, very few people have researched all the beliefs they don't hold and reject them on that basis.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why I disagreed with Michael's assertion is because I can think of a good few examples where there are ambiguous terms which are only informed by context and an agreed standard. I was also thinking of an article written in the Huffington Post where the author describes themselves as an 'Atheist Muslim' -

Why I Call Myself an ‘Atheist Muslim’

Being a muslim atheist or a christian atheist or a jewish atheist is fine provided the context refers to not believing in a god but still holding the cultural practices or heritage as important to ones identity. Celebrating Eid with your family does not stop one being an atheist. I was catholic and still like the art and architecture, but my liking such things has no impact on my lack of belief.
If a vegetarian still likes movies from his childhood that has people eating meat in it, it does not stop him being a vegetarian, or dilude 'vegetarian' as a label to something else.
Being atheist is not an all encompassing label for a person. Its a label for a single aspect for a single claim about something.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For what it's worth I've personally actually always agreed that atheism by definition was an absence of belief in a deity or deities, some people have corrected me on that and said it's a lack of belief in a deity or deities, but that to me at least always sounded like as though the implication is that a person lacks something, when really there's nothing to lack in the first place!

Why I disagreed with Michael's assertion is because I can think of a good few examples where there are ambiguous terms which are only informed by context and an agreed standard. I was also thinking of an article written in the Huffington Post where the author describes themselves as an 'Atheist Muslim' -

Why I Call Myself an ‘Atheist Muslim’

Nothing wrong with being an atheist Muslim, which is later described as a “cultural Muslim with no imaginary friend.” Plenty of atheist Christians in this country too without a doubt. What I'd take issue with is an atheist believing in a god or god, either explicitly or to a lesser extent implicitly. There have always been people who have a nominal religion by virtue of the time and place they're born, their parentage etc... who would identify themselves as belonging to that religious group while not actually believing in any of the supernatural aspects.