This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Atheism is the true embrace of reality

jac12358's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by jac12358

Great article, yes, I agree. But like those who dislike the term "atheist"* I think the term is unfortunate in how it defines us as being against an unproven claim, rather than FOR something.

  • (The term "agnostic" is criticized as wishy-washy fence-sitting hedge-betting, "ignostic" - my favorite - is routinely ignored as an excellent alternative whenever I mention it, "skeptic" sounds like you go around doubting everything as a default mode, and are a pessimist, "bright" sounds too snobby and has failed to catch on, and "realist" "scientist" "reason-ist?" etc. aren't as satisfying.)
  • It is fun to use the "anti-stamp-collector" analogy, though that has been effectively mocked and supported.

    Still, to define oneself as an atheist is to by definition constantly remind oneself and others that, whatever else you might be FOR, you are first and foremost AGAINST religion. Were it not for the delusion of religion, atheists would have no name - or another name. What if what we had to deny the existence of was the divine essence of snot - would we then be obliged to adopt the term a-snottists but insist it really meant we were just a bunch of reasonable folk who required evidence and liked the scientific method?

    I'm also a nice guy, but I don't define myself as an aterrorist or an anti-wife-beater. How can we wean ourselves of this religious term?

    Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:34:22 UTC | #635706