Do some argumentative people call themselves atheists just to maintain a contrarian persona even though they aren’t really atheists?

Views: 38

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

While searching for atheists on other social networking sites I have noticed many people listed as atheists but subscribing to supernatural beliefs, such as paganism and satanism. Also, some folks list themselves as atheists but just seem "angry" or of a "contrarian" personality. So, it seems to me that some folks do use the title as a means to be controversial while not actually delving into a deeper understanding of the philosophy behind religion/atheism. Then again, who am I to say what constitutes an atheist?
Do some argumentative people call themselves atheists just to maintain a contrarian persona even though they aren’t really atheists?

Factually only one thing defines an atheist, no god(s) or rather no actual belief in a god(s). However what people feel being an atheist is as different from one individual to the next. There is no such thing as a "true" atheist.

Ultimately for myself atheism really means to me no dogma and no sacred cows, it is where this leads that I am interested in. Life is complicated enough without putting fairy tales before reality. It is this thought that leads me to other thoughts and other self identifying labels.

It is one of the reasons I stay active here (or at least as active as I get online) because I like the contrary view points of a variety of ideas and thoughts. If a few people are really just here to argue then I think they show themselves for what they are fairly quickly. I do however try and differentiate between being passionate about an idea verses being closed minded to other ideas and thoughts. It is a subtle distinction but if more people could recognize the difference I think some discussion might have turned out differently.
There is no such thing as a "true" atheist.
Why do you say there is no such thing as a true atheist? How do you define true atheist?

If a true atheist doesn't believe in any superstition - then are you saying that everyone has superstition?
I don't define anyone as a "true" atheist... calling oneself an atheist, answers only one question.

It tells you only what someone believes or feels about the idea of god(s).

Raëlians are atheists for the most part. So quite possibly are some Scientologists.

I have that much in common with them, however I don't necessarily follow or even believe as they do about the way the universe is.

The absence of belief in an idea doesn't say much about what I do believe.

Atheism is a very broad umbrella, they are it seems many different approaches to it, not all I agree with or even feel are right but that doesn't make that person any less an atheist then I am.
If I said I don't belief in Santa Clause would I be an Atheiclause? Would I have a belief that there is no Santa Clause?

You say there is no such thing as a "true atheist" but haven't defined it yet.

Would someone with a disbelief in any superstition be a "true atheist?"
If so that would mean that a "true atheist" disbelieves Scientology, Budism (reincarnation), Raëlism, and etc.

I don't define anyone as a "true" atheist... calling oneself an atheist, answers only one question. It tells you only what someone believes or feels about the idea of god(s).
The popular double negative argument.

Atheism by definition is disbelief 'in god(s)', not a belief in a disbelief.
A common argument is "You said you don't believe in..." therefore you have a belief in disbelief.
You say there is no such thing as a "true atheist" but haven't defined it yet.

I think we might be talking about nothing, and it's my fault for introducing the term.

I don't think anyone can be more an atheist then anyone else. I don't have a definition because I think the idea that someone is a better atheist then someone else is silly. Calling oneself an atheist answers only one question.

If so that would mean that a "true atheist" disbelieves Scientology, Budism (reincarnation), Raëlism, and etc.

Atheism isn't an answer to superstition, it is only an answer about the idea of god(s). People try and expand it to include such things all the time however.

A common argument is "You said you don't believe in..." therefore you have a belief in disbelief.

I don't have a belief in disbelief, perhaps I didn't word what I wrote right.

I grew up an atheist, I never had any belief in such things to begin with. I don't disbelieve in a god or the idea of gods, the god idea has no roots in my consciousness. I live my life as if they do not exist or never have existed because such things don't. The idea is in the same category for me as fables, mythical creatures and other such things.

However I am in someways forced to answer that question because a large part of the world, does believe in such things. If there wasn't a need to answer the question, I wouldn't be an atheist because the question wouldn't have to have an answer.
We are arguing about terminology.
Real atheist, strong atheist, rationalist, etc.
Are superstitious people atheists?
I don't think someone who commits suicide to catch the hale bop bus should be called an atheist. People who go to palmists to learn about their future shouldn't either. There are many other nonsense beliefs that shouldn't fall into the definition of atheist.

Is there a word for people without any superstitions?
Are superstitious people atheists?

They can be, superstitions are many and varied.

I don't think someone who commits suicide to catch the hale bop bus should be called an atheist. People who go to palmists to learn about their future shouldn't either. There are many other nonsense beliefs that shouldn't fall into the definition of atheist.


I sometimes wish this was true, but they very much can be. Just because you free yourself from one superstition doesn't mean you will not fall into another.

Is there a word for people without any superstitions?

Several I believe...

The Brights invoking the idea of the enlightenment. The counter group is referred to as Supers (from superstitious).

Then there is this... (courtesy of No Nonsense and felch)

ataurocoprist
Etymology From ancient Greek ἀ- (a-, "'without'") + ταῦρος (tauros, "'bull'") + κόπρος (kopros, "'shit'") Noun A person without belief in any kind of bullshit, including, but not limited to, theism, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, the seriousness of this article, or the assumption that you can add enough items to that list to make it exhaustive.

There are probably other terms as well, however the term atheist will probably never be one of them.
Ataurocoprist is good, "Vacuus Fides" (without belief) is better.

Words change over time, The word Atheiest may have been hijacked by superstitious people to promote alternative spiritual beliefs. I acquiesce that the word Atheist does include people who believe in in palm reading, people from other planets who inhabited the earth (banana man), unicorns, leprechauns, reincarnation, ghosts, and other spiritual nonsense. Before the new atheist movement this was unheard of except for the Universalist Unitarian Church. I suppose there are many other new age churches now.
After this thread I agree that people without belief should dump the term atheist. What's a better term? Brights, Supers?
"Vacuus Fides" (without belief)?

How may ways could "Vacuus Fides" be hijacked?

We've gotta dump the term atheist. Not only is it hijacked by the woos, it isn't even to the point - faith-based vs. evidence-based (science, reason) world-views. We're not into ghosts and magic. Call us empiricists, naturalists, materialists, whatever. Don't allow a distinction between Abrahamic gods and other faith-based nonsense.
The two people I was thinking of when I wrote this question have been removed from A/N. Apparently they weeded themselves out.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service