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.

Tags: atheism, doctrine, dogma, etymology, ism suffix, obsolete

Views: 383

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ashleigh Carter on October 12, 2011 at 1:56pm
Now that I think about it, do we even know how "atheist" came to have the "ism" tacked on at the end to begin with?
Permalink Reply by TNT666 on October 13, 2011 at 2:22am

From what I've read on the topic, a majority of humans (religious humans) assume we have a particular value system, which implies belief/non-belief. It has been ascribed to us by the religious masses who lack the ability to see a lifestyle not relying on a belief system. It's this religious majority of humans who get best represented in reference materials. This modern usage of the word atheism is a young recent: (from wikipedia)

In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[36]

Permalink Reply by Secular Forces 2013 on October 12, 2011 at 9:12pm
Permalink Reply by leveni on October 13, 2011 at 2:09am

I have a problem with the word atheism. Because it doesn't really apply to me. Atheism means: disbelief in the existence of God or gods. (source Oxford dictionary). 

 

For me 'no-God' is a provable fact. I just use the word atheist or atheism because there is no other word for me to use.

 

Permalink Reply by Rob van Senten on October 13, 2011 at 2:49am

It all depends on the definition of the word "atheism" to some people, such as me, atheism is the position of a "lack of belief in a deity". It's not a positive affirmation of a belief but the rejection of theism; the belief in a deity.

 

I still like the label of "scientific materialist" better as it is a positive description.

Permalink Reply by leveni on October 13, 2011 at 6:25am

scientific materialist

Thanks for that. It pretty much sums me up.

Problem solved.


Permalink Reply by Rob van Senten on October 13, 2011 at 8:19am

I've been long lost in the woods of 'isms before I found out about scientific materialism. It's got science in it, so it's awesome!

Permalink Reply by Glen Rosenberg on October 13, 2011 at 4:34am

Syllogism, an ism without ism, in'it?

All atheists are smautasses

Rick Perry is a jackass

Rick Perry aint a smaut jackass

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on October 13, 2011 at 8:23am

an ism without ism

hehe! :)

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on October 14, 2011 at 11:54pm

I've heard of ism that comes from an asm.

 

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on October 15, 2011 at 12:41am
embolism? :)
Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on October 14, 2011 at 11:49pm

We've probably all heard religious dogma. I've heard of a Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, that genetic information flows in only one direction: from DNA to RNA to protein.

The certainty I've seen in some of the posts on this topic reminds me of a quip I heard some years ago: It's easier to change dogmas than it is to give up the need for a dogma.

 

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service