I'm leaning towards calling myself a scientist because I think more people understand the meaning of that word.
If I call myself a rationalist to a religious person, they will most likely say they are rational also, but they probably will not say they are a scientist. They may say they are scientific, but I can counter that more easily than if they use the word rational. For one thing, most scientists are not religious.
I agree. I've also had a problem with the meaning of the word atheist for quiet a while.
C There are no gods.
Ultimately, this is really my attitude. There are no gods, because there is NO EVIDENCE for any form of deity, as surely as there is no evidence for mermaids, fairies (Sookie Stackhouse NOT withstanding!!!) or left-handed zindlefingers. Present credible evidence and a claimant may BEGIN to have a case. That evidence will have to go through the wringer, though, as surely as any other new scientific theory does. If it passes muster, then we have learned something new and indeed very radical in its concept. If it doesn't, then another ill-conceived hypothesis bites the dust.
With only an ancient book and a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, any claim of the existence of a god is weak tea at best. All the hand-waving done by people like WLC and his fellows is not convincing, either. I hold no belief in gods of any sort, which is why my original answer was "A". Ultimately, though, I have no interest in giving religion any slack at all as regards any of their claims, but this one most of all. Until and unless someone can show me a proper indication that would persuade me otherwise, There Are NO GODS ... PERIOD.
oxford dictionary : 'disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods'.
Personally I think it's impossible for any God or Gods to exist.
B; The belief that there are no gods. This one works best for me, but a revised A is also OK.
A + theist = without + god. That is all the word means. It carries no other baggage other than what humans put on it. Some say atheist is a lack of belief in god. I feel no "lack". Without does not necessarily imply lack, i.e. one is without cancer, not one lacks cancer.
"Atheist +" is without god + a lot of other things, i.e. social consciousness, conscience, environmental concerns, the wealth gap, values definition, stuff like these.
I don't care for euphemisms, they muddy the waters, i.e. abuse renamed discipline. When one softens the language the impact becomes wishy-washy. War becomes an engagement. Torture becomes interrogation.
I like atheism because it is clear, definitive, explicit, simple. When others add meaning to it and express their understanding, often in an accusatory manner, an opportunity opens to discuss what the word means to me and its implications.
I have no interest in converting anyone to atheism; I am interested in getting my understanding into the soundwaves. If I remain silent, I imply agreement.
Yesterday, a thought hit me (ouch!). If atheist means without god, then doesn't that mean everyone in the world is an atheist?
Because there is no god, everyone is without.
Atheism is not a belief, such as "I believe there are no gods". Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Saying, "I believe there are no gods", is a positive claim, and is subject to burden of proof as is the claim, "I believe in God(s)". To say, "I have no god beliefs", is a negative claim, and is not subject to burden of proof.
Atheism is much more than just rejection of gods. It is mode of thinking in a logical and scientific way.
I like this statement.