Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by World Walker on April 6, 2010 at 11:59am

As mentioned I think catch phrases are doomed. When you make a group that creates a social visibility to a kind of person, some people will notice. But whether Christian groups call themselves Christian or theists organize in a building called a church, I know who and what they are and I remember it in a way that suits me (and penalizes that aspect of their choices in terms of my favoritism). Be defined by your hobbies instead of your faith. The more faith disappears from the conversation, the more we enter the world we wanted to live in.

Permalink Reply by Joshua Holloway on April 7, 2010 at 10:10am

The fact, that the term "Pearlist" lacks any element of faith, but merely offers insight, into the thought process, of one who refers, to him/herself as such, is what makes it, in my opinion, a much needed alternative, to the the present standard of "atheist".

Permalink Reply by World Walker on April 7, 2010 at 10:17am

If somebody defined Pearlist and asked if I was one, I'd say yes. But if I said Pearlist, a theist would think "atheist". Can an theist be a Pearlist?

Permalink Reply by Glenn Sogge on April 7, 2010 at 11:08am

I'm still unclear on what the Pearlist Persuasion is? And in your above topic you imply that atheism uses the "Christian language." I've only found this true when talking to Christians. Atheism, and associated writings, has been around longer than Christianity. (Epicurus by at least 3 centuries.) If I need a term because atheist "leaves open, so many, other beliefs", "non-believer" eliminates all of them.

For anything else, skeptic and science-based thinker work quite well. If pushed hard enough, I would probably say Naturalist because that encompasses the whole universe.

Permalink Reply by Joshua Holloway on April 8, 2010 at 11:29am

The idea, behind refering to oneself as a Pearlist, is to present a clear and consice image, of the way you think, in a professional manner, that does not include any derivatives, of the theist language. It seperates us, from the theist mind set, and all other nonsense, and sets a standard, of a more effective way, to communicate, to a religious majority that we are not a-theism, we are a-nonsense. I think, the term non-believer is vague and oversimplified. Any discussion, involving a critical analysis, is going to be technical, and technicaly, I'm sure, there are some things you believe in, even if you dont have faith in them, or perhaps I'm wrong.

The concept, of atheism, may outdate Christianity, but does the actual term itself. Either way, it supposes a theist mind set, to be the norm and puts us against it. We are against theism, but also panthiesm, animism, and all other ridiculous beliefs, that have no foundation, in science.