Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

But wouldn't that be like calling ourselves "Anti-Heras"? When you are defining yourself by something you claim to be confident does not exist- well, it seems a little counterproductive, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

But wouldn't that be like calling ourselves "Anti-Heras"? When you are defining yourself by something you claim to be confident does not exist- well, it seems a little counterproductive, obviously.

What do you suggest?

I define myself by many other things, but how do I answer when someone asks?

I feel like saying "rational" would be taken as offensive...

[Anonymous]

For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

Isn't that the same as saying atheist? It's still definition by a negative, which PP was suggesting is a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

You have to see how that feels like meaningless semantics to us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

But wouldn't that be like calling ourselves "Anti-Heras"? When you are defining yourself by something you claim to be confident does not exist- well, it seems a little counterproductive, obviously.

What do you suggest?

I define myself by many other things, but how do I answer when someone asks?

I feel like saying "rational" would be taken as offensive...

I would suggest not basing any identity around "not" being into something. I don't go around telling people, "Yeah, sorry, I'm a non-Belieber", even if an ardent JB fan came up to me (this is a silly example, but sub in any other fan/enthusiast group if the Beebs bothers you). If someone brings up Justin Bieber, I don't say, "No, I don't like him, and here's all the reasons" nor do I make fun of them. It's just "Oh, that's cool, interesting." If someone has an interest or a faith in something, I think a lot of atheists take a very antagonistic view towards it, and repeatedly attempt to dismantle it (at least thats a lot of the discourse on here and elsewhere online). Of course, if someone asks you, tell them, "Oh, I'm not Christian." But to repeatedly label yourself something as the OPPOSITE of faith, as the lack of it- again, seems deliberately antagonistic.

I have no idea why Justin Bieber was the first example of a fanbase that came to mind, but I went with it. Anyway..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

I usually start with "not religious", but that's really enough to end the conversation, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

But wouldn't that be like calling ourselves "Anti-Heras"? When you are defining yourself by something you claim to be confident does not exist- well, it seems a little counterproductive, obviously.

What do you suggest?

I define myself by many other things, but how do I answer when someone asks?

I feel like saying "rational" would be taken as offensive...

I would suggest not basing any identity around "not" being into something. I don't go around telling people, "Yeah, sorry, I'm a non-Belieber", even if an ardent JB fan came up to me (this is a silly example, but sub in any other fan/enthusiast group if the Beebs bothers you). If someone brings up Justin Bieber, I don't say, "No, I don't like him, and here's all the reasons" nor do I make fun of them. It's just "Oh, that's cool, interesting." If someone has an interest or a faith in something, I think a lot of atheists take a very antagonistic view towards it, and repeatedly attempt to dismantle it (at least thats a lot of the discourse on here and elsewhere online). Of course, if someone asks you, tell them, "Oh, I'm not Christian." But to repeatedly label yourself something as the OPPOSITE of faith, as the lack of it- again, seems deliberately antagonistic.

I have no idea why Justin Bieber was the first example of a fanbase that came to mind, but I went with it. Anyway..

I think you're mistaking DCUM for the real world. An anonymous forum amplifies the a-holes of all background (or non-backgrounds). My experience in real life is that I get cornered into talking about it. I'm not out advertising it. In fact people advertise their religion all over the place. It's quite the opposite of what you're suggesting.

To use your analogy, we're in a world full of people wearing Belieber t-shirts, and only bring up that we're not Beliebers when pressed about our plain t-shirts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

I usually start with "not religious", but that's really enough to end the conversation, unfortunately.

Should say "not really enough"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

Why would I use 11 words when I can say the same thing with 1? That's like using the dictionary definition of a word rather than the word itself. That seems silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

Why would I use 11 words when I can say the same thing with 1? That's like using the dictionary definition of a word rather than the word itself. That seems silly.

You need to stop hurting the feelings of the oppressed majority. It's really very hard for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

But wouldn't that be like calling ourselves "Anti-Heras"? When you are defining yourself by something you claim to be confident does not exist- well, it seems a little counterproductive, obviously.

What do you suggest?

I define myself by many other things, but how do I answer when someone asks?

I feel like saying "rational" would be taken as offensive...

I would suggest not basing any identity around "not" being into something. I don't go around telling people, "Yeah, sorry, I'm a non-Belieber", even if an ardent JB fan came up to me (this is a silly example, but sub in any other fan/enthusiast group if the Beebs bothers you). If someone brings up Justin Bieber, I don't say, "No, I don't like him, and here's all the reasons" nor do I make fun of them. It's just "Oh, that's cool, interesting." If someone has an interest or a faith in something, I think a lot of atheists take a very antagonistic view towards it, and repeatedly attempt to dismantle it (at least thats a lot of the discourse on here and elsewhere online). Of course, if someone asks you, tell them, "Oh, I'm not Christian." But to repeatedly label yourself something as the OPPOSITE of faith, as the lack of it- again, seems deliberately antagonistic.

I have no idea why Justin Bieber was the first example of a fanbase that came to mind, but I went with it. Anyway..

I think you're mistaking DCUM for the real world. An anonymous forum amplifies the a-holes of all background (or non-backgrounds). My experience in real life is that I get cornered into talking about it. I'm not out advertising it. In fact people advertise their religion all over the place. It's quite the opposite of what you're suggesting.

To use your analogy, we're in a world full of people wearing Belieber t-shirts, and only bring up that we're not Beliebers when pressed about our plain t-shirts.

To extend the analogy, and a realization I had reading this thread, I'm generally not thinking about my t-shirt at all until asked about it. I think faith and religion is a central part of many believers lives, so it's easy to think that the lack of belief is central for an atheist. But at least in my case that's not true. I don't generally think about my lack of faith at all unless engaged in a conversation, such as this one, where religion and faith is the central topic. In my day to day life it only comes up in my head when I'm in situations where I feel pressured to express a faith I don't share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh PP, if an atheist is vitriolic in their opposition to religion it's only because we have watched religion destroy countless lives. There's justification. Heaps and heaps of justification. It's a negative force in the aggregate. Sure, it gave my grandmother peace when she died, but I don't consider that a good enough reason for all the other shit it does.

Oh PP, that doesn't mean you get to spew vitriol. Get a grip on yourself.

You probably excuse Trump's racist and sexist behavior too, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheists define themselves negatively, by what they don't believe in. It's inherently non-conformist. "This is what I do NOT believe in, my non belief is what defines me."

I'll bet there's lots of other things that atheists don't believe and do believe in, yet they choose to define themselves on not believing in god.

It's peculiar to define one's identity in the negative, but as one poster noted, he was raised Catholic, and he can't tell his grandparents about being an atheist. The atheism is perceived as a rejection of the Catholicism. I think most atheists who bother telling anyone about it are similar. On some level, they've all got an axe to grind.

I actually share similar beliefs to most theists, with a small exception. I don't believe in all gods. You typically don't believe in most gods.

Do you define yourself by a belief that Hera and Zeus aren't gods?

My lack of belief really only comes up when someone pushes for info or on an anonymous forum. Religion doesn't make for great conversation.

But wouldn't that be like calling ourselves "Anti-Heras"? When you are defining yourself by something you claim to be confident does not exist- well, it seems a little counterproductive, obviously.

What do you suggest?

I define myself by many other things, but how do I answer when someone asks?

I feel like saying "rational" would be taken as offensive...

I would suggest not basing any identity around "not" being into something. I don't go around telling people, "Yeah, sorry, I'm a non-Belieber", even if an ardent JB fan came up to me (this is a silly example, but sub in any other fan/enthusiast group if the Beebs bothers you). If someone brings up Justin Bieber, I don't say, "No, I don't like him, and here's all the reasons" nor do I make fun of them. It's just "Oh, that's cool, interesting." If someone has an interest or a faith in something, I think a lot of atheists take a very antagonistic view towards it, and repeatedly attempt to dismantle it (at least thats a lot of the discourse on here and elsewhere online). Of course, if someone asks you, tell them, "Oh, I'm not Christian." But to repeatedly label yourself something as the OPPOSITE of faith, as the lack of it- again, seems deliberately antagonistic.

I have no idea why Justin Bieber was the first example of a fanbase that came to mind, but I went with it. Anyway..

I think you're mistaking DCUM for the real world. An anonymous forum amplifies the a-holes of all background (or non-backgrounds). My experience in real life is that I get cornered into talking about it. I'm not out advertising it. In fact people advertise their religion all over the place. It's quite the opposite of what you're suggesting.

To use your analogy, we're in a world full of people wearing Belieber t-shirts, and only bring up that we're not Beliebers when pressed about our plain t-shirts.

To extend the analogy, and a realization I had reading this thread, I'm generally not thinking about my t-shirt at all until asked about it. I think faith and religion is a central part of many believers lives, so it's easy to think that the lack of belief is central for an atheist. But at least in my case that's not true. I don't generally think about my lack of faith at all unless engaged in a conversation, such as this one, where religion and faith is the central topic. In my day to day life it only comes up in my head when I'm in situations where I feel pressured to express a faith I don't share.

That's good to hear. I think it becomes a little OTT when atheists on here seem to have their lack of faith as something that truly defines them, that separates them in this huge, major, central-to-their-lives way from religious people. It's good to hear that that is not the case, because I think that it what so many find truly obnoxious and eye-rolling about atheists. Nice to know this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answers "none" _ I don't have a religion. I don't believe in god"

Why would I use 11 words when I can say the same thing with 1? That's like using the dictionary definition of a word rather than the word itself. That seems silly.

You need to stop hurting the feelings of the oppressed majority. It's really very hard for them.

More of that atheist charm that you all have become known for