Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:19:22 here.

The prefix "a-" just means "without". It seems like that's what several atheists here are describing.

It's neutral in attitude. It doesn't mean "anti-". For example, we agree that "apolitical" means you don't have a political affiliation or interest.

That said, there is a subset of atheists, perhaps small, who are "anti-theist." Anybody like the negative impact poster or 00:00 (same person?) who spends hours everyday trying to derail threads and piss people off and then try for creative ways to weasle out of their own responsibility is definitely "anti-theist." Some anti-theists probably get their "anti" from bad experiences with religion, while others seem like bored children (I'll let you guys peg 00:00.) I'd venture that anti-theists are the ones who have their identities wrapped up in opposing religion.

Now, conformism is a seperate issue. I think the Dawkins/Harris/Mayer type of loudmouth is, actually, seen as "cool" by some atheists. Not by all. If we were doing Vann diagrams I'd venture that many of the bored children type of anti-theist are also conformists. YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I find that I identify with good people of any faith (including none). I find jackasses of any faith (including none) to be quite similar despite their avowed hated / disdain of one another.

I think we really should redo our divisions on the lines of jackassery. ISIS can shut in a room with Westboro Baptist Church while I chill with some folks focused on doing good things in the works.

Eh, honestly- lemme know when the Westboro Baptist Church burns someone alive. They are awful, but Isis has a very special place in hell. I don't think you can compare the two

OK, how about Christians who knock on my door to evangelize with militant atheists. Fair?

Not really. Some of the tenets of the Christian faith are forgiveness, kindness, etc- which seems to be what the folks would have been trying to do when knocking on your door, since they believe Christianity is the way to eternal salvation. As such, they are essentially trying to do a good deed.

For atheists who are aggressive, there is really nothing to be gained from turning someone from a Christian into an atheist, no benefit conferred upon loss of faith. As such, it's essentially a selfish pursuit.

Not to pick hairs but... I'm a philosophy major so I kinda can't let these little details go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answer is "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.

only if you want to make an effort to help people understand what an atheist is. i.e., that's it's not a person who is anti-religion or a person who thinks religious people are stupid, or a person who thinks they have all the answers. It's just a person who does not believe in god. I guess I'd add "I'm an atheist" to the end of the quote above to make it perfectly clear. And you're right -- it's like a dictionary definition. It's purpose is to explain, not just to make a statement.

i believe that the vast majority of the people I talk to know the definition of the word atheist and this adds nothing to the discussion. Adding these words does nothing to dispel the negative impression of atheists that they or you might have. I used to share some of those impressions, and it was an impediment to my ability to be true and honest about who I am and what I believe. What I can do to help dispel those impressions is to be myself while claiming the label. Which is something I still struggle with in the real world for many of the reasons PPs have alluded to. Mainstream America does not feel acceptin of a lack of faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I find that I identify with good people of any faith (including none). I find jackasses of any faith (including none) to be quite similar despite their avowed hated / disdain of one another.

I think we really should redo our divisions on the lines of jackassery. ISIS can shut in a room with Westboro Baptist Church while I chill with some folks focused on doing good things in the works.

Eh, honestly- lemme know when the Westboro Baptist Church burns someone alive. They are awful, but Isis has a very special place in hell. I don't think you can compare the two

OK, how about Christians who knock on my door to evangelize with militant atheists. Fair?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I find that I identify with good people of any faith (including none). I find jackasses of any faith (including none) to be quite similar despite their avowed hated / disdain of one another.

I think we really should redo our divisions on the lines of jackassery. ISIS can shut in a room with Westboro Baptist Church while I chill with some folks focused on doing good things in the works.

Eh, honestly- lemme know when the Westboro Baptist Church burns someone alive. They are awful, but Isis has a very special place in hell. I don't think you can compare the two

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answer is "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.

only if you want to make an effort to help people understand what an atheist is. i.e., that's it's not a person who is anti-religion or a person who thinks religious people are stupid, or a person who thinks they have all the answers. It's just a person who does not believe in god. I guess I'd add "I'm an atheist" to the end of the quote above to make it perfectly clear. And you're right -- it's like a dictionary definition. It's purpose is to explain, not just to make a statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I find that I identify with good people of any faith (including none). I find jackasses of any faith (including none) to be quite similar despite their avowed hated / disdain of one another.

I think we really should redo our divisions on the lines of jackassery. ISIS can shut in a room with Westboro Baptist Church while I chill with some folks focused on doing good things in the works.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answer is "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.

only if you want to make an effort to help people understand what an atheist is. i.e., that's it's not a person who is anti-religion or a person who thinks religious people are stupid, or a person who thinks they have all the answers. It's just a person who does not believe in god. I guess I'd add "I'm an atheist" to the end of the quote above to make it perfectly clear. And you're right -- it's like a dictionary definition. It's purpose is to explain, not just to make a statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For atheists, maybe if the question is "what religion are you?" the answer is "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.