I had in another thread.

I am sure it has some meaning.

Godless
Blasphemer
Apostate

they are general and not atheist specific.

except for Godless. But is that descriptive or insulting?

The insult is in the mind of the insulter. I wouldn't be offended by any of those terms.

To take the power out of an insult it is imperative that the insultee let it slide right past them or better yet take it up with pride, laughter is good too.

but I think those are considered insults by the insulter and not by the supposedly insulted.

But that's usually used by atheists against other atheists.

Now that you mention it, there are quite a few terms of endearment they use.

Interestingly, this one is deployed indiscriminately at believers, agnostics and atheists.

Per the definition of the word, I fail to find the offensive part.

only when it's used as an insult to atheists and agnostics who dare to color outside the lines of the A&A diagram. In those instances, it translates as "not a real atheist," just as "accommodationist" and "faitheist" do.

who don't toe the party line.

Believers use all kinds of nasty words and descriptors to describe atheists.

Non-beleivers use all kinds of nasty words and descriptors to describe theists.

Believers use all kinds of nasty words and descriptors to describe those who believe differently.

Nonbelievers use al kinds of nasty words and descriptors to describe non-believers who are different than they are.

It's ridiculous and petty.

they generally mean someone who is a theist or polytheist of non mainstream religions. Since insults are generally ad hominem it is best to avoid them no matter your point of view.
My bad, that was a generalization and we know all those are false, including this one.
Oh! the irony

it reminds me a little of this:

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It is along the lines of godless communism, or godless liberals. Of course, you sometimes hear us use it as an positive like when we refer to the godless constitution.[/font]

"heathen".

I will admit that the insult is in the mind of the insulter, rather than the insulted.
Rather like "liberal" is considered an insult by conservatives, while I, aware of the etymology of the term, take comfort in the label.

that's one that is often used to dismiss and silence atheists, especially around these parts.

Do you think he is trying to dismiss and silence atheists?

Now take this information, review this whole thread, and think about your own words.

That doesn't mean that they are derogatory at their core.

Chris Stedman uses the word fatheist to describe an atheist who sees value in religion and lends general support for it. When it is used in a derogatory way, it doesn't stray far from his original definition, it's just that some people find the whole concept objectionable.

Anti-theist is a term that describes someone who is against religion in general. Kind of the opposite of faitheist, if you will.

Both describe what can be legitimate positions and both can be used as weapons against others.

They are good examples of the same phenomenon. So how can we separate out the legitimate use of them from the derogatory use.

He seems to have some feelings on the subject.

Carry on.

but you took offence to what I said, and have ignored his words, why is that?

wanted to note that the word is not always used in a derogatory way.

Much less passive-aggressive.

Speaking of feelings, is there something I've said that offends your sensitivities?

I have more to do that refresh DU all day erry day, you have to learn to delay gratification some times.

Wish I had one of those.

and think of it in the context of the whole thread and your words.

Holy shit, this IS fun!

they probably don't mean it in a nice way.


just a joke.

"God-damned" which works on multiple fronts. No doubt about that one.

on his own, seven-point spectrum of theistic probability:

I wonder what a poster would have to gain by claiming he's outright stated he is an anti-theist, when to the best of my knowledge, he never has?

Why, if the only people who disagree with you are extremists, then you MUST be in the perfect sensible middle. How convenient!

Just pile on the hate, pile on the insults, then pretend you're better than everyone else and your hands are clean.

What a fucking joke.

a person who has no religious ideations. And if that were the case, all people would be born "atheist", i.e. no religious ideations.
Then as some point in the contact with other humans, they may or may not acquire religious ideas. Unfortunately, the dictionary definition isn't going to be changed by my opinion.

(IIRC, taking up your completely self-evident point started the argument that led to her blocking me a while back.)

I don't think there is any evidence to support that, unless you want to take the position that all people are born without any ideation at all.

OTOH, I like your definition of atheist.

n/t

Hitchens did. Explicitly.

When did Dawkins?

....for the quote from him that says he is "anti-theist"...

Yee-haw!!!

Can't you just admit your error and retract your claim?

This is looking very, very bad for you. I thought it was evil atheists like me who made stuff up in order to hate on those we don't agree with.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Loving this.

...

an anti-theist? If he didn't use the specific term, but used the definition of the term in describing his position, does that mean it's not the case?

He would laugh at the irrational and illogical process being used here to convince yourself that he is not what he is.

You attack and malign those who attempt to put a label on you.

Why don't you apply the same standards to yourself that you do to others?

You are ok with that?

And what do you think the definition of anti-theist is. It's WAY more complex than you are making it out to be.

"If he didn't use the specific term, but used the definition of the term in describing his position..."

Well here's NDT describing his position:

Have stated over and over that it is wrong to try to label someone in a way they don't want to be labeled.

Except when it suits her agenda, of course. Then their wishes are irrelevant, and she can call then whatever the hell she wants.

Yes or no.

Very, very simple.

Yes or no.

Very, very simple.

Where, or when did he say that?

Back it up or retract it.

Very, VERY simple.

I'll let you give him the news.

Now, this has really completely run it's course and you can have the last word.

I don't think so.

You make shit up, then you try to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge your way out of it, when you got called out.

got caught in a lie about what someone else said and is now trying to backpedal furiously. Where have we seen THAT before?

Just to serve your group's agenda. It'll make yet another handy bookmark.

And your deceitful agenda loses. Truly an epic thread.

It's your argument that he is. You're forcing the label on him, despite you refusing to let anyone put a label on you.

Back up your claim, or admit your hypocrisy. That's what's "very, very simple." It's been a true delight watching your squirm, though.

"the only person who has the right to choose the label is you."

So when did Dawkins choose that label for himself.

Sucks to get caught out like that, huh?

But that horrible Richard Dawkins, well, he is exactly as SHE has decided. And more!

Ah, happy day to see the double standards flag flying high on the good ship cbayer.

You would not accept anybody telling you that what NDT says actually makes him an atheist because he said he isn't an atheist. But you get to put words in Dawkins mouth? And in this case, it is even worse because I don't think Dawkins has said anything that clearly makes him anti-theist. Sure your quotation kind of starts that way, but it isn't an anti-theist statement; it's a statement in favor of reason.

The best she could scrounge up didn't even have him use the word.

Let's face it, if you or I or any of the other despised atheists here had just made up a claim and attributed it to Pope Awesome, we'd be raked over the coals.

But some get to live by a different set of standards than they apply to others, it appears.

I award you the Internetz, even though they are not mine to award! I'm a badass like that!

Please stop awarding things that aren't yours.

I can't find any confirmation that he calls himself an "anti-theist". But he did condemn someone for being one.

https://richarddawkins.net/.../richard-dawkins-condemns.../

can't help you.

In the article you link, he does not condemn anyone for being an anti-theist at all. He condemns the heinous acts of an individual who coincidentally called himself an anti-theist.

He responded quickly and appropriately to this incident because he did not believe this was a result of anti-theism, not because he rejects it.

Are you really going to claim that Dawkins is not anti-theism? To what end?

And you don't give a shit. You hate him, therefore you're justified in making up whatever you think he deserves to be said about him.

"Are you really going to claim that Dawkins is not anti-theism?"

That is a dirty, low, pathetic trick cbayer. You can't spin this around and make someone else defend the counter to your FALSE CLAIM.

I am so glad this is on display for all to see. Loving every minute of this.

No you can't if you think that's what you claimed.

You said "describes himself as an anti-theist."

You are way too inaccurate and wishy-washy in your language. (I doubt you can help anybody.)

Dawkins is not. Comes from being a scientist before anything else (including an atheist).

Nice and so unnecessary.

Done.

Another one bites the dust, eh?

Every time someone calls you on your made up bullshit and/or hypocrisy you stop responding to them.

I'm sure Albert will get over it, the rest of us did.

Can you provide a link?

Or are you just gonna let that slam hang out there because,fuck it, you've decided that's the label you're going to stick on him?

In her stand-up show (Letting go of God), Sweeney tells the story of the woman who tells her mother she doesn't believe in God. The mother asks 'what do you mean, you don't believe in God?'. The daughter says: 'Well, I've become an atheist'. And the mother starts wailing: 'Good God! Not believeing in God was bad enough. But an atheist? An ATHEIST?'.

I guess the point of that joke is that 'atheist' is probably the word meant to convey the worst possible condemnation.

"Atheist" itself was used as a derogatory word for so long, there didn't need to be any others. "Godless" I guess comes close, but that's similar to atheist in that it's factually accurate but understood to be derogatory for that very reason.

Lots of hatred against atheists to go around, even here.

When the appropriate word that describes one is used as the pejorative almost exclusively, you've got a serious branding problem.

Atheism in itself is a perfectly neutral word; a = no/without, theo = god.

The fact it has a negative connotation in the US is due to attacks from mostly Christians.

That being probably due to the fact it's efficient to motivate one's side by attacking an outgroup.

Demonizing atheism must have helped the making of the four religious awakenings of America.

But that is UScentric. Atheism would carry no negative weight in Scandinavia, China or France.

There is a lot of attacking of out groups. The question is what to do to improve the situation.

You are right about the negative connotations varying in some places. There are some places where there are serious consequences for being an atheist, some where it is more neutral and some where it is expected. Same goes for most categories of belief/non-belief.

Are you really blaming atheists themselves (of which you are one, whether you want to accept the term or not) for the hatred and misuse of the term throughout history? The hatred and misuse that you yourself help perpetuate by insisting the term (which means not having belief in gods) doesn't apply to you, who doesn't believe in any gods?

Wow, just wow.

Which is, of course, a load of horseshit of mind-boggling proportions.

I almost went with "Belgians", but I thought that might be to obscure.

I tried to explain that I didn't believe is Satan either and that seemed to upset them more.

...get that signature line?

I like it!

I am a part-time philosopher.

With my regards

no need for any term beyond atheist.

When a poll was conducted to identify the least favorable groups in our society atheists came in second (for the first time, normally they are the winners of this poll) to the Tea Party...which is kind of amusing as the folks who probably dislike atheists the most are the right wing fundies who were hard core republicans founding the Tea Party...

Rightwing fun dies are a group distinct from the Tea Party. The true libertarians are not really driven by a religious agenda. Ayn Rand was an atheist.

piece from yesterday was linked to an article in the Times about a 2011 poll...so maybe 4 years later "atheists" are back in the lead...

One can dismiss it as old news certainly as the opinion piece in the Times references data from 2006-2011.

I initially didn't realize Salon linked their Tuesday piece to such an older piece of opinion. I did find this bit interesting though...and I guess if someone is trotting out a book that is a couple of thousand years old to support their beliefs something from 4 years ago is a minuscule time deviation in contrast.

I'm interested in what data they were using.

The NYT article does describe the role of religion with tea party members, and I appreciate that.

were referring to.

I am having difficulty finding a link to the actual data, so it's hard to really evaluate what they measured here, how they measured it and if the differences were significant. Interesting that they also note that the "christian right" is down there in the basement with atheists and tea partiers as well.

Faith is belief without evidence by definition. You are right, it is unlikely that one would be a believer if they needed evidence, because there just isn't any.

we read similar things, who knew right?

I try not to be the asshole I come across as sometimes in real life...sometimes on websites there's little room for subtlety and words without intonation and facial expression don't convey the appropriate lack of seriousness in some of my responses.

Here's some data showing that Atheists were least likely to be voted for in a gallup poll from 2012....with time I could probably round up the Times poll referenced but not linked in that article.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx

We will know things have improved when that begins to diminish.

The best study I have seen, which was done quite a bit ago, concluded that the issue has to do primarily with trust

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

indeed because believers assume that lacking a god to worship atheists are not afraid of consequences of lying.

Which is ludicrous on a multitude of levels and makes me question what some believers think is the nature of morality. It would appear for some like the Duck Dynasty fellow that the concept of morality in the absence of god would escape humanity. That the idea of killing each other for sport would somehow be appealing to all of us.

I've met a lot of religious people who lie from the moment they get up until the moment they sleep, if their lips are moving they're lying. Their god apparently doesn't frighten them enough to induce honesty.

With respect to Duck Dynasty man's somewhat idiotic comments, just because he was a drunken adulterer before god told him that wasn't appropriate it doesn't mean the rest of us aren't capable of promising our spouses we will be faithful while remaining sober.

It most interesting to me that atheists are untrustworthy when contrasted against their religious peers even while a great many religious people pick and choose the parts of their documentation they like and disregard the parts they don't without nary a thought as to the ramifications of disregarding the supposed words of their god as handed down to those special folks entrusted with transcribing god's word into human language.

For some who feel their moral/ethical positions come from their religion, it is hard to imagine that others can have this without it.

I agree that it is ludicrous.

We've all met highly moral/ethical people who are religious and others that are not. I suspect we've also met despicable liars, some of whom are believers and some of whom are not. That's the point, right? When it comes down to it, its about the individual, not about whether they have religious beliefs or not.

I am a proponent of cheery picking. I think we would all be better off if more people were cherry pickers when it came to their beliefs. That would require asking question, thinking things through, making thoughtful decisions about what made sense and what did not. That's the kind of religious people I grew up with and the kind who still are in my life.

I ask something? I don't wish this to come off as rude so if it does please accept my apology as I am indeed trying to understand this for myself.

I found your cherry picking comment interesting to me, I know a great many people who also think like you with respect to being proponents for cherry picking the parts that make sense and disregarding or downplaying the parts that don't.

How do you personally reconcile that?

How do you tell yourself it's acceptable to your god that you can ignore, or disregard part of what is supposedly the word of that god as recorded by his human disciples/translators/prophets and still have that god accept your prayers and supplications as an honest reflection of being a good {whatever religion you follow} believer?

Again I am so sorry if that came out as anything other than asking for the purpose of genuinely trying to get a glimpse into understanding.

Thank you for your patience, I appreciate your time and energy.

However, I was raised in the church and my father is a minister. I was raised to question everything and taught that it was important to embrace the parts that made sense and reject the parts that didn't.

There was no message about infallibility or any teaching about literalism. People may think that the bible is the word of god, but I think it was written by humans and reflect the politics and culture of the time. There are parts I like and parts I don't.

I appreciate your civility and honest approach. No need to apologize at all.

For example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218181883#post29

Do you disagree, Warren?

... anyone who wasn't mainstream Roman Catholic. That included Protestants, off- the-reservation RCs, secularists and non-observers of all stripes, including , I'd assume, atheists.

Jews and other non-Christians did not appear to be included. In her mind they were an exceptional category... undeserving ( or unworthy?) of scorn.


She was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But with her you could never be *really* sure.

Before your post, the word "atheist" was enough of a pejorative in itself that the religious didn't feel compelled to do anything but embellish it with some of the words that get hurled at the worst of them, like "fundamentalist" and "evangelical," both ludicrously misapplied.

Now they're going to start wracking their brains to come up with true pejoratives to indicate just how much they despise the whole idea of people going around living their lives without fear of an invisible deity.

It's all your fault when they do. You've thrown down the gauntlet.

Why should anyone resort to name calling when it comes to describing those whose non/beliefs about religion are different than there own?