RE: Should the term Atheist be scrapped?
May 21, 2013 at 3:57 pm
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2013 at 3:58 pm by One Above All.)
I don't think we should eliminate a term just because it has some negative connotations. Then again, we might be more accepted by theists (maybe even fundies) if we start using another term.
"Atheist" is, by its very definition and etymology, the best term (or at least the best one I can think of) to describe lack of belief in deities. Other terms, like "rationalist" and its derivatives, are kind of egocentric, IMO. I don't think we should call ourselves "rationalists" just like the anti-abortionists shouldn't call themselves "pro-lifers". While it is true that theists are irrational (at least when it comes to religion), implying that from the get-go serves no purpose other than to piss them off, IMO, which will result in them not paying attention to anything we have to say.
"Atheist" is, by its very definition and etymology, the best term (or at least the best one I can think of) to describe lack of belief in deities. Other terms, like "rationalist" and its derivatives, are kind of egocentric, IMO. I don't think we should call ourselves "rationalists" just like the anti-abortionists shouldn't call themselves "pro-lifers". While it is true that theists are irrational (at least when it comes to religion), implying that from the get-go serves no purpose other than to piss them off, IMO, which will result in them not paying attention to anything we have to say.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
![[Image: LB_Header_Idea_A.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i280.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk172%2FBlaziken_rjcf%2FLB_Header_Idea_A.jpg)
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
