Instead of calling myself an atheist I’d rather call myself a person of reason.
Plus what hits harder when someone asks if you believe in god, replying "No, I'm an atheist." OR "No. I'm a man/woman of reason".
(Though I do realise 'atheist' is a little sexier and easier to google.)
I see what you are saying but wouldn't "human" or something be more accurate in description? Perhaps you're not fond of labels.
LOL, yes all words tend to have labels don't they :D
How about you? -What does Dan Ashton Lloyd think?
I'm not fond of a single label. No single word can define any one (i hope not any way) but it would be foolish to have a problem with having a few words attached to one.
How bloody else would we describe our selves.
I agree with this completely.............
RE: "No one word, can ever define a person."
Are you sure, Blaine? How about, "dead"?
But the one word says it all - the others are redundant, and I hate redundancy, I hate redundancy!
The word Atheist scares the bejesus(pun intended) out of most folks of belief. I really have no desire to cause others discomfort. Some would say we need to cause them discomfort in order to get them to reevaluate their beliefs. I say BS I am not out to change anyone's belief or non belief. I only care about my own "reasoning" and leave others to theirs.
I'm not trying to change them either... specifically... :)
But I never enable stupidity, if I see a smoker smoking under the no smoking sign at the grocery store, I tell them. For me religiosity is just as much of a stain on humans as racism, I also don't let racist/sexist people get away without a tong lashing.
Specially in North America, our democracy is under serious duress exactly because people don't express themselves, our participation floats around 50-60%, we live in a society where people prefer do "just as they please", but that leaves society's narcissists ruling government, it's an attitude which makes society worse in the end.
We must speak up, speak clearly, speak loudly, speak frequently. NOT to "change" other, but to partake in the moulding of society towards less stupid concepts.
This is based on the assumption that you are right and they are wrong. I would agree with you but many do not. I still respect a persons right to disagree with my views even if i feel their logic is incredibly flawed.
I furthermore do not wish to set myself up as a mini "atheist poster child" in the vein of Dawkins. R.D. takes a lot of heat not because of what he says but how he says it. I respect him for this but would not be willing to be him, even in a small sense.
Well, RD's certainly no idol of mine, because I see him as very WASPy. But partaking in the moulding of society absolutely involves discussing and sometimes saying things that others don't like. Faithers mould society by preaching and pressuring governments, if we let them do that without impunity, faith will continue to be the first moulding force in society.
But it's not just god conversations, it's all conversations :)
On religiosity, we are correct and they are faulty, I would say schizo. I have no hesitation in saying that.
T A A:
'Tis a lie; it protects those who rule.
We who vote elect oligarchs. 535 (536 if you insist) of them in Washington, DC.
It's our oligarchy. Always has been.