Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on April 4, 2010 at 1:50pm

Maybe "irreligious" or "non-religious", though this may include some theists.

"Secular" or "humanist" could be alternatives too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graham E. Lau on April 4, 2010 at 1:59pm

Are you going to be discussing the terminology in your study? It sounds like you should use the term atheist and describe why there is a negative connotation associated with this term. Considering why the negative psychology exists would be appropriate if you're looking to find the positive as well. Also, if there are theists on your review panel, they may appreciate the logical reasoning behind the terminology and its modern connotations amongst different groups (and they may be less likely to judge negatively if they are thinking about how shallow that negative thinking is).

I suggest using the term atheist at least a little bit. Many of us also use the terms secular humanist, non-theist, and rational thinker. I don't personally like the term irreligious, but to each their own.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on April 4, 2010 at 2:01pm

i don't think there's any ambiguity at all. what there is is a lot of misunderstanding about the meaning of the word. as for offense on the part of theists to the word atheist, generally speaking, i abhor attempts to change what we identify ourselves instead of simply educating people as to the actual meaning of the word. but, in this specific instance you describe, i can see how the ignorance of your audience would both be problematic and difficult to address under the circumstances. i think the term "non-theist" is too broad as it includes more than just atheists. a better choice, i think, is the one suggested by Radu above me- irreligious.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gina on April 4, 2010 at 2:46pm

Thanks for all the feedback, I'm loving it. There is no one to bounce around questions like this in my world, and I so appreciate it! I will probably be tossing it around for a while, since it will be a while before I have a committee... I have a while to finalize the terminology. I'm going to start out with "atheist" and see how that plays out. Maybe I'll get lucky: Psychology is a lot like the hard sciences in that there are proportionately more atheists (and other similar terms!) in this field than in the general population.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gina on April 4, 2010 at 3:11pm

Thanks andy, my research will be about people who don't believe in a deity.

I sometimes define myself as agnostic, only because I'm open to any forthcoming evidence (which could change my mind, but I'm not holding my breath). I also define myself as atheist, because right now I don't believe (no evidence to support belief). Am I confusing the definition of agnosticism? I imagine this question is answered somewhere on this site, but would appreciate feedback here nonetheless :-) (I guess what I'm really wondering is should I include self-described agnostics in this study)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on April 4, 2010 at 3:18pm

agnosticism is about knowledge while atheism is about belief. agnosticism, according to the strict definition, means that the person professing agnosticism believes that we lack the knowledge to say whether or not a deity exists and may indeed always lack that knowledge. according to the colloquial definition agnosticism means simply "i don't know". therein lies the confusion. people of course believe that atheists are making a outright claim to knowledge of the nonexistence of a deity and so can't understand how a person can claim to be both an atheist and an agnostic.

since agnosticism and atheism deal with different things, knowledge and belief, you can be both an agnostic and an atheist. indeed, most people who describe themselves as atheists would, when pressed to describe their stance more in depth, describe their atheism just as you do- as a result of a lack of evidence while still being open to any knew evidence in the future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on April 4, 2010 at 3:41pm

That's exactly right Nelson. They are separate things, so you don't need to be either an atheist or an agnostic. You can be any one of the following: gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist. Personally, I think that both gnostic theists and gnostic atheists are a little deranged, if you know what I mean. Of course that you can say you know that gods don't exists, but in the colloquial meaning of the term, not in the philosophical one. I can't see how you could absolutely know, without the slightest uncertainty, anything at all. There's always the possibility, even if it's extremely improbable that you might be wrong.

I think that, from this absolute point of view, every sane atheist would call himself/herself an agnostic atheist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John57 on April 4, 2010 at 5:01pm

I think Radu pretty much hit it spot on when he said "'Secular' or 'humanist'".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on April 4, 2010 at 5:02pm

Non-delusional.

• ▶ Reply