WMN: t3_1lni37_t1_cc102pd

[TITLE]

I think identifying as an "Atheist" is slightly oxymoronic and identifying as "Nonreligious" is a better term. CMV

[GeneralGBO]

I'm probably just overthinking this, but I'm bored and want to hear some other views. It seems to that those who identify themselves as "Atheist" make it seem like they're an organized group... Like how people identify as "Catholic." That seems to defeat the purpose to me. I'm not religious, but I don't call myself or tell people that I'm an Atheist, rather I just say that I'm not religious. I know the literal definition is "non-theist" but Atheist has taken on its own meaning unfortunately. CMV.

[bunker_man]

That's not even the real reason it makes no sense. The real reason is that god is not a specific concept, but rather a universal one that takes many forms. Meaning that disbelieving in all of them is arguably not even possible, since some are so mundane that they are things that almost certainly exist, or some which even do. But everyone knows what they mean, so as long as they're not pretending that agnostics are atheists whether they want to be or not its fine.

[KrustyFrank27]

I believe that you're confusing atheism with anarchism. Atheism is simply the belief in no God, while anarchism is the wish for no organization of people. Atheists are certainly allowed to come together into groups, as long as they aren't worshipping God together.

[Isabelle50]

These definitions are not interchangeable. Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being Religion: 1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. 2) Details of belief as taught or discussed. Atheist is specifically a disbelief in a supreme being. You can be atheist while still being religious. For example Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism are all religions without 'Gods' as such. Non-religious is disbelief in details of God as taught or discussed. You can be a theist (believe in God) without being religious or following a specific doctrine. Examples include most people who would be categorized colloquially as "spiritual". Those who believe in and feel the presence of God or Gods but doesn't follow a specific religion. Because of these significant differences the two terms are not interchangeable. You could not simply label everyone who identifies as 'atheist' as 'non-religious' or vice versa.

[corneliusv]

There are non-religious theists as well, so by changing to that label you are omitting information which you might want to communicate.

[BenIncognito]

Atheist is a label about a person's belief in a god or gods. Non-religious is a label a out a person's religious beliefs. Atheists are *usually* non-religious, but non-religious people are not always atheists. Many people worship God, follow the Bible, and then call the selves non-religious. I'm non-religious and an atheist. I see no problem in using those labels, and I'm not trying to assert membership in some group, it's just the word that describes me best.

[narwhallrus]

Atheist is more specific than non-religious. Non-religious just means you don't follow a particular religion, however it doesn't mean you don't believe in any sort of god. Atheist means both.

[pinumbernumber]

Strictly speaking, you can be atheist and still be part of a religion, if that religion doesn't involve gods. In practice they pretty much all do though, in one form or another.

[narwhallrus]

Which only further proves that the term atheist is very different from non-religious.

[pinumbernumber]

Indeed so.

[Nepene]

Non religious is rather unspecific. You might be spiritual or believe in a god or spirits and call yourself non religious. You could even be a Christian who disliked mainstream religion and call yourself non religious. Atheist is a lot more precise. Plus, many atheists are happy to be part of a group, and enjoy the social benefits of group membership. Most humans value companionship.

[GeneralGBO]

Wouldn't that make them a group of individuals who identify as having the same beliefs about the universe and its origins, almost like a religion? I don't know, maybe there's nothing wrong with Atheism being a "united" group.

[Nepene]

1. They don't have the same beliefs about the universe and its origins. The majority of all groups believe in the big bang. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/31/871021/-Research-2000-Poll-on-Space-Exploration-Policy But atheists have no fixed doctrine on other things- multiverses, string theory, big bang big crunch, origin of the universe etc.

[Edicedi]

You're over thinking this. As you said in your post. Also, as you said, atheist literally means non-theist. There might be SOME who identify with a group mentality. But you're generalizing the fact that ALL atheists group identify. You are your own proof.

[moonflower]

There's nothing oxymoronic about using a label which means ''I do not believe in any gods'' ... that is the basic meaning of ''atheist'', and it can also mean someone who makes the assertion that there are definitely no gods But even if some atheists do band together and call themselves Atheist-with-a-big-fuckoff-bright-red-capital-A, and even if they do try to make a religion out of their atheism, it is still not oxymoronic because they still don't believe in god Not all religions are theistic, such as some branches of Buddhism, for example, so you could also belong to an atheistic religion ''Non-religious'' doesn't tell you whether the person believes in god or not: you could have a non-religious theist, so the word ''atheist'' has a specific meaning in relation to one's belief in god

[incrimiNET]

Not all religions associate with the supernatural. Those that do, do not necessarily constitute a specific belief in a deity. For instance some Buddhists are religious **and** atheist. Your error is in your definition of religion; you think religion implies a belief in a god, or gods, when it does not.

[GeneralGBO]

∆ View changed. That's a great point about Buddhists.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/incrimiNET. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[25X]

Atheist is really just a term. Breaking it down (this is simplified but objectively true) "a-" means "non" "the" means "god" "ist" means "believer" that's all it means. There are other terms that define other aspects of belief. Technically one can believe in a powerful, magical being and not identify that being as a "god" and still be an atheist, if we take the operational definition of atheist listed above. It's being used in our culture as a catch all term, but it's really not, and as long as you can understand that then you're golden.

[catglass]

I agree with you, but the fact is that other people have attached connotations with the term and turned it into "Atheist" with a capital A. Not much anyone can really do about it. I still think atheist is a perfectly acceptable descriptor, but it's a little idealistic to hope everyone will associate strictly with its dictionary definition.

[25X]

All I'm saying is why "hope" that. It really shouldn't affect you whether or not society adheres to the strict language use preferences you and I might adhere to. Just use the term appropriately, qualify it when necessary.