In my own case, being raised catholic, I found almost no one to discuss my doubts with. This raised several questions for me. The word atheist was created by Christians to put a negative descriptor during any discussion. Now people are proud to be called an atheist but the minute they identify themselves with that term the people who are still unsure of their own beliefs get negative feelings and any chance to discuss is ruined. For myself I choose to call myself a catchiest which is a new word that describes a catholic or Christian who does not know if there is a god. Each different branch of Christianity can add the first syl. Of their denomination to the word atheist and every one would have a positive reference for themselves as doubters.
Hey grandpa, nice to hear from you again.
The word has been around since Greek times, so I’m not sure about your origin story there. It does bring up feelings though, no question there. I tend to avoid it in certain circles. The farthest I’ll go is saying I’m a “Easter and Christmas” Christian. It’s a way of saying I don’t care without saying I forsake all things churchy.
My atheism is not a reaction to any peticular sect. I don’t believe in any god, or gods. Therefore I am an atheist. The word is evolving as more people come out of the theist closet, so I have no problem with keeping it. The term stopped being negative to me as soon as I learned what it really means, not the various religious definitions. Whether or not the term was originally intended as a negative label is of no matter to me. It is an accurate label that has very positive connotations to me.
Thanks for remembering me. I did look up the use of the word atheist. Although doubters were earlier the term atheist did not take on its useful meaning until after the renaissance and reformation in the 16th century and it was the 18th century before its positive use. What I was referring to is the common person still has the very negative thoughts which are regularly reinforced every Sunday by clergy who reinforce their untruths. The people are victims of their own trust in these individuals. We all got the message about atheists starting in first grade and repeated over and over every week all of our lives without any correction. Once a person gets it planted in their brain it is almost impossible to get out. That is why I am more comfortable calling myself a catchiest. A new word that has no baggage.
I get your point. It’s not-a-theist. It’s a Non-believer. I.e. defined as a negative. I use the term Secular Humanist. And if someone says “ya but you’re an atheist right, you don’t believe in God” I say no, I don’t believe in the whole God/No God debate. It’s meaningless.
I believe the highest praise one can bestow on another is to call him/her a “critical thinker”, but of course that would be misconstrued by theists as a negative.
Free thinker, humanist.
In my own case, being raised catholic, I found almost no one to discuss my doubts with. This raised several questions for me. The word atheist was created by Christians to put a negative descriptor during any discussion. Now people are proud to be called an atheist but the minute they identify themselves with that term the people who are still unsure of their own beliefs get negative feelings and any chance to discuss is ruined. For myself I choose to call myself a catchiest which is a new word that describes a catholic or Christian who does not know if there is a god. Each different branch of Christianity can add the first syl. Of their denomination to the word atheist and every one would have a positive reference for themselves as doubters.A "positive reference" as a doubter? What does that mean to the average Christian? I grant you that the negative connotations of "atheist" are a problem, but I don't see how creating a new word is going to help. I looked up "catchiest" in an online dictionary and all it gave was a reference to "catchy". So you'll have to explain what a "catchiest" is to whomever you're talking to, and the moment you say you don't know if there's a God, they will peg you as an "atheist" and there you are in trouble again! :) But if you find it works for you, good enough!
In my own case, being raised catholic, I found almost no one to discuss my doubts with. This raised several questions for me. The word atheist was created by Christians to put a negative descriptor during any discussion. Now people are proud to be called an atheist but the minute they identify themselves with that term the people who are still unsure of their own beliefs get negative feelings and any chance to discuss is ruined. For myself I choose to call myself a catchiest which is a new word that describes a catholic or Christian who does not know if there is a god. Each different branch of Christianity can add the first syl. Of their denomination to the word atheist and every one would have a positive reference for themselves as doubters.A "positive reference" as a doubter? What does that mean to the average Christian? I grant you that the negative connotations of "atheist" are a problem, but I don't see how creating a new word is going to help. I looked up "catchiest" in an online dictionary and all it gave was a reference to "catchy". So you'll have to explain what a "catchiest" is to whomever you're talking to, and the moment you say you don't know if there's a God, they will peg you as an "atheist" and there you are in trouble again! :) But if you find it works for you, good enough! If a person cannot say he has a definite belief in any god, he's an atheist, whether he likes the word or not. If someone doubts the existence if god he is not a believer. If he's not a believer, he's an atheist (unless he comes up with another god or gods to believe in). "Doubting" doesn't make a person any less an atheist than one who does not doubt. It's a matter of belief, not knowledge. A person who claims to be an "agnostic" is an atheist. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, not belief. Atheism is a position on belief, not knowledge. People waste a tremendous amount of energy doing back flips trying to avoid the word "atheist". They fool no one but themselves. What they are saying is they don't know whether they believe in a god or not--a terrible position to be in--not knowing what you believe. There is no word for such a person but "fool." Lois
Wow WOW, what are the qualifications for being a senior member? I try to use the scientific method to arrive at the most correct answer to any problem. The word science has two meanings , the scientific meaning that has a precise meaning and the average persons m3aning which is maybe. The word catheist mean a person of Christian or catholic up bringing is a cathiest period, no baggage. The most correct answer to the question is there a deity or god? No one can prove there is a god and no one can prove there isn’t a god. I don’t know if there is a god is the only honest answer. The burden of proof of any claim is on the person making the claim. My intention was to keep open communications with people I am close to. We allow people to use terms that have no meaning. Words like faith, sacred and mystery that have no meaning other than ‘I don’t know’. We are not a bunch of cat’s, we can come a meeting of the minds.
If you’re going to get into discussion online with wanna-be philosophers (I include myself in that), you’re going to get into long discussions about word definitions. A thread about making up a new word is just asking for it.
Wow WOW, what are the qualifications for being a senior member? I try to use the scientific method to arrive at the most correct answer to any problem. The word science has two meanings , the scientific meaning that has a precise meaning and the average persons m3aning which is maybe. The word catheist mean a person of Christian or catholic up bringing is a cathiest period, no baggage. The most correct answer to the question is there a deity or god? No one can prove there is a god and no one can prove there isn't a god. I don't know if there is a god is the only honest answer. The burden of proof of any claim is on the person making the claim. My intention was to keep open communications with people I am close to. We allow people to use terms that have no meaning. Words like faith, sacred and mystery that have no meaning other than 'I don't know'. We are not a bunch of cat's, we can come a meeting of the minds.It's all in the number of posts. I think you have a good understanding of the issue, and I think Lois had a good definition of Atheist and Agnostic. For most people there isn't really a problem, it's just the few on the extremes of the question who want to argue the point, most don't really care. Most are willing to let each individual choose whatever label they like and live with it, it's only the few who want to argue the point and make the fine distinctions. So in your calling yourself a Catheist, are you trying to be politically correct, as opposed to calling yourself an Atheist? BTW 2 of my grandchildren call me Grumpa.
Thanks for trying to clarify. No I am not trying to be politically correct. Seeking the truth from a scientific point of view is more accurate. Scientists have proven their method of finding the most correct solution to a problem is by employing the scientific method. The scientific method is the only way that has been found to be most reliable. Religions have been making claims for over thousands of years with no proof at all. what has been accomplished using scientific method has happened in the last 50 or so years. I want action now and that will only happen if people become more knowledgeable and stop allowing themselves to be led .
Thanks for trying to clarify. No I am not trying to be politically correct. Seeking the truth from a scientific point of view is more accurate. Scientists have proven their method of finding the most correct solution to a problem is by employing the scientific method. The scientific method is the only way that has been found to be most reliable. Religions have been making claims for over thousands of years with no proof at all. what has been accomplished using scientific method has happened in the last 50 or so years. I want action now and that will only happen if people become more knowledgeable and stop allowing themselves to be led .Agreed, the scientific method is the best way to find answers to questions about the physical world. Religion is still the only way to find answers about things spiritual. It's when religions try to make declarations about the physical world based on religious writings, that they get into trouble, and usually get it wrong. The trick is to know when to apply each discipline to the appropriate question. FYI, I try not to use any word in a derisive way toward others, and to me Atheist is descriptive rather than dismissive.
Sorry breakup I can not let you get away with that. The word things imply something physical. Spiritual is another meaningless word , even my cathiest has meaning.
Agreed, the scientific method is the best way to find answers to questions about the physical world. Religion is still the only way to find answers about things spiritual.Not to hijack the thread, although I'm not sure there is much to hijack, but what do you mean by spiritual and exactly how can you define religion in a way that makes it the only path to answers thereof. If spiritual is non-material, as in not money or creature comfort or selfish indulgences, then I can find many ways to help others, care for those who give me no physical benefit in return, and do things for future generations, etc. Religion says it has answers, but that doesn't mean it actually does. With rare exception, the answers that religion claims can be shown to have been arrived at by other means first.
Agreed, the scientific method is the best way to find answers to questions about the physical world. Religion is still the only way to find answers about things spiritual.Not to hijack the thread, although I'm not sure there is much to hijack, but what do you mean by spiritual and exactly how can you define religion in a way that makes it the only path to answers thereof. If spiritual is non-material, as in not money or creature comfort or selfish indulgences, then I can find many ways to help others, care for those who give me no physical benefit in return, and do things for future generations, etc. Religion says it has answers, but that doesn't mean it actually does. With rare exception, the answers that religion claims can be shown to have been arrived at by other means first. I can see that I wasn't defining "things spiritual" closely enough, and works of charity and good will can certainly be done outside of religion, and many are. The "things spiritual" in this connotation are the ideas and concepts that are addressed by religion and are not found in other systems of thought. Also "things" in this connotation are not referring to physical objects, but ideas and concepts of the non-physical.
Agreed, the scientific method is the best way to find answers to questions about the physical world. Religion is still the only way to find answers about things spiritual.Not to hijack the thread, although I'm not sure there is much to hijack, but what do you mean by spiritual and exactly how can you define religion in a way that makes it the only path to answers thereof. If spiritual is non-material, as in not money or creature comfort or selfish indulgences, then I can find many ways to help others, care for those who give me no physical benefit in return, and do things for future generations, etc. Religion says it has answers, but that doesn't mean it actually does. With rare exception, the answers that religion claims can be shown to have been arrived at by other means first. I can see that I wasn't defining "things spiritual" closely enough, and works of charity and good will can certainly be done outside of religion, and many are. The "things spiritual" in this connotation are the ideas and concepts that are addressed by religion and are not found in other systems of thought. Also "things" in this connotation are not referring to physical objects, but ideas and concepts of the non-physical. Which are all imaginary. LL
My thoughts on the subject.
I hear what you are saying pa ray. “Atheist" does not believe in a deity. But there is a twist of confusion cause by people not approaching this thought in a logical manner. Always start from the beginning whenever possible. If you are unable to start from the beginning, then use timelines.
The oldest stories passed down tell us that the earth was made from stardust. Then man came about. Then man created god. At that point in mankind’s history, god was a term used for knowledge.
There seemed to be a cast system of upper and lower gods. This is before the standard four cast system came to be.
The OT states that god created earth. Now don’t get hung up on translations. That is because the bible has not yet been fully translated. For example in Genesis, the old script gives the names of the gods. Yet the OT when translated the word “God" replaces the names of the gods. If I remember right there are eleven different gods in the OT. So, don’t get hung up and go down that road. Try and follow the thought being presented.
The thought being, “God created earth for man." Or translated into a more modern meaning. “The people of knowledge (gods) created earth for mankind." And this is true. The earth was a very hostile environment for mankind until it was domesticated.
This all took place in the Age of Domestication. So, at that point in the timeline, we had gods (mankind’s knowledge) but we see no signs of deities. So at this point in time there would be no reason to have an atheist.
Then mankind almost went extinct from 74K BC to 71K BC and very little knowledge was passed down. The Red Ochre burials is one of the items from the Age of Domestication along with 90% of the protein we eat today. And with DNA we should be able to discover more about our history in the next couple of decades.
As mankind repopulated the earth, mankind went into the Age of Deities. And in this age as the god’s evolved they became known as the controller of knowledge. Knowledge itself became known as the spirit, gnostic, holy cloud and light. The bible itself calls upon Christians to live in the light. But it is my guess that most Christians don’t have a clue as to what that means.
So, today you can be an atheist and live in the light, or be a Christian and live in the dark.
The way people looked at the gods in the Age of Deities changed over time as the gods themselves evolved and the need for the term “Atheist" came about.
Sorry for the long post.
I can see that I wasn't defining "things spiritual" closely enough, and works of charity and good will can certainly be done outside of religion, and many are. The "things spiritual" in this connotation are the ideas and concepts that are addressed by religion and are not found in other systems of thought. Also "things" in this connotation are not referring to physical objects, but ideas and concepts of the non-physical.Either you haven't given this much thought, or you're not taking it seriously.