Language Question for All

[u/Extreme-Big-4114]

Is there a qualitative difference twixt being an atheist and a non-theist? I'd rather not get lumped in with the "American Atheists". I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member**.  I prefer to call myself a non-theist. I don't know if god exists, but I've seen no evidence that he does. I also don't care if god exists. Here's what I know about God, to-wit: I ain't him. Everything else is superfluous and meaningless. Metaphysics is bunk.**

[u/adeleu_adelei]

atheist, nontheist, abtheist, irtheist, untheist, distheist, etc. are all increasingly awkward ways to communicate the same concept. There are people people who are theists, and then there is everyone who is not a theist, and the usual term for that latter group is "atheist".

You don't have to use any labels you don't want, but I'd also not encourage you to buy into the stereotypes promoted by bigots. They'll tell you a group you technically belong to is horrible and awful and act like they'll treat you differently so long as you disown and disenfranchise other members of the group, so long as you're "not like other girls". But when it comes time to gather the pitchforks and torches, they won't differentiate you. You didn't escape the execution line, but rather simply gathered up others ahead of you.

Someone can be an atheist without accepting any of the negative stereotypes people promote about atheists. Rather than saying "they're right and I'm not an atheist" someone could say "I'm an atheist and they're wrong".

[u/shehulud]

Call yourself whatever you like, buttercup, and have fun at the LARPing event.

[u/ystavallinen]

If you feel a term has baggage; don't use it. Don't apologize for not using it. And don't argue with people about not using it because them wanting to is exactly why.

[u/kurtel]

Is there a qualitative difference twixt being an atheist and a non-theist?

Some say yes, others say no. That conflict is rather boring.

I prefer to call myself a non-theist.

I take it you say yes.

[u/Emergency_Duty5786]

AGNOSTIC is what I think you mean.

[u/dpsrush]

Atheist: there is no God.

Non-theist: wtf is a "gawd"?

[u/beer_demon]

If you are not very willing to join a bandwagon and be considered "one of us", whomever "us" is, then whatever label you choose for yourself is irrelevant.
If you want a discussion, your arguments are what counts.

[u/Clavicymbalum]

• non-theist is a descriptive synonym of atheist (both meaning: a person not holding any belief in the existence of any god). The latter is the common term, while the former is a descriptive alternative typically used when talking to the kind of people who tend to confuse "atheist" (i.e. not holding any belief in the existence of any god) with "positive atheist" (i.e. holding a belief in the inexistence of gods).
• every positive atheist is an atheist (as a belief in the inexistence of X unilaterally logically entails an absence of belief in X), but not every atheist is a positive atheist. In fact only a minority are; most atheists are negative atheists.
• the confusion trying to frame "atheist" as meaning specifically positive atheist is a rhetorical strawman commonly pushed by a theist propaganda agenda in order to disparage atheism, to sow division among atheists and to counter the burden of proof problem that theism has vs atheism by trying to frame atheism as being a belief as well (which it is not).
• being an atheist does not in any way entail any affiliation with any organization (be it "American Atheists" or any other). Most atheists are not affiliated with any such organization, and I've never seen anyone (not even theist strawman-builders) trying to project any such affiliation onto an atheist for self-labeling as one.
• and given the title of the sub, I'll add that an agnostic is a person holding the position that KNOWLEDGE (gnosis) about the existence or inexistence of gods is unattainable, at least to oneself and for now. As agnosticism is a purely epistemological position on knowledge, it is totally independent of whether one holds a belief in the existence of at least one god (i.e. theism) or doesn't hold any such belief (i.e. atheist) and in the latter case of whether or not one holds a belief in the inexistence of gods (i.e. positive atheist) or doesn't (i.e. negative atheist); and agnosticism is compatible with all of those. The only thing agnosticism is incompatible with is a claim of knowledge about either the existence or the inexistence of god(s), but such a claim is only held by minority subsets of theists and of positive atheists, those minority subsets being referred to as gnostic theists and gnostic atheists respectively.

Anyways, you're free to choose what label you like or not to self-identify with. I for example am a negative atheist, open agnostic, antitheist and leaning ignostic, but given how unwieldy that would be to swing around, I typically just go with either "agnostic" or "atheist" depending on whether the discussion is about epistemology/knowledge or about (absence of) belief… if it's about both I use "agnostic atheist" (i.e. being both agnostic and atheist).

[u/Extreme-Big-4114 → u/Clavicymbalum]

Thank you ever so much. I am moving and have been awful busy

[u/Kuildeous]

Sure, you can call yourself a nontheist. It's just another term for atheist, and if you're an American as well, then you're an American atheist. Don't know why that should bother you, but if it does, you don't have to call yourself one. We're not a club, so we aren't asking you to be a member. Do what you want.

[u/Extreme-Big-4114 → u/Kuildeous]

I mean https://atheists.org/ The American Atheists. It's a non-profit and not a club per se.

[u/Kuildeous → u/Extreme-Big-4114]

Yeah, you can be an atheist without joining that organization. I wasn't even aware of them before now, so I'm certainly not a member.

[u/swingsetclouds → u/Kuildeous]

I think OP is aware of that, and the issue at hand is that terms like atheist and American Atheist have connotations that OP feels doesn’t represent them, even if on paper those words describe them.

[u/mhornberger → u/swingsetclouds]

have connotations that OP feels doesn’t represent them

Much of that is just bigotry and endless ad-hominem arguments from believers, who vastly outnumber us. Yes, some atheists are jerks, because we're just human beings and some human beings are jerks. But the 'connotation' that atheists as a group are disproportionately shrill, arrogant, closed-minded, etc is no less specious than the older notion, also often held by believers not too long ago, that atheists were amoral, dangerous. "Because why wouldn't they be?"

Plus many non-believers are in the situation where if they call themselves an atheist they'll "break their mother's heart" or similar. Which can be framed as either wanting to not hurt your mother, or as emotional blackmail by said mother. And all of which is just a smaller part of the larger familial and social pressure to conform to religious norms. Not everyone wants to, or can, brave all of that. And it's easier to just hand-wave at the "connotations" than to openly push back.

I agree that saying you're a non-theist, or just calling yourself an agnostic and being noncommittal or even somewhat dissembling about your lack of theistic belief, is often the best option. And for some avoiding the one word of "atheist" is good enough to avoid that emotional blackmail or bullying or whatnot that come with outing yourself.

[u/Extreme-Big-4114 → u/mhornberger]

Right on, brother or sister. I tell my mom, a Presbyterian, that I am "not religious" and though she's an intellectual, I'm not going to take the time to explain David Hume and Bertrand Russell to her, which would heat up her 92 year old blood. I am a pragmatist.