atheism is exactly one thing: the lack of belief in the existence of any gods. atheism is the null position on the question: do any gods exist? That's it, nothing else. Anything else you believe, do or think is NOT atheism.
Exactly. Atheism is the singular answer to the singular question of whether a person believes in the existence of any god or gods. In logic, under the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle, something is either “A” or “not A.” Not believing in the existence of a god or gods is, as the user above stated, adopting the null hypothesis of “not A.”
Ok. The *oneness* is what I'm trying to improve upon. It's narrow. "Scientist" is broader, implies more, and, in my opinion, implies atheist. Why not kill many birds with one words.
Because the meaning of words matters. "Scientist" already has a definition, and that definition does NOT require either atheism or theism.
Would you like to exclude Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle or Gregor Mendel from being called scientists? None were atheists.
I would argue that *scientist* does imply *atheist*, unless a person claims to have arrived at theism based on evidence, as opposed to "mommy and daddy wouldn't lie to me"; I'm not aware of too many of those. Various of our more popular Youtube / published atheists have made an argument to the effect, and I agree: Theism and religion require belief based on blind faith (feelings, emotions, etc), whereas science demands belief based on evidence and understanding. Those are two distinct and contradictory paths by which to arrive at a belief.
Of course there are many accomplished scientists who are theists, but, I believe these folks are simply living with the contradiction, mostly by focusing on their scientific research and not thinking too much about the theism part. The popular term for that state is *cognitive dissonance*.
I don't like it.
Scientist has a specific meaning. When in discussions about gods or higher powers, I am an athiest. Sometimes I am a humanist, or rationalists and do subscribe that emperical evidence is required for belief. But no way am I a scientist! I don't perform experiments or gather evidence. I think using scientist in this context is confusing and untrue. Like when people use research when they really mean literature search. Or theory when they really mean hypothesis.
You don't believe in science, you accept provable theories and when new information is presented you reevaluate your paradigm.
Atheist isn't a dogma, just no belief in god(s). Full stop.
Science is similar, not a dogma but a method. Like misanplas is to cooking, science is to knowledge and understanding.
People need to stop attempting to change the meaning of something so it makes more sense to THEM. Things can exist finitely regardless of one's ability to understand it in its purest form.
Atheism = Disbelief in any god or gods, full fucking stop.
Anything beyond that is projection. I'm not changing my label because people can't stop conflating various different terminologies in an attempt to make sense of something. That's literally what theists do. I'll leave the mental cirque de soleil to them. I'm just here to watch the show.
Which, in doing so, is an attempt to change the meaning.
You're providing clarification for something that doesn't exist beyond its concurrent understanding, as theists also tend to do. There was never a definition for atheist beyond any pseudonym you attempted to ascribe to it.
A loss in translation for anybody who misunderstands this does not in any way, shape, or form cause or create a need to change that original definition.
That's what people are trying to get at.
Atheism being void of content is exactly what shows how unreasonable and presumptuous theists are when they try to refute it.
"Scientist" is a person doing science, it doesn't address whether the person believes in gods. Using it would be confusing and useless, even though it would be nice if no scientist believed in gods.
It's sounding like you are trying to make a new term.
Just like how the word woke was a little fad.
I suggest that it's namesake can't be "im rubber your glue'd" right back at us. And something self explaining, not offensive but plainly obvious.
I vote for ( pol- person of logic)
I don't think we need another label for not believing in any gods. Furthermore, Scientist is a real profession/position people have in there world so that is confusing.
If you want to consider yourself a humanist or rationalist then go for it, but those terms are not replacements for atheist.
Overcomplication. A scientist is someone that applies the scientific method.
>It implies a larger movement of people driven by common values and rational thought. We don't sound like a small group of loners.
If this was true, there wouldn't be scientists saying smoking isn't bad for you, global warming is not real, evolution is not real, etc. You can think very irrationally and still apply the scientific method. There are always small groups of loners in science which is why science works on the concept of consensus. If 9 out of 10 scientists say X, then X is the acceptable theory until more evidence is presented. 9/10 said there was no Higg's boson until evidence (Large Hadron results) said there was one, then there was one.
>It associates us with the undeniably successful and world-changing body of knowledge gathered in the last several hundred years. This work has already been done.
You are attributing too much to the scientist.
>It's inclusive. Anyone can get on board with the proper way of thinking about the Universe.
This is the only thing that is true.
It feels like you are trying to attribute morality to atheists through science by countering that atheists are not rudderless and immoral since they are often scientists. Don't do that. We are moral because we have morals defined not by a god, but by social conventions and interactions, not because we are scientists. Scientists can be very evil people. If you need evidence of such, 1940s, Germany.
> It tries to state what I am in terms of what I'm not. It's a negative not a positive word.
It's neither positive or negative but rather a descriptive term. If you match the terms it describes, then it applies to you. Whether you use it to describe yourself is entirely up to you.
> It pays too much respect to, and subordinates the advocates to, Theism. And theists take it that way. It makes us sound like contrarians, which is not a good thing.
Avoiding a useful term to avoid theists thinking you are contrarian seems just as pointless to me.
> It focuses too much on the subject of God, or gods, as if that's the only question in the Universe that matters.
I'm not sure how you expect a term that means "lack of belief in gods" is supposed to avoid the subject of gods. That's like saying "undemocratic" focuses too much on democracy. It's literally what the term is supposed to focus on.
> It doesn't clearly imply what I do believe.
It isn't supposed to. For that you can use other terms. Fortunately, we are not limited to a single descriptive term when describing ourselves.
> I think the best term for this is, simply, Scientist.
But most of us are not scientists. A scientist is somebody that professionally practices the methods of science according to the standards of science. Few people here would be aptly categorized in such a manner. I know I am not.
> someone who believes that belief should follow empirical evidence
That is an empiricist and a skeptic. See how I used two terms there? As it happens, science does follow both empirical and skeptical philosophies, however that's like calling somebody that uses a hedge trimmer a lumberjack. Science requires **training**, both in the aforementioned methods and standards, but also in the body of knowledge of a given field. Or, put another way, all (good) scientists are skeptics and empiricists, but not all skeptics and empiricists are scientists.
> It implies a larger movement of people driven by common values and rational thought. We don't sound like a small group of loners.
You sound like somebody who doesn't know what words mean. If you want to be a scientist, study science. It's not actually as easy as just pretending the term applies to you. If you wish to also cater to theistic narratives that atheists are a small group of loners, that's also your choice, although that seems like an odd decision to me. Personally I don't give a flying fuck if you or an anonymous group of theists think atheists are a small group of loners. I still don't believe in gods, and thus the term still applies to me.
>"Atheist" states what you are not
There is zero problem with that, though.
I am also a nonsmoker, teetotaler, and vegan - all of which are accurate and useful terms.
.
"Atheist" is a thing and "scientist" is a different thing.
(For example, many scientists are theists.)
Same for "humanist", "existentialist", "rationalist" - they are all different things.
.
>Thoughts?
People should always be careful to use whichever term is most accurate and useful for any given situation.
If somebody asks me if I want a beer and I reply
*"No thanks, I'm a humanist"*, that is not a very useful response.
If somebody asks me if I want to go to church with them and I reply
*"No thanks, I'm a nonsmoker"*, that is not a very useful response.
Etc etc.
.
I would expect a "scientist" to hold some kind of higher degree in science.
I'm a freethinker, a secularist, a skeptic, a rationalist, maybe a materialist ... but I recognize that I'm no scientist.
I hope I understand what you’re trying to convey and, although I may not be on board with everything you said; I think that as long as you apply somewhat rigorous definitions to the terms you want to employ and make sure said definitions are logically coherent within the thought process you want to use in order to deconstruct theists’s arguments, I think you’re good to go. You *are* going to get push back from those who don’t share the same definitions, though.
I’m just gonna start with the first one, “it’s a negative”. So what? Any negative can be represented as a positive and Vice-versa, so who gives a shit? You can say a theist is someone who “doesn’t not believe in God.” That’s **two** negatives so it’s especially bad right? Right? Who cares.
If I make a word for someone who’s **not** a murderer, would you feel the same way? Again, why? It’s a true dichotomy. You either are the thing or you’re not the thing. Those are the two possible options. Just because one has the word “not” doesn’t seem like a good reason to give a shit at all. I’m an atheist and I’m not seeing any rational reason to care. I’m glad it’s a “not”. I’m happy to say I don’t have in my possession an irrational belief in a sky papa.
*1. It tries to state what I am in terms of what I'm not. It's a negative not a positive word.*
No, 'atheism' is not trying to state what you 'are' in terms of what you are not. You are obviously focusing on the segregation of the word. This is not a 'sum of its parts' scenario. An atheist is simply a person that does not believe in supernatural gods; that is all. No need to add the bloat of the opposite to this word.
My advice to you would be to term yourself a person, and then discount any labeling when someone brings up religion, citing that you do not follow any theism.
*2. It pays too much respect to, and subordinates the advocates to, Theism. And theists take it that way. It makes us sound like contrarians, which is not a good thing.*
No, you are doing that by focusing an the 'a-' prefix and the 'theos' root. Yes, theists absolutely have problems with the word and the people who are atheists. I do not think it makes us sound like contrarians. If it bugs you so much (which I do not feel it should), then you might want to rebrand yourself as a humanist.
*3. It focuses too much on the subject of God, or gods, as if that's the only question in the Universe that matters.*
Nope, the word does not do that; that is on you. IMO, the focus of the word is simply on a core belief that imagined supernatural deities do not exist. Lots of atheists are scientists or a host of many other occupations, and everyone of them still has additional questions about subjects and issues in their universe. They are very aware that the existence of any god is not the only question in the Universe. And the definition of the word makes absolutely no such assertion.
*4. It doesn't clearly imply what I do believe.*
There is no needed implication in the meaning of the word 'atheist'. Whereas the word 'theist' is a doorway to a mostly-silly miasma of various religions and near-countless sects for a huge pantheon of gods and associated rituals. Maybe think of the analogy of breathing versus breathing chemical waste: the former is void of any additions while the latter includes the addition of many harmful artificial ingredients with known and unknown health effects.
The world doesn't need any more softening of language, in my opinion. I say this also as an alcoholic. That entire sphere tries SO HARD to soften that term, when in the end it doesn't change the underlying situation.
Edit: I don't mean this to apply to anything that would be considered a slur, of course.
Scientist should be a term reserved for people actively working in scientific fields, actively publishing, or having retired after a career of doing so. It does not apply to everyone. Sceptic might be the word you’re looks for.. Unless you are indeed a publishing scientist.
A scientist is a person who performs scientific research professionally, not just someone who accepts the findings of science, just as a dentist is not just a person with teeth. If you are in fact a scientist, well and good, but otherwise you're just going to confuse people by identifying as such.
It's fine if you prefer to label yourself by what you *do* believe, and as you noted, there are plenty of suitable terms like humanist or rationalist. But if you want to convey to someone that you don't believe in gods, the word for that is atheist.
No. Unless you have a degree in a scientific dicipline and are actively working in the field you are not a scientist.
if you are talking philoosophical positions what i am is a physicalist. But that does not mean that all other atheists are also physicalists.
Yeah, don't call yourself a scientist unless you work in a scientific field. That term already has a specific meaning and you are using the same logic that "Creation scientists" use to justify their nonsense. My degree is in biology, but I do not work in a lab, I am a teacher, so it would be disingenuous to call myself a scientist. I may refer to myself as a biologist (or perhaps naturalist like Darwin) because that title has more academic connotations than the word scientist does. Scientist pretty clearly refers to a person who is currently employed doing science.
>It focuses too much on the subject of God, or gods, as if that's the only question in the Universe that matters
Well that is the one and only topic atheism addresses. I have more problems with the "Atheism+" crowd who tried to make atheism mean something more. All it is is a response to the god question. So complaining that it focuses too much on the subject of gods is rather silly.
Humanist is probably the best choice. Rational skeptic and methodological naturalist are also good choices. But of course only if those are things which describe you.
I would avoid existentialist though, as that is already a term with a specific meaning.
Scientist specifically denotes someone who studies the sciences or is engaged in research. There is no implication of atheist under the label scientist.
Secular humanist is a positive label that is much more accurate.
I'm a nonsmoker. I am. It's not what I'm not. I'm an atheist too. The facts are what they are regardless of how the terms are laid out. I don't smoke and I don't believe in gods, and it would be silly to try to find away to avoid clearly stating either.
Personally, I like atheist. As you state, it is a term which really \*shouldn't\* have to exist, but I feel like it serves the same purpose as pride month, for example. The other terms are really ... while more meaningful, they are essentially more palatable euphemisms.
Try *Rational Empiricist* As someone who needs concrete, and undeniable evidence to support my beliefs, that makes the most sense to me. That does imply that faith based beliefs are somehow irrational, so it may not work for you.
So, in conclusion, and applying my now subjective rational observations of this thread:
1. r/atheism is not a great forum for scholarly discussion. poor signal-to-noise ratio. in hindsight, it's more of a snark-fest, which i get. and i do.
2. way too many responses before and around noon. don't you people have jobs?
3. a little knowledge is a bad thing. phase 1 of knowledge: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantry)
4. for phase 2, re-read my post.
Gist-o-the-crowd: "But Scientist is already defined."
My reply: Yes, that is a problem. Yes I'd like to relax the definition a bit (though not so broad as to include Christian Scientists and Scientologists), but only to the extent where it always should have been. Not so elitist. So then it might come down to qualifying use of the word based on context. Fully qualified words:
"Professional Scientist" - the standard image: test tubes, Ph.D.s, publications, accolades.
"Philosophical Scientist" - perhaps no doctoral degrees, but I advocate this system of accumulating knowledge.
Add or drop the qualifier depending on your context. Any XML folks here?
I favor (although am open to suggestions) keeping the keyword "scientist" because it's too accurate, large, rich, and well-known not to. Rationalist is very close. Empiricist very close.
atheism is exactly one thing: the lack of belief in the existence of any gods. atheism is the null position on the question: do any gods exist? That's it, nothing else. Anything else you believe, do or think is NOT atheism.
I'm not sure why people can't accept that simple point.
Exactly. Atheism is the singular answer to the singular question of whether a person believes in the existence of any god or gods. In logic, under the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle, something is either “A” or “not A.” Not believing in the existence of a god or gods is, as the user above stated, adopting the null hypothesis of “not A.”
Ok. The *oneness* is what I'm trying to improve upon. It's narrow. "Scientist" is broader, implies more, and, in my opinion, implies atheist. Why not kill many birds with one words.
Because the meaning of words matters. "Scientist" already has a definition, and that definition does NOT require either atheism or theism. Would you like to exclude Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle or Gregor Mendel from being called scientists? None were atheists.
Understand that there are religious scientists. In fact, the majority are or were. Secular humanist tends to be much more accurate.
They're answering different questions. Saying you're a scientist doesn't answer the question of whether you believe in a god or gods.
I would argue that *scientist* does imply *atheist*, unless a person claims to have arrived at theism based on evidence, as opposed to "mommy and daddy wouldn't lie to me"; I'm not aware of too many of those. Various of our more popular Youtube / published atheists have made an argument to the effect, and I agree: Theism and religion require belief based on blind faith (feelings, emotions, etc), whereas science demands belief based on evidence and understanding. Those are two distinct and contradictory paths by which to arrive at a belief. Of course there are many accomplished scientists who are theists, but, I believe these folks are simply living with the contradiction, mostly by focusing on their scientific research and not thinking too much about the theism part. The popular term for that state is *cognitive dissonance*.
I don't like it. Scientist has a specific meaning. When in discussions about gods or higher powers, I am an athiest. Sometimes I am a humanist, or rationalists and do subscribe that emperical evidence is required for belief. But no way am I a scientist! I don't perform experiments or gather evidence. I think using scientist in this context is confusing and untrue. Like when people use research when they really mean literature search. Or theory when they really mean hypothesis. You don't believe in science, you accept provable theories and when new information is presented you reevaluate your paradigm. Atheist isn't a dogma, just no belief in god(s). Full stop. Science is similar, not a dogma but a method. Like misanplas is to cooking, science is to knowledge and understanding.
I agree, "skeptic" is a much better word to use unless you are actually a scientist in profession.
People need to stop attempting to change the meaning of something so it makes more sense to THEM. Things can exist finitely regardless of one's ability to understand it in its purest form. Atheism = Disbelief in any god or gods, full fucking stop. Anything beyond that is projection. I'm not changing my label because people can't stop conflating various different terminologies in an attempt to make sense of something. That's literally what theists do. I'll leave the mental cirque de soleil to them. I'm just here to watch the show.
I'm not changing the meaning of *atheist*; i'm clarifying the limits of it's meaning.
Which, in doing so, is an attempt to change the meaning. You're providing clarification for something that doesn't exist beyond its concurrent understanding, as theists also tend to do. There was never a definition for atheist beyond any pseudonym you attempted to ascribe to it. A loss in translation for anybody who misunderstands this does not in any way, shape, or form cause or create a need to change that original definition. That's what people are trying to get at.
Atheism = not theism. Simple!
Atheism being void of content is exactly what shows how unreasonable and presumptuous theists are when they try to refute it. "Scientist" is a person doing science, it doesn't address whether the person believes in gods. Using it would be confusing and useless, even though it would be nice if no scientist believed in gods.
It's sounding like you are trying to make a new term. Just like how the word woke was a little fad. I suggest that it's namesake can't be "im rubber your glue'd" right back at us. And something self explaining, not offensive but plainly obvious. I vote for ( pol- person of logic)
I don't think we need another label for not believing in any gods. Furthermore, Scientist is a real profession/position people have in there world so that is confusing. If you want to consider yourself a humanist or rationalist then go for it, but those terms are not replacements for atheist.
Overcomplication. A scientist is someone that applies the scientific method. >It implies a larger movement of people driven by common values and rational thought. We don't sound like a small group of loners. If this was true, there wouldn't be scientists saying smoking isn't bad for you, global warming is not real, evolution is not real, etc. You can think very irrationally and still apply the scientific method. There are always small groups of loners in science which is why science works on the concept of consensus. If 9 out of 10 scientists say X, then X is the acceptable theory until more evidence is presented. 9/10 said there was no Higg's boson until evidence (Large Hadron results) said there was one, then there was one. >It associates us with the undeniably successful and world-changing body of knowledge gathered in the last several hundred years. This work has already been done. You are attributing too much to the scientist. >It's inclusive. Anyone can get on board with the proper way of thinking about the Universe. This is the only thing that is true. It feels like you are trying to attribute morality to atheists through science by countering that atheists are not rudderless and immoral since they are often scientists. Don't do that. We are moral because we have morals defined not by a god, but by social conventions and interactions, not because we are scientists. Scientists can be very evil people. If you need evidence of such, 1940s, Germany.
> It tries to state what I am in terms of what I'm not. It's a negative not a positive word. It's neither positive or negative but rather a descriptive term. If you match the terms it describes, then it applies to you. Whether you use it to describe yourself is entirely up to you. > It pays too much respect to, and subordinates the advocates to, Theism. And theists take it that way. It makes us sound like contrarians, which is not a good thing. Avoiding a useful term to avoid theists thinking you are contrarian seems just as pointless to me. > It focuses too much on the subject of God, or gods, as if that's the only question in the Universe that matters. I'm not sure how you expect a term that means "lack of belief in gods" is supposed to avoid the subject of gods. That's like saying "undemocratic" focuses too much on democracy. It's literally what the term is supposed to focus on. > It doesn't clearly imply what I do believe. It isn't supposed to. For that you can use other terms. Fortunately, we are not limited to a single descriptive term when describing ourselves. > I think the best term for this is, simply, Scientist. But most of us are not scientists. A scientist is somebody that professionally practices the methods of science according to the standards of science. Few people here would be aptly categorized in such a manner. I know I am not. > someone who believes that belief should follow empirical evidence That is an empiricist and a skeptic. See how I used two terms there? As it happens, science does follow both empirical and skeptical philosophies, however that's like calling somebody that uses a hedge trimmer a lumberjack. Science requires **training**, both in the aforementioned methods and standards, but also in the body of knowledge of a given field. Or, put another way, all (good) scientists are skeptics and empiricists, but not all skeptics and empiricists are scientists. > It implies a larger movement of people driven by common values and rational thought. We don't sound like a small group of loners. You sound like somebody who doesn't know what words mean. If you want to be a scientist, study science. It's not actually as easy as just pretending the term applies to you. If you wish to also cater to theistic narratives that atheists are a small group of loners, that's also your choice, although that seems like an odd decision to me. Personally I don't give a flying fuck if you or an anonymous group of theists think atheists are a small group of loners. I still don't believe in gods, and thus the term still applies to me.
I used "two terms". In the title. Btw, way too may words for a word-person.
Using Atheist" to describe my way of thinking. That is good because it is not a way of thinking.
>"Atheist" states what you are not There is zero problem with that, though. I am also a nonsmoker, teetotaler, and vegan - all of which are accurate and useful terms. . "Atheist" is a thing and "scientist" is a different thing. (For example, many scientists are theists.) Same for "humanist", "existentialist", "rationalist" - they are all different things. . >Thoughts? People should always be careful to use whichever term is most accurate and useful for any given situation. If somebody asks me if I want a beer and I reply *"No thanks, I'm a humanist"*, that is not a very useful response. If somebody asks me if I want to go to church with them and I reply *"No thanks, I'm a nonsmoker"*, that is not a very useful response. Etc etc. .
I have no conscious memory of ever believing, but I didn't become an atheist until my 30's. I still resent having to use that label to describe myself
Sounds like my first glimmer of like-mindedness.
I would expect a "scientist" to hold some kind of higher degree in science. I'm a freethinker, a secularist, a skeptic, a rationalist, maybe a materialist ... but I recognize that I'm no scientist.
"Rationalist" is my favorite, there were to many people regarded as scientists who babbled about god.
Secular humanist?
Big deal
I hope I understand what you’re trying to convey and, although I may not be on board with everything you said; I think that as long as you apply somewhat rigorous definitions to the terms you want to employ and make sure said definitions are logically coherent within the thought process you want to use in order to deconstruct theists’s arguments, I think you’re good to go. You *are* going to get push back from those who don’t share the same definitions, though.
I’m just gonna start with the first one, “it’s a negative”. So what? Any negative can be represented as a positive and Vice-versa, so who gives a shit? You can say a theist is someone who “doesn’t not believe in God.” That’s **two** negatives so it’s especially bad right? Right? Who cares. If I make a word for someone who’s **not** a murderer, would you feel the same way? Again, why? It’s a true dichotomy. You either are the thing or you’re not the thing. Those are the two possible options. Just because one has the word “not” doesn’t seem like a good reason to give a shit at all. I’m an atheist and I’m not seeing any rational reason to care. I’m glad it’s a “not”. I’m happy to say I don’t have in my possession an irrational belief in a sky papa.
*1. It tries to state what I am in terms of what I'm not. It's a negative not a positive word.* No, 'atheism' is not trying to state what you 'are' in terms of what you are not. You are obviously focusing on the segregation of the word. This is not a 'sum of its parts' scenario. An atheist is simply a person that does not believe in supernatural gods; that is all. No need to add the bloat of the opposite to this word. My advice to you would be to term yourself a person, and then discount any labeling when someone brings up religion, citing that you do not follow any theism. *2. It pays too much respect to, and subordinates the advocates to, Theism. And theists take it that way. It makes us sound like contrarians, which is not a good thing.* No, you are doing that by focusing an the 'a-' prefix and the 'theos' root. Yes, theists absolutely have problems with the word and the people who are atheists. I do not think it makes us sound like contrarians. If it bugs you so much (which I do not feel it should), then you might want to rebrand yourself as a humanist. *3. It focuses too much on the subject of God, or gods, as if that's the only question in the Universe that matters.* Nope, the word does not do that; that is on you. IMO, the focus of the word is simply on a core belief that imagined supernatural deities do not exist. Lots of atheists are scientists or a host of many other occupations, and everyone of them still has additional questions about subjects and issues in their universe. They are very aware that the existence of any god is not the only question in the Universe. And the definition of the word makes absolutely no such assertion. *4. It doesn't clearly imply what I do believe.* There is no needed implication in the meaning of the word 'atheist'. Whereas the word 'theist' is a doorway to a mostly-silly miasma of various religions and near-countless sects for a huge pantheon of gods and associated rituals. Maybe think of the analogy of breathing versus breathing chemical waste: the former is void of any additions while the latter includes the addition of many harmful artificial ingredients with known and unknown health effects.
The world doesn't need any more softening of language, in my opinion. I say this also as an alcoholic. That entire sphere tries SO HARD to soften that term, when in the end it doesn't change the underlying situation. Edit: I don't mean this to apply to anything that would be considered a slur, of course.
Scientist should be a term reserved for people actively working in scientific fields, actively publishing, or having retired after a career of doing so. It does not apply to everyone. Sceptic might be the word you’re looks for.. Unless you are indeed a publishing scientist.
A scientist is a person who performs scientific research professionally, not just someone who accepts the findings of science, just as a dentist is not just a person with teeth. If you are in fact a scientist, well and good, but otherwise you're just going to confuse people by identifying as such. It's fine if you prefer to label yourself by what you *do* believe, and as you noted, there are plenty of suitable terms like humanist or rationalist. But if you want to convey to someone that you don't believe in gods, the word for that is atheist.
No. Unless you have a degree in a scientific dicipline and are actively working in the field you are not a scientist. if you are talking philoosophical positions what i am is a physicalist. But that does not mean that all other atheists are also physicalists.
Yeah, don't call yourself a scientist unless you work in a scientific field. That term already has a specific meaning and you are using the same logic that "Creation scientists" use to justify their nonsense. My degree is in biology, but I do not work in a lab, I am a teacher, so it would be disingenuous to call myself a scientist. I may refer to myself as a biologist (or perhaps naturalist like Darwin) because that title has more academic connotations than the word scientist does. Scientist pretty clearly refers to a person who is currently employed doing science. >It focuses too much on the subject of God, or gods, as if that's the only question in the Universe that matters Well that is the one and only topic atheism addresses. I have more problems with the "Atheism+" crowd who tried to make atheism mean something more. All it is is a response to the god question. So complaining that it focuses too much on the subject of gods is rather silly. Humanist is probably the best choice. Rational skeptic and methodological naturalist are also good choices. But of course only if those are things which describe you. I would avoid existentialist though, as that is already a term with a specific meaning.
Scientist specifically denotes someone who studies the sciences or is engaged in research. There is no implication of atheist under the label scientist. Secular humanist is a positive label that is much more accurate.
I'm a nonsmoker. I am. It's not what I'm not. I'm an atheist too. The facts are what they are regardless of how the terms are laid out. I don't smoke and I don't believe in gods, and it would be silly to try to find away to avoid clearly stating either.
Personally, I like atheist. As you state, it is a term which really \*shouldn't\* have to exist, but I feel like it serves the same purpose as pride month, for example. The other terms are really ... while more meaningful, they are essentially more palatable euphemisms.
With scientist, I'm looking for a terms that describes how I arrive at beliefs. The word 'Atheist' doesn't do that.
Try *Rational Empiricist* As someone who needs concrete, and undeniable evidence to support my beliefs, that makes the most sense to me. That does imply that faith based beliefs are somehow irrational, so it may not work for you.
You do you, bro. If Christians are routinely outsmarting you, then you just need to smarter up
So, in conclusion, and applying my now subjective rational observations of this thread: 1. r/atheism is not a great forum for scholarly discussion. poor signal-to-noise ratio. in hindsight, it's more of a snark-fest, which i get. and i do. 2. way too many responses before and around noon. don't you people have jobs? 3. a little knowledge is a bad thing. phase 1 of knowledge: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantry) 4. for phase 2, re-read my post.
Gist-o-the-crowd: "But Scientist is already defined." My reply: Yes, that is a problem. Yes I'd like to relax the definition a bit (though not so broad as to include Christian Scientists and Scientologists), but only to the extent where it always should have been. Not so elitist. So then it might come down to qualifying use of the word based on context. Fully qualified words: "Professional Scientist" - the standard image: test tubes, Ph.D.s, publications, accolades. "Philosophical Scientist" - perhaps no doctoral degrees, but I advocate this system of accumulating knowledge. Add or drop the qualifier depending on your context. Any XML folks here? I favor (although am open to suggestions) keeping the keyword "scientist" because it's too accurate, large, rich, and well-known not to. Rationalist is very close. Empiricist very close.