to resent being labelled atheist..

[melondrama]

cos the whole thing is nowt to do with me! i'm not religious, don't have the gene. of course i respect anyone's right to their faith as long as they keep it to themselves!
but i dislike being told i must refer to myself as an atheist

Well, I agree with the linguistic definition, but I also sympathise with the OP. I would always define myself as 'not religious' if someone asked, rather than 'an atheist'.

Atheism has become so infected with a quasi-religious fervour in recent years (thinking books like The God Delusion) that it just doesn't represent how I feel (which is that the concept of god has no importance to me).

Hence, if you use morality as an analogy, 'atheism' is now perhaps closer to 'immorality', rather than 'amorality'.

Perhaps we should all define ourselves as 'a-religious' rather than 'a-theist' ?

Tinnitus, i think it is you that has missed a rather large point. Its not all about you. Its not all about what you call yourself and how you define yourself. Other people can call you things and define you.
If you say I think there is no god, I can accurately and confidently call you an atheist. It matters not a jot whether you agree with me or not.

Takver - I think saying you are 'not religous' is the way out of that dilemma. If someone then asks if you are an atheist you can say 'yes, but....' if they are not interested you avoid boring them.

Personally, I prefer to say I am an atheist and then challenge any misconceptions, but it doesn't exactly come up that often in normal life anyway ;)

Fair point, ooojimaflip. What you describe is probably exactly what I would say. Or I might even say I was an agnostic given that I have never thought enough about the subject to offer any great certainty on the matter

Takver - NOT AGNOSTIC - it doesn't mean that...

I've covered this at exhaustive and probably annoying length earlier in the thread ;)

But surely atheist means 'don't believe there is a god'?

As far as I know, there might be a god, indeed, there might be several hundred of them swanning about somewhere in the nth dimension having picnics a la the Greek myths. I just don't have any inclination to find out whether there are or not, nor do I see why I should care, since I can't see why they would care about me.

But I am quite happy to be called an atheist if anyone feels strongly that I should be

Why do people ask for proof? No-one can prove there is a God, no-one can prove there isn't. It's about what you believe. I don't object to being called atheist but I do object to atheism being described as a religion, which I've seen on a number of forms I've had to fill in.

Jonathan Miller said there is no word for people who don't believe in fairies.

YAkindofNBU. I don't want to be referred to as an Atheist with a capital 'A' as it makes it sounds like a religion. I go with 'I'm not religious'.

I'd agree with the Jonathan Miller quote and what Ooojimaflip said about total wankers (loved that btw)

didgeridoo - I think atheism is sometimes described as a 'religon' for the purposes of equality legislation etc.

Rosieeo - the only problem is that in this thread we seem to have come up with a name for people who don't believe in fairies

I can identify. DH rings church bells and when I was young foolish and in love we went on a ringers' trip round various churches (we snogged a lot on the coach). Got talking to one of the old dears who said 'oh, you're a non-ringer then'. Annoyed me for days that did. Wanted nothing to do with it, cheek of them giving me a label.

I think one of the reasons that atheists find the term bothersome, is that it defines them in reference to the very thing that they don't believe exists.

Sometimes people who do believe in that thing then expect the 'atheist' to 'prove' their position, which is of course impossible (hence the frequent references to things such as the 'invisible flying spaghetti monster'...I am confident that one doesn't exist, but can't 'prove it').

To my mind, there are people, and some of them are theists or agnostic. If theists or agnostics want to influence with the former, based on their views, then they should supply evidence...they are not entitled to ask for evidence to the contrary...the makers of extraordinary claims should supply extraordinary evidence

TwoPence I don't think that so called 'atheists' would refuse to believe in something for which they had incontrovertible proof, just because they previously did not believe.

I think that the term 'agnostic' is used incorrectly these days, it's a bit more complicated than just 'I don't know whether or not god exists', and is often unhelpful, as it kind of gives the impression of being a rational middle ground between 'atheism' and theism, but that's not what it is at all.

Quiet right Cho Cho San, I am a non clog wearing non cheese hater, and can't see how that defines me, of course I am an atheist but object to the idea that I am in an opposed position to religion, in my view that lends faith an elevation to a position of undue equanimity. Atheism isn't a belief system, it is an acceptance of reason and evidence. and is thus a bit of a misnomer, perhaps a more appropriate term would be realist.

Until that catches on I guess I'll have to keep on arguing with god botherers that I do not define myself by their understanding, their superstition is an irrelevance, they are in fact arealists.

Hi msrisotto,
a bit information here, the closest to you idea is called Deism, which is "a religious and philosophical belief" (according to www.wikipedia.org). So someone who think there is/are gods but not any organised religion is call a deist.