Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
Not in a positive way.
"Atheist" is no different. There's ZERO reason to view atheists negatively because there are ZERO attributes to assign to them. The word is silly and carries a negative connotation that it shouldn't.
Atheist in the way I'm suggesting it be used doesnt have a negative connotation. Using the label does allow people to switch definitions (or to rely on negative connotations) and this is a bad thing. It's pretty easy to address when it comes up though, imo.
Quote:
Also, those words are adjectives describing a person's actions, which is very different from describing something like a work field, hobby, or belief system...such as a-astronomer, a-hindu, a-bowler, a-truckdriver, a-homeopath, etc. etc.
We don't need a word to describe someone who doesn't believe in Santa, or astrology, or pink unicorns, or ghosts. Why is this any less silly?
Because we're talking about belief in God a lot, together with all those people who hold that belief - given that, it's useful to talk about all-the-people-who-dont-hold-a-belief-in-god. If we were going to go on and on about who believes in santa claus it would make sense to label those who dont a-santists or whatever - it just makes things easier. The reason we dont is because we very rarely have cause to refer to the group of people who dont believe in santa - so a word for that concept is unhelpful.
I would also suggest that non-bowler, non-truck driver, etcetera are all uncontentious words which exist and would be used in the appropriate circumstance. The A- prefix just means non-. Would you have an objection to non-theist? If not, why is that any more meaningful than atheist?
It seems to me it's not the lack of meaning you object to, but a desire to avoid arguments like: "Oh you're an atheist. So you see nothing wrong with murdering babies." I agree these are less likely to happen if you ban the word - seems an extreme solution to address a silly argument though.