From: "Lee Corbin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> No, seriously, isn't it true that after you explain what you
> mean by "non-theist" that they think to himself, "oh, he's
> an atheist"?
No, because generally I begin by attacking belief itself, not the object of
belief. Thus, I usually state that I want to debunk "religiosity" not a
particular religion or mythical supreme being. Most often they think (to
themselves or out loud) "Oh, you're just playing with words!" To which I
reply, It's dangerous to play with words, especially if you don't know that
some words need copious and serious debunking.
> I will grant that "non-theist", or even the old reliable "I am
> not religious" is perhaps more polite. For some people, it
> definitely WILL be more polite, because they take the "A" word
> as a slap in the face. Well, this is a case where plain-speaking
> trumps excess politeness, if you ask me. People should simply
> get used to the idea that a lot of people are atheists.
An alternative to "non-theist" is "no religious preference" which is even more
neutral. It tends to imply, by analogy, "this person can see clearly, no
corrective lenses needed" however presumptuous that may seem to those who do
need corrective lenses.
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:44 MDT