Godfree

[msavoia]

Greetings,

Probably most people reading these forums know that Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell have proposed the word "bright" as a noun to describe atheists, and that it has been adopted by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, among others, as a new, positive, descriptive word for those not believing in the supernatural; Dawkins compares it to "gay". All fine and well, but I don't think I'm going to be using it about myself anytime soon. I'm sure it will be misunderstood and criticized by non-atheists as being the adjective form, and I'm not even sure it will be helpful.

On the other hand, I have in the past referred to myself as "godfree" (adjective, noun, adverb, whichever). It's positive (like carefree, and of course "freedom" itself is a powerful piece of rhetoric these days), is pretty clear and carries no connotations of being above or smarter than others who are not "godfree". Simply free of belief in supernatural beings. Oh - and a little bit enticing, perhaps (who doesn't want to be free?).

While I'm in no way on a level of influence of those supporting the term "bright", I'd still like to propose "godfree" as an alternative to the negative terms "atheist", "unbeliever", "infidel", etc.

Michael Savoia

[nessa20x]

Semantics bug me. I don't care for the most part whether someone feels the term atheist is negative. It describes my beliefs pretty well. I'll keep it. Also I don't mind the shock value...lol its actually pretty funny to watch their faces and you can get to argue against peoples ridiculous preconcieved notions.

BTW xians seem to be the most prejudiced people I've ever met. They create all sorts of untrue stereotypes about atheists which are easily refuted.

[CaptainOfOuterSpace]

Originally posted by msavoia
I'd still like to propose "godfree" as an alternative to the negative terms "atheist", "unbeliever", "infidel", etc. Isn't "godfree" exactly the same word as "atheist," only in a different language?

I don't think I'd feel comfortable putting any definite "label" on all atheists. After all, this is precisely why theists insist that "atheism" is just another religion -- because it has a concrete name. Otherwise they would have nothing at which to target their arguments!

In my opinion, "atheism" should remain nameless. While all religions are named (more-or-less) after their respective god, atheism is a lack of belief in any god, therefore its "name" would amount to null. This is also why we atheists do not have a symbol that identifies us (like a cross or a star of david). Nor should we. That would be kind of creepy.

[Pyrrho]

I like the expression "god free". It is reminiscent of being "drug free", "alcohol free", etc. It represents the end of a bad addiction.

(I don't have any problems with the term "atheist". Nor do I have any problems with the responsible use of drugs, like alcohol.)

Of course people tend to prefer to use "positive" descriptions of themselves rather than negative terms. Think about the abortion issue, with "pro-choice" and "pro-life". The first is an accurate description of a position people take (calling them "pro-abortion" would be inaccurate, as very few advocate that people have abortions who do not want them). The second is often inaccurate, as most people who call themselves "pro-life" are in favor of the death penalty, favor wars, are often against social programs that save lives (like healthcare for the poor), etc. A more accurate expression for those who call themselves "pro-life" would be "anti-abortion", but that does not sound as good, and therefore accuracy is lost in favor of a more positive expression.

In the case of "god free", it has the virtue of being accurate as well as positive.

[Family Man]

The problem I have with Brights is that it seems so pretentious. Do we really want to claim we're all bright (intelligent)? It annoys the humble streak in me.

[Jeremy_the _Atheist]

I like the term "god free." I think I will start using that.

I think the term, "bullshit free," works as well.

[Valdemar]

Originally posted by Jeremy_the _Atheist
I like the term "god free." I think I will start using that.

I think the term, "bullshit free," works as well.

I personally like "non-superstitious" but it's a little long.

When someone asks me which church I attend, rather than saying I'm an Atheist, and then dealing with the aftermath, I simply say I'm not superstitious. That usually elicits blank stares. It's a double-whammy. ;)

[Angrillori]

Put in another vote for godfree.

Definitely better than bright, and less formal and holding less stigma (on the surface) than atheist.

I also like the idea of saying 'godfree for X years' heh.

It seems easy to say and puts a smile on my face. Which is important to me.

[nelsondogg]

I like it. The problem with a lot of the critics of "brights" (who I do agree with) was that they couldn't come up with a better term. I tried and couldn't so settled on good 'ol freethinker. Godfree is a good alternative.

[AJ113]

There's a sticky in EoG for definitions. Would this topic be better placed in there?

[msavoia]

Originally posted by AJ113
There's a sticky in EoG for definitions. Would this topic be better placed in there?

I wasn't sure of the correct forum -- that could be better, but it seems a bit crowded by the separate discussion of weak/strong atheism at the moment.

[msavoia]

Originally posted by CaptainOfOuterSpace
Isn't "godfree" exactly the same word as "atheist," only in a different language?

I don't think I'd feel comfortable putting any definite "label" on all atheists. After all, this is precisely why theists insist that "atheism" is just another religion -- because it has a concrete name. Otherwise they would have nothing at which to target their arguments!


That godfree is a different way of expressing the same thing as atheist is pretty much the intent, for me anyway. Since everything must carry a name (even "nothing"), I don't see how it's possible to avoid being tagged with a label of some sort.

[msavoia]

Originally posted by nessa20x
Semantics bug me. I don't care for the most part whether someone feels the term atheist is negative. It describes my beliefs pretty well. I'll keep it. Also I don't mind the shock value...lol its actually pretty funny to watch their faces and you can get to argue against peoples ridiculous preconcieved notions.

BTW xians seem to be the most prejudiced people I've ever met. They create all sorts of untrue stereotypes about atheists which are easily refuted.

I don't like semantics much either, but considering our prejudices as humans, it is something we have to live with.

For example, when a former president said that atheists shouldn't be considered U.S. citizens, for most believers it probably seemed a reasonable thing to say because "atheist" has an evil ring to it (like terrorist...). The preposterousness of the statement *might* have been recognized if it had been that "the godfree shouldn't be considered U.S. citizens".

[Ojuice5001]

Sorry, doesn't make sense. Especially to a theist ear. It confuses two things--belief in a god, and the god itself.

If atheism is true, everyone is god-free. If there are some people around who aren't god-free, then gods exist. What distinguishes a theist from an atheist is that the atheist doesn't have a belief in gods.

On the other hand, if theism is true, who does the term god-free apply to? Maybe no one; maybe the gods are active in everyone's life. Or just the opposite; maybe the gods never act in the world at all, and therefore, the title god-free applies to everyone equally. Or maybe some exclusive monotheist sect, say the Jehovah's Witnesses, is right. In that case, the truth of the matter is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not god-free, but everyone else is, whether they are atheists or theists. The only way, in fact, that atheists would be god-free and no one else would is if you postulate that the gods act in the lives of all theists and no atheists.

Or maybe this means "free" in the sense of unrestrained. Well, in that case, a person who believes in a god, but doesn't follow any restrictive rules for religious reasons, is just as "god-free" as an atheist. By this interpretation, an atheist who calls himself "god-free" sounds kind of like he's claiming to be such a person. That's a misconception that atheists can't seem to stand, but I assure you, the theists who think this about atheists would innocently or deliberately make this confusion.

We have a pefectly good word, "unbeliever." That strikes right at the heart of the difference between the theist and the atheist. Atheists would be the first to say that a theist's god does not actually exist, so why confuse things by slapping the label "god-free" on some people and not others?

It's sloppy thinking to confuse the content of a belief with the belief itself. A total fallacy, and yet that confusion can interfere with the communication between atheists and theists, or even someone's actual (a)theological thinking.

[Howard]

What about "Arthur"?

[msavoia]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Sorry, doesn't make sense. Especially to a theist ear. It confuses two things--belief in a god, and the god itself.

It's sloppy thinking to confuse the content of a belief with the belief itself. A total fallacy, and yet that confusion can interfere with the communication between atheists and theists, or even someone's actual (a)theological thinking.

Ojuice, it's not meant to make perfect sense or be precisely descriptive. The term "atheist" already is. It is meant as an alternative, positive-sounding option to "bright" for atheists. As per "gay" for homosexuals, because certainly not all homosexuals are cheerful people. Unlike "gay" or "bright", however, "godfree" is rather clear as to who it is referring to, even if heard for the first time.