# term for "having no religious faith"



## Mitchell Nakano

Hi teachers,

I have no religious faith. So, the words that has come up to my mind are "atheist", "non-believer","agnostic", "secular humanist", and "freethinker".

I have already looked them up in dictionaries but the definitions I found in dictionaries are similar and do not give me any clear idea about how I should call myself.

To describe myself, I have no religious faith but this lack of religous faith is not associated with any political stance. (I know that most secular humanists are liberal.) But I am a centrist.

Freethinking is also a little related to political beliefs as far as I can notice. They don't accept orthodox beliefs and want to from their own beliefs.

Atheist is a term that sounds fine to me because it doest not indicate the political stance of the person. But it means not believing in the creator gods so every Buddhist can be called atheists as well. But I am not a Buddhist.

"Agnostic" as far as I know means someone who doubts the religious teaching. I think I am a bit more than an agnostic person because I don't have any faith at all.

So I think the best way to call myself is "non-believer", but I am not so sure.

Which word do you think is the most appropriate one to address a person who does not have any religious faith but does not want to associate himself/herself with any political stance by the use of this word?

I would really appreciate your views because dictionaries cannot help me with this any longer. You opinion would be very useful to me.

Thank you very much in advance. (I have checked the previous threads as well but they do not give an answer to this particular question.)


----------



## Machiavelli01

Nonreligious


----------



## bennymix

I think non-believer works.    I'm not sure why you think politics is involved in these labels.   Aside from 'secular humanist' which is often 'liberal' I don't see any politics as readily linked to 'atheist' 'freethinker' etc.


----------



## Language Hound

If you "have no religious faith," nonreligious would be a good way to describe yourself.
However, you should realize that a nonreligious person could still be a spiritual person and believe in God or gods.

I think you have to tell us if you believe in the existence of God or gods for us to comment on the appropriateness of
terms like "atheist" and "agnostic" to describe yourself.


----------



## Machiavelli01

bennymix said:


> I think non-believer works.    I'm not sure why you think politics is involved in these labels.   Aside from 'secular humanist' which is often 'liberal' I don't see any politics as readily linked to 'atheist' 'freethinker' etc.


I think what OP means by political stance is they don't wanted to be lumped into a particular group. Non-believer sounds a bit too extreme. Non-religious or just "not religious" is just vague enough to describe someone that is not part of organized religion or any other group.


----------



## bennymix

But I myself would be a little puzzled if someone said, "I'm not a religious person but I believe in God."

I suppose I might think they were a deist (T. Jefferson) or pantheist (Spinoza).

Usually, such a person says,  "I'm not involved in organized religion, but I believe in God."




Language Hound said:


> If you "have no religious faith," nonreligious would be a good way to describe yourself.
> However, you should realize that a nonreligious person could still be a spiritual person and believe in God or gods.
> 
> I think you have to tell us if you believe in the existence of God or gods for us to comment on the appropriateness of
> terms like "atheist" and "agnostic" to describe yourself.


----------



## Language Hound

I've heard many people claim that they weren't religious but spiritual instead, meaning that
they do not believe in one particular religion but do acknowledge the presence of a higher power.


----------



## Mitchell Nakano

Thank you very much everyone for your kind response and advice.
Well, if I have to describe myself again to avoid confusion, I reject everything spiritual and supernormal. I follow the ideas of people like Steven Hawking and believe in science only, nothing else. But I don't want use a term that indicate some political beliefs like humanism because they are liberal at the same time but I am centrist/independent when it comes to politics. I guess this explains what I am.

"Non-religious" is fine, but it is an adjective. Is there any noun that can describe the kind of person like me?


----------



## Parla

"Freethinker" sounds good, in my opinion. Or perhaps "independent thinker".


----------



## bennymix

"Freethinker" is a bit dated--I think of Thomas Paine.    Perhaps a more modern term,  "free spirit."


----------



## Language Hound

Thank you for the clarification in post #8, MN.
Personally, I think you could call yourself an atheist.
There is a good explanation of the difference between an atheist and an agnostic here:


> An *atheist *lacks faith in God, believes there is no god, or lacks awareness of gods. An *agnostic *either believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or is noncommittal on the issue. The difference may seem small, but atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews


----------



## Mitchell Nakano

Thanks again everyone. I usually describe myself as an atheist as well, but Buddhists are also a kind of atheist since they reject the idea of creator God and embrace the Karma theory. Some Buddhists I know sometimes say, "you can call me an atheist; I don't believe in any creator immortal god, but I believe in only Karma".

Do you call a Karma believer who believes in no god an atheist as well, as a native speaker ?

Thanks again everyone. I really appreciate everyone's views.


----------



## Machiavelli01

Mitchell Nakano said:


> Thanks again everyone. I usually describe myself as an atheist as well, but Buddhists are also a kind of atheist since they reject the idea of creator God and embraces the Karma theory. Some Buddhists I know sometimes say, "you can call me an atheist; I don't believe in any creator immortal god, but I believe in only Karma".
> 
> Do you call a Karma believer who believes in no god an atheist as well, as a native speaker ?
> 
> Thanks again everyone. I really appreciate everyone's views.


A believer in Buddhism may be an atheist by definition but that's not the common use of atheist. A believer in karma could be described as spiritual or if it falls into the beliefs of Buddhism, a Buddhist.


----------



## suzi br

You are an atheist.
The fact that other people, with different views to you, can also be called  atheists does not stop it being the best word for your personal position. 
I have never considered the need to label Buddhists as anything other than Buddhists, so I wouldn't really think of calling them atheists, though from what you say the label works for them.


----------



## Mitchell Nakano

OK, again, thank you very much everyone. All your views are very useful to a non-native speaker like me. Thank you very much, teachers.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I agree with Suzi and LH: _atheist_ conveys the meaning you want, Mitchell, and I think most people would understand it that way.

I don't know where you found that meaning, "not believing in the creator gods". For me it's just 'not believing in any god or gods' – from the Greek _a-_ (without) and _theos_ (god).

I wouldn't use _freethinker_ or _non-believer_, because those terms can be used in contexts other than religion. In my experience, people with particular religious beliefs may use the term _"non-believers"_ when speaking to or about others who don't share those beliefs. But I don't think I've ever heard people calling themselves non-believers. I'm sure many atheists would insist that they believe in many things, but that gods just don't figure among those things.

Ws


----------



## PaulQ

I too would suggest, atheist. It's current use tends to include those who reject all forms of "spirituality" and dogma for which there is no hard evidence: this would include "karma".


----------



## MattiasNYC

Mitchell Nakano said:


> To describe myself, I have no religious faith but this lack of religous faith is not associated with any political stance. (I know that most secular humanists are liberal.) But I am a centrist.



You should know that often political ideologies are simplified to the point of almost being meaningless, and I don't think - _at all_ - that "secular humanists" have to be "liberals".



Mitchell Nakano said:


> Atheist is a term that sounds fine to me because it doest not indicate the political stance of the person. But it means not believing in the creator gods so every Buddhist can be called atheists as well. But I am not a Buddhist.
> 
> "Agnostic" as far as I know means someone who doubts the religious teaching. I think I am a bit more than an agnostic person because I don't have any faith at all.



Agnosticism refers to knowledge, i.e. the stance that one can't or don't know whether there is a god(s). "Atheist" seems to be appropriate for you. I would go with that.


----------



## natkretep

I wonder whether Mitchell is concerned about the brand of aggressive atheism that is getting more prevalent in the UK and US, but would be very unusual in East Asia. In a context where most people are assumed to have some religious faith, the term _unbeliever_ might work.


----------



## Mitchell Nakano

Thank you all.


----------



## Englishmypassion

PaulQ said:


> I too would suggest, atheist. It's current use tends to include those who reject all forms of "spirituality" and dogma for which there is no hard evidence.



Sorry, PaulQ, but I think an atheist can also be a person who doesn't believe in God but believes in some other forms of spirituality like nature, meditation/yoga. (Regarding nature, the picture of Thomas Hardy comes to my mind). Just like Mitchell, I am also an out-and-out atheist (a sore in the eyes of all the people around me) and believe in science only.


Edit: To correct my mistake of having attributed PaulQ's comment to Parla.


----------



## PaulQ

I did say, "It's current use *tends *to include ..." 

The boundaries of what is considered to be atheism are as vague as those that define "religion." At the time that the word entered English, there was only one religion to consider, and that was Christianity. The rest were simply pagans (if they had gods) and "mystics" if they did not (and sometimes both.). You say you are an "out and out atheist" and "believe in science only." There is no science in "karma" or "spirituality" both of which are unfalsifiable and unmeasurable. These qualities and the sole acceptance of real experience to interpret the world are what distinguish those who have faith from those who do not. Those who do not have faith (of any sort) *tend *to be known as atheists.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Thank you, PaulQ, that's clear. When I said a person can be an atheist and yet believe in some other forms of spirituality like nature, etc, I was not referring to myself, but some other people.


----------



## Wordsmyth

natkretep said:


> In a context where most people are assumed to have some religious faith, the term _unbeliever_ might work.


 I suppose it might, Nat, but to me it rather smacks of infidels and crusades, or hellfire and brimstone raining down upon the unbelievers, and the like.

Ws


----------



## JulianStuart

Just for completeness, 
in some areas of society the word will carry baggage.  For some religious people, the word atheist defines more than just the neutral description above, and they think all atheists are more or less militant. A typical quote from a facebook page to illustrate the thinking: "This is because militant atheists think religion is a disease far worse than cancer".  For these people the term "atheist" has connotations of anarchic, amoral and anti-religion.  However, _they_ are loading up the term with _their_ views and do not understand the meaning of the word as described above.  Most atheists I know leave religious people to their own beliefs, although there are "militant atheists" (like militant/fundamental proselytizing religious fanatics) that seem to have given us a bad reputation, but there is little we can do to educate them as to the original meaning of the word.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I think we're doing everyone a HUGE disservice by describing "atheists" as "_militant_ atheists" "like militant/fundamental proselytizing religious fanatics".

The atheists described as "militant" seem to be just vocal about their atheism and anti-religious stance. But just as some religious people want to make it seem as if atheists by definition are guilty of the same level of irrational belief as they themselves are - thereby redefining the usage of the word belief in other contexts - they are also seemingly trying to use the word "militant" to taint the atheist stance in general.

I have a hard time explaining my thoughts better than above because I'm tired, but the gist of it is that by calling (some) atheists _militant_ the effect is soiling the atheists by comparing them to militant religious fanatics, while at the same time lessening the meaning of "militant when actually saying "militant religious fanatics". After all, with this use of language some atheists are militant just like some religious people are... hence the use of the word... so what's the difference? Of course the difference is huge, which is why the word shouldn't be used.


----------



## natkretep

Wordsmyth said:


> I suppose it might, Nat, but to me it rather smacks of infidels and crusades, or hellfire and brimstone raining down upon the unbelievers, and the like.
> Ws


Yes, you have a point there, although perhaps _unbeliever_ is still different from _infidel_ or _pagan_ or _heathen._ I was thinking of a self-description rather than an other-description.


----------



## JulianStuart

MattiasNYC said:


> I think we're doing everyone a HUGE disservice by describing "atheists" as "_militant_ atheists" "like militant/fundamental proselytizing religious fanatics".


No-one _here_ was describing them that way.  We have described the literal meaning and tried to clarify with respect to "god" vs spirituality and belief and so on. 

I only mentioned, as a caution, that _some_ "religious" people think that way so the OP would know of _that group_ and _their_ meaning of the word "atheist", and how negatively it can occasionally be.


----------



## Copyright

Douglas Adams, author of _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_, among other books, described himself as a "radical atheist." When asked about that in an interview, he said that he used the term "radical" rather loosely, just for emphasis, and went on: If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously.

Interestingly, I don't see radical and militant as meaning the same thing in the context of atheist, and admire his wording and reasoning.


----------



## MattiasNYC

JulianStuart said:


> No-one _here_ was describing them that way.  We have described the literal meaning and tried to clarify with respect to "god" vs spirituality and belief and so on.
> 
> I only mentioned, as a caution, that _some_ "religious" people think that way so the OP would know of _that group_ and _their_ meaning of the word "atheist", and how negatively it can occasionally be.



I didn't mean that _all_ atheists are described that way, but _you _were (seemed) most definitely clear about your opinion when you said:



> Most atheists I know leave religious people to their own beliefs, although *there are "militant atheists" (like militant/fundamental proselytizing religious fanatics) *that seem to have given us a bad reputation, but there is little we can do to educate them as to the original meaning of the word.



If "militant" doesn't modify "atheist" the same way it does "religious fanatic" then why use the word in the first place? All it does is fuel the misconception of atheism within the religious, and thereby distort discussion on the related topics.


----------



## Wordsmyth

natkretep said:


> Yes, you have a point there, although perhaps _unbeliever_ is still different from _infidel_ or _pagan_ or _heathen._ I was thinking of a self-description rather than an other-description.


A good distinction, Nat, though I think I was looking at it from a self-description angle anyway. Interpretation of words can be very subjective, of course, but if I were an atheist in a society where atheists are in a minority, I still don't think I'd use _unbeliever_. 

Firstly, it doesn't mention religion. The very use of the word (for that purpose) would assume that 'belief' is intrinsically linked to religion — something an atheist would be unlikely to accept. To an atheist, saying "I'm an unbeliever" might be akin to saying "I'm someone who is sceptical about everything".

Secondly, the _"un-"_ gives it a negative feel, as though _"believer"_ is some sort of natural state, and _"unbeliever"_ is a deviation from that state — again unlikely to be the view of an atheist. I know that, etymologically, _"atheist"_ could be said to be the same, but for most English speakers the Greek prefix _a-_ doesn't have the same negative impact as_ un-_. 

Just my view.

Ws


----------



## MattiasNYC

Copyright said:


> Interestingly, I don't see radical and militant as meaning the same thing in the context of atheist, and admire his wording and reasoning.



But you should remember that some will argue that just as some religion is interpreted as mandating specific "aggression" (for lack of a better term) so does atheism mandate the same, and they will follow that up with atheists having committed crimes against humanity. The difference being - and this is why I pointed out the distinction between [not having belief X] and [believing "the opposite" of belief X], the latter actually being a belief system - that religion is a belief system that _can_ mandate aggression, whereas atheism is just the lack of something which means it is _not_ able to do the same. In other words while atheists may be just as poorly behaving as religious people it can't be because of what atheism mandates, because it mandates nothing. It's just a lack of belief.

But by using the words "radical" and "militant" in conjunction with "atheism" _some_ people will feel the above argument is validated and reinforced, regardless of how nonsensical it is.


----------



## JamesM

I believe Julian Stuart made a valid point.  There are connotations that are worth understanding when asking about the meaning and use of a word.  There are people who conflate "religious" and "fanatic", just as there are people who conflate "militant" and "atheist".  Julian Stuart was very diligent to point out that these people are loading the words with their own views.  Nevertheless, it's worth knowing that when some people say "religious" they mean far more than religious and when some people say "atheist" they mean far more than atheist.


----------



## MattiasNYC

JamesM said:


> I believe Julian Stuart made a valid point.  There are connotations that are worth understanding when asking about the meaning and use of a word.



I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing him then saying that there actually are militant atheists. Are there?


----------



## Wordsmyth

@MattiasNYC : I guess it all depends on whether you see atheism as "not believing there are any gods" or "believing there are not any gods". 

I wouldn't describe myself as either radical or militant; but when JWs knock on my door and try to convert me (though usually very politely), I always return the favour by demonstrating the fallacy of their arguments (also politely, and of course in vain). In effect I'm arguing the case for atheism. Am I being just a teensy bit militant? Maybe (but politely).

Ws


----------



## MattiasNYC

Maybe I don't fully comprehend the definition of "militant" then.


----------



## JulianStuart

MattiasNYC said:


> I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing him then saying that there actually are militant atheists. Are there?


The facebook page I quoted from is here (https://www.facebook.com/FFAF.International - Freedom From Atheism Foundation).  These religious people feel strongly that atheists are militant.  Whether they feel that all of them are, it is hard to say. Sample at your own risk


----------



## MattiasNYC

I think I'll pass.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I am inspired to agree with you Mattias despite not having caught up with the thread. I read it yesterday and wanted to think about it. My comment at this point and in direct response to yours above is that I would rarely describe myself as an atheist in general conversation, although I am one. it's very rare that the topic of religion occurs in my everyday life.
Depending on the context, I say I'm a 'humanist'. I might say I'm an 'agnostic'. It depends on my mood, and who I'm talking to. I certainly turn 'militant' and 'atheist' if some fanatic tries to push their religion (or those views that derive from it which threaten my democratic rights) down my throat.
Otherwise my belief system is nobody else's business if the topic is deliberately introduced, or, I don't want to upset anybody else if it accidentally crops up. The word 'atheist' in my experience makes many people uneasy and distresses some. When I lived in NYC, I was even more careful what I said, as careful as what I said about my political views. Luckily most of the people we associated with at that time, and now in the UK, both at work and friendly socialising are people very like us or not at all interested.
The UK is notoriously 'ungodly'. Astonishingly few people in surveys say they believe in the Christian god, although many more use the Anglican church for life events like marriages, christenings and burials. Other sorts of  Christian, the 'non-established' congregations, tend to be more committed to their faith. Naturally, people who belong to the non-established, non- conformist Christian groups in the UK tend not to 'conform' socially.They are not usually members of the upper middle class, aristocratic proto-typical 'establishment'. They tend to be left-wing and 'liberal' or socialist. Since the 'establishment' incorporates a Christian church with the monarch at its head, people who are not members of this particular church tend to have different attitudes from those who are. Very often if not always in the past the non conformists were non-land owning working class people, struggling to survive in the face of landowner and industrialist exploitation.
Added content- it has to be remembered that it's relatively recent in historical terms that religious non-conformists could vote and get government jobs. They were outsiders.


----------



## Wordsmyth

MattiasNYC said:


> Maybe I don't fully comprehend the definition of "militant" then.


I was using it in the sense of "favouring confrontational methods in support of a social cause", and I did say "a teensy bit". I meant that my use of counter-arguments might be seen as slightly confrontational, and that my desire to refute their claims might be seen as a social cause (not an organised cause, but a cause nonetheless).

Apparently I'm not alone in seeing 'militant' in that way ...


Hermione Golightly said:


> I certainly turn 'militant' and atheist if some fanatic tries to push their religion (or the views that derive from it which threaten my democratic rights) down my throat.



Ws


----------



## sound shift

I just say that I'm not religious.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Wordsmyth said:


> I was using it in the sense of "favouring confrontational methods in support of a social cause", and I did say "a teensy bit". I meant that my use of counter-arguments might be seen as slightly confrontational, and that my desire to refute their claims might be seen as a social cause (not an organised cause, but a cause nonetheless).
> 
> Apparently I'm not alone in seeing 'militant' in that way ...
> 
> 
> Ws



I understand. I think I need to look at the word differently then. Though I maintain it is an unfortunately 'vague' term, especially considering the tie to the word "military".


----------

