and old email of mine,  sorta relates ....

Is "we are god" is an absurd statement ? 

                
Someone wrote, "we are god" is an absurd statement. /////   No it's NOT , people invented god ..... I am just throwing the god word back into the face of the fundys.

I thought you atheists would all laugh. Hell geezzz, Jesus said he was god , and the Buddhist said congragulaions Jesus, you finally figured it out.

Fundys are GOD HOGS. I think the atheists need to steal the god word from them. Attack them from all angles, The way I see it is that the sheep want GOD so give them an Atheist GOD. It really boils down to education.

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins understand this, and the problem of communication of the "word" God.

Someday distant future day everyone will laugh at these present God debates.

I've enjoyed the writtings here on RRS. ..... and yeah that god word is a mind twister, .... BUT it's SILLY to let the fundys define, and the atheists to only reject, so I say to you all, WE ARE GOD ..... "Atheists for God" ....

Trust me atheist friends, we are fighting the same Good Fight from many angles.

I'm not always a good communicater, especially in forgein territory, like RRS, and my pc skills are elementry, but I am here, and wanting to help.

"WE ARE GOD" MEANS NO GODS BEFORE US ..... Dig ??? Christianity BLOW BACK, ,,,,,, a simple Jesus/Buddha message.

Do help me with this, HELP HELP HELP, ..... geezzz world, .... I'm having another beer .........***** ~

Probably I could.  I've been away from the forums a lot due to illness (and other things), so I missed a lot of stuff.  

Ellen Johnson on Sam Harris

From the President of the organization of people formerly known as "Atheists":

Sam Harris did not set out to be an Atheist spokesperson. Like Dr. Michael Newdow, the media thrust them both into that spotlight and they became defacto spokespersons.

Dr. Newdow once proclaimed, at our Godless Americans March on Washington, that Atheism should be considered a religion. Sam Harris proclaimed, at an Atheist convention, that we should not use the word "Atheist." Mr. Harris was fed up after having to repeat some explanation about Atheism three times. I think he said he had to do that in two different books and in one speech. Mr. Harris is an academic and may not be used to Atheist activism.

Blacks are still dealing with bigoted notions that they are lazy and on welfare. Jews are still dealing with claims that they are cheap or that they run the media. Italians are still having to deal with claims that they are all in the mafia, etc., etc. Yet, we don't seriously suggest that they change, or not use, their names in order to stop having to refute certain bigoted ideas. Should gays call themselves "non-heterosexuals" in order to be accepted?

Mr. Harris cannot see why we need a name for a group of people who are "against" something, or who don't believe in something. Take racism he says. There isn't any term for people who are against racism. We give ourselves a name because we are proud of who we are. A group needs to be identified in some way. And we want to be a "group." We aren't just against something. We are something.

Is the American Cancer Society just "against" something because they fight against cancer? Are they a "negative" organization? Is Greenpeace a negative organization because they are against pollution? Sounds silly doesn't it? Yet we buy into this nonsense when it is said about us.

In the end, the Theist doesn't give a damn what we call ourselves. You can call yourselves "sugar" and they will still hate you and lie about you if you are an activist or if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

While we remain hung up on arguments over defining ourselves the extremist right wing Theists in America are defining the socio-political agenda for America and they don't give a damn what you think about their names.

From my experience, Christian fundamentalists are more concerned about our "activism" than what we call ourselves. They will attack anyone, Atheist or Theist, who challenges their privileged position in society. Remember Lisa Herdahl in Mississippi? She challenged organized school prayers there and she was a Christian. She was viciously attacked by the religious community for her efforts. Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong has received sixteen death threats in the last 30 years because of his liberal religious views. Trying to distance ourselves from our Atheism is not the answer.

But behind the call to change our name is always the desire for respectability by the Atheists. Atheists want the approval of others and so they try to hide who they are and the face they present to the world is one of shame and fear. When you act like you are ashamed of who you are, people will treat you like you should be. It is not the answer.

To say we should not have a name is to not exist. For far too long there have been words in our society that were considered taboo. If you didn't say them, those things didn't exist. We cannot allow ourselves to be made invisible by those who want the approval of others. At American Atheists we don't allow our adversaries to dictate what we call ourselves nor do we allow them to determine our actions.

Our own approval is enough. Our history is one to be proud of and American Atheists will never back down on wearing our name proudly. You cannot lead the way by looking back and we aren't going back. I invite Atheists to stand proud and use the name Atheist proudly and when you want people to refer to you remember the words of Mr. "T" who said, "Let them call me Mr. "T."

If you do a dictionary.com search on the word atheist, you'll see 2 definitions... one which says that the word atheist means lacking a belief in a god, and one that says the word atheist means believing that no god exists.  The problem with the word atheist for us, as I see it, is that most people only know 1 definition for the word atheist... the belief that no god exists.  They then say that we have no proof that no god exists, and use that to dismiss our complaint that they have no proof that a god exists.

To discard the term atheist might allow us to escape the stereotype, but Brian is right that we need a term to identify non-theists.  The tricky part is that there is a considerable amount of variation in our beliefs, so many existing terms describe some of us but not all of us.  I don't know of an existing term that is understood to mean the lack of a belief in a god without also carrying some additional implications or stereotypes.  Assuming there isn't such a term, that leaves 2 options: invent one, or take an existing term and change what it's understood to mean.

Here at the RRS, the definition of atheist meaning lacking a belief in a god is promoted, and if we can get people to think of that definition when they hear the word atheist, I would consider that an ideal solution.  However, there are a few problems with this approach.

First, how can we change the opinions of those people who don't read atheist websites?  The suggestion of a public relations campaign sounds like a good way to address this issue, though I don't really know anything about how those work.

Second, there is the potential that some people who believe there is no god might want to keep the term atheist to describe themselves, and might even resent the use of the term to describe those that "merely" lack a belief in a god (rather like some very strict vegans resent those that call themselves vegans, but still eat honey, gelatin, etc.).  I would expect it to be much more difficult to convince the general public that atheism means the lack of a belief in a god if other atheists are saying that it means the belief that no god exists.

Finally, there is the aforementioned negative stigma among theists about atheists.  However, I actually consider this to be a good reason to continue using the term.  If we can remove the stigma from the word atheist, I think it would put us in a much better position than if we were to attempt to dodge it.  If we choose not to earn acceptance for the term atheist, that stigma will still exist... we might no longer be the target of it, but other atheists would be.  Moreover, even if everyone decided to stop calling themselves an atheist, the theists would not have had to reevaluate their assumption that atheists are bad people... and, in fact, such a linguistic abandonment might even reinforce their assumptions by making it seem to them as though we were ashamed of being atheists.  (Yes, I know not all theists hold that assumption... but I'm referring to the many that do.)

On the other hand, the alternative of creating a new term would have its own set of difficulties.  There would initially be no recognition for the term, and it would take time to spread.  During that time, of course, it could be misrepresented (either deliberately or as the result of natural language evolution).  Also, until the term spreads, people wouldn't know to search for it.

I honestly don't know what the best strategy is, but it seems to me that we'll have our work cut out for us either way.