“antireligion apologist”

June 3, 2007

I have come to terms to what I’d be most comfortable labeling myself, and have come to this under my own judgment.

I’m not too fond of the labels atheism or agnosticism for reasons of my religious upbringing and what people commonly connote the words mean. This morning I think I came to a phrase which probably more accurately describes what I’d refer to myself. If I must label my ideas and views on things under some blanket phrase or term, I like the idea of “antireligion apologist”.

It’s not an individual I’ve seen explicitely described anywhere, but the concept of “antireligion” isn’t new; I’m just supplying a name for what I am most closely alligned in thoughts and demeanor and avoiding the pitfalls of labeling oneself atheist or agnostic. My phrase holds up under consideration of the views of peope like Sam Harris, whom suggest that the word atheist should not even exist due to the logic that people don’t call themselves “non-scientists” and that simply the opinion that religions are not needed is sufficient enough. It also doesn’t have an intrinsic spiritual meaning, or for that matter the lack thereof, but suggests an individual who has an active questioning and defensive spirit against the system of beliefs constructed by men. Under this one phrase, atheists and agnostics both fit, or some contrived combination of those two terms, as well as allows for other derivatives and alternatives. For example, someone who was “spiritual”, but denounced religions constructed by humanity and was uncomfortable with using the words atheism or agnosticism could label himself or herself as an “antireligion apologist” if they were so inclined.

The moniker also conveniently removes me from the supposed paths to or away from christendom that were established in my mind at birth through til adolescence. It also removes me from the sillisome quarrelling over agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. The addition of apologist also under further review, removes me from the suggestion that I am merely substituting “antireligion” as my religion and suggesting others to follow the ways of “antireligion”. The term fits what I’m concerned with, nothing less and nothing more. I also have not set it in stone as “exactly” what I am, it’s simply the most approximate way to describe how I think at the moment. I could easily as say that I am an “irreligious apologist”; it’s merely a convention and the easiest way to illustrate my views in a concise way. To try to destroy the phrase in hopes of refuting the way I think as flawed, over an issue of semantics, would be insulting and infantile. It’s just the phrase that is easiest to describe my thoughts on religion as a whole and removes itself (the phrase) from just religions concerned with deities.

And that’s how I like it; open for further review, adjustment, and upending if needed.


One comment

  1. wow i never knew it was possible to intellectualise so much over your position in relation to religion. i remember when i used to argue so passionately against its existance. these days its just
    “im athiest”
    “oh ok.”

    i realised that we’re moving more towards an agnostic society. Or at least people who align themselves as being religious don’t consider it a priority in their lives anymore.

    you shouldnt be caught up with labelling yourself. if you dont believe in religion and youre against it just call yourself athiest as opposed to “antireligious”. I mean at the end it may not be ‘technically’ correct but its the term accepted by the majority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: