... Such terms also help to validate the opponent, in that it implies a presumption that the "something-ist" you derive your own name from is fundamentally legitimate.  For a person to say that he believes in God and formalize it with a word like "theist" is akin to saying, since I believe in aliens, I am justified in calling myself an "alienist."  A mere belief in something is not enough to constitute any special distinction.  If someone else comes along and says he's an "a-alienist," that would only help to legitimize the "alienists."  Lastly, such terms place oneself on the same level as his opponent.  If a person says I'm a theist, in order to make it appear his belief in God represents a respectable belief system, then "atheist" appears to mean that the denial of God is a belief too, rather than a rejection of a belief based upon sound logic.  It is for this very reason "creationists" (which is a nonsense word in itself) embrace the word "evolutionist."  The word "evolutionist" relegates their opponents' views to be on the same level as their own, as a type of opinion or even a religion.  A person cannot be an "evolutionist" anymore than one can be a "photosynthesis-ist."  Evolution is just one of the topics contained within the field of biology and is a fact of nature.  I'm not an atheist, I'm a rationalist, and I'm just telling people it is an absurdity to believe in anything, including God, without real proof. 

    

"In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are rarely used in scientific circles. However, all three of these terms are commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars outside the physical and life sciences; these terms are used to refer to theories about the development of cultures and civilizations.

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is a more preferable explanation."

    

In coming to terms with some of the logical problems with the use of the term "atheist," many people who don't believe in god prefer the term "nontheist."   Non-theists see a stand against God as a logical absurdity, because the question of God is in fact meaningless, in that it is no different than taking a stand against the existence of invisible pink elephants.  Simply put, taking formal stands, pro or con, on what is just imagination or supposition in the first place -- is irrational.  When Buddha was asked if there is a God, he would simply remain completely silent -- there is just no way to rationally respond to an irrational question.  If something is not known to be true, then how can one possibly speak intelligently regarding a belief in it?  Conversely, how can one build a doctrine, dogma, or belief system out of simply not believing in what is pure conjecture in the first place? 

 

"The Positivist position, as formulated by Ayer, was that 'asking whether God exists is simply not meaningful.' The perceived dichotomy between theism and atheism was merely a case of mutually exclusive suppositions, neither of which could be empirically tested, and neither of which made any kind of meaningful assertion.  To a Logical Positivist, a statement like 'God exists' is a kind of tautology, since the very concept of a deity is inseparable from the assertion that it exists. It would therefore be something like saying 'dragons have wings.'  By the same token, the positive rejection of such a tautology ("There is no God") would itself be a meaningless tautology, akin to saying 'dragons do not have wings.'  According to the Positivists, neither assertion has meaning, since both involve the creation of a separate entity, one having wings and another not having wings. The fact that neither creature is observable renders the issue meaningless. By recognizing the dilemma of divinity as a similar fallacy, the Positivists hoped to escape the endless cycle of belief and disbelief."

 

What I am is a Rationalist, and terms like "theist," "atheist," "creationist," and "evolutionists" all represent non-sequiturs because they either try to legitimize fantasy or de-legitimize fact.  Rational thought is thought based upon one thing: sound reasoning.  The Church of Rationality is about how to be a good, ignorance fearing "Rationalist."  The Church of Rationality must deal in part with what isn't true, but it is untimely about what is true  -- what is known to be true, or what is most likely to be true based upon sound logical reasoning.  Being a "Church" the Church of Rationality does try to answer the great questions of life from a completely rational point of view. 

A belief in a supreme being and formal religions all fall into the category of irrationalism because they are believed in primarily out of faith, and not logically deduced.  Consequently, much of this site pertains to the debunking of religious mythology, most specifically  -- fundamental Christianity, since it is Christian fundamentalism that has in recent times invaded our schools, government, and general way of life with their system of misinformation, insisting that each and every detail in the Bible is factually true -- regardless of how ridiculous, contradictory, or illogical the accounts are.  Our children (as well as we ourselves) have a right not to be lied to and to not have nonsense forced down our throats.