why?

[Aletheia]

If you're actively opposed to all religions and faiths that'd make you something like an anti-theist I guess. But that's not what Richard Dawkins is.

The main problem is that there are generally not words for "someone who doesn't do X". The fact that there is a word for "does not believe in gods" is weird enough as it is.

Agreed.

Atheist is a word brought into being because the theistic majority didn't realize that everyone's position on a belief in a deity starts at a default position of non-belief. I guess they forgot they each and everyone of them had to be "taught" about their god at some point - usually during childhood. Creating a word to highlight this fact was necessary to remind them that there is a position other than believing in their god or any other god for that matter.

I find it both amusing and almost pathetic that it took a creation of a word to bring to the front a concept that every theist has already experienced at some point in their life. I find it downright pathetic that it takes creating a group with some semblance of solidarity to demonstrate that people can and do remain or return to this default position of non-belief in a deity.

Atheism should be a non-issue with about as little thought required as a person's automatic response to breathe. Yet, time and time again, the same type of people waltz through here as though they've discovered a brand new idea. Or worse, they are incredulous and have to be walked through the logical steps of the atheistic position as though they've never encountered it before.

[Sulaco]

If you're actively opposed to all religions and faiths that'd make you something like an anti-theist I guess. But that's not what Richard Dawkins is.

Can you elaborate on this?

The main problem is that there are generally not words for "someone who doesn't do X". The fact that there is a word for "does not believe in gods" is weird enough as it is.

Yeah religion has had a monopoly, so an opposition to it formulates a new definition.

Though I did some googling, and found the term "Naturalist" on wiki sums up my position.

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws."

[frosty]

He is not a troll. He is a self-convinced believer that seems to personally believe he is right, and everyone else is wrong, and he is on some type of mission or quest to right the wrongs of the heathens on this forum. He, just like many other self-convinced religionists on the Interwebz, believes that he has all the answers, and that god for some reason agrees with everything he believes, and that he is the one with the great life and has everything figured out and everyone else is lost, dumb, and aimless.

Yet, when he receives some return fire for his claims, he jumps back into a defensive stance, using emotion and personal attacks to deflect the criticism of his oh-so-precious and infallible faith. He is, after all, the correct one, he believes, and we are just a bunch of Atheistic heathens, lost, with no purpose in life except to sin and be godless Atheists. He also believes, remarkably, that all science is false except (!!!!) for the very selective parts of it that confirm his religious beliefs. Despite him getting certain facts wrong about science right away, he stubbornly insists he can never get anything wrong, because he is him (how could we not recognize that???), he is the total package, he is never wrong, and God proves him right in everything.