July 30, 2007
“Atheist” as a label
I started thinking after reading this comment - why do atheists feel the need to call themselves atheists at all? Certainly a hard/strong atheist would be justified in doing so since they have a specific belief to describe, but since most of us do not explicitly deny the possibility of God’s existence (and rather, claim that we simply “have no belief in God”), why should we have a label like this at all?
I don’t go around calling myself an “a-redhead” or an “a-woman”, or saying that I have “a-green” eyes, I’m not “a-artistic” or “a-Swahili-speaking” (feel free to translate these words into Greek for the proper effect). Similarly, a Deaf person wouldn’t go around calling themselves “a-hearing”1. Why, then, do atheists insist on using a commonly misunderstood negative label2 to describe their lack of belief in God? Aren’t we just “not theistic”?
What other positive words or terms could we use to describe ourselves?
Posts
rivalarrival said,
July 30, 2007 at 12:42 pm
FreeThinker is one of the classics. Secular Humanist is generally compatible. Dawkins occasionally promotes the term “Brights”, a term I’m not particularly fond of using.
Frankly, I don’t have a problem identifying as Atheist. I’m not looking for equal time or to be viewed in a comparable light to Christianity or any religion. I feel that I make a larger statement by identifying as Atheist, although I freely admit that the term will eventually fall out of favor when Theistic belief systems crumble.
I find it interesting to point out the same traits in both Atheistic and Theistic groups and organizations. Clearly, belief in god is not a prerequisite for some of these traits.
I also use the term to demonstrate the misconceptions people have with the term Atheism. In Church, (which 3 in 4 of the American population claim to attend regularly) Atheist is synonymous with Nihilist at best, Satanist at worst. Realizing that this is false is one of the hardest blows an Atheist can deal to a proselytizer.
kumarei said,
July 30, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I need a label because I am in a vast minority, in a country that assumes that you’re religious. I like atheism because it describes, very accurately, what I am. Not theistic.
I like the term Freethinker, and consider myself one, but some people find this term offensive, since they think that it suggests that people with spiritual tendancies have no free thought.
I am a Secular Humanist, but that is a philosophical category, and does not identify me as one of the members of the non-belief crowd as immediately. People don’t know what it means. In addition, there are people who don’t believe in god that aren’t Secular Humanist.
I use a lot of labels for myself, but atheist is the only one that people know right now, so I’ll use that as long as I have to.
bran said,
July 31, 2007 at 5:34 pm
‘Atheist’ is only negative because of the spin it is given by the Christian right in the US. (and other parts of the world? I don’t know, I’m a bit of a country girl. Will put “travelling” on the to-do list.)
I don’t mind being called an atheist. I used to just call myself a skeptic, wince, and hope nobody would ask me to explain. Nowadays, I’m a little older than I used to be, hopefully more mature - and I no longer care if people give me looks ranging from horror to mild disgust when I tell them I am an atheist.
It is not a crime to be an atheist. (yet?) I’m not bothering anyone with my a-theism. With the political climate as it is in the US, I think it is important for non-believers to stand up and be counted; we’re made fun of by politicians for easy votes, and we’re even told that we shouldn’t be counted as citizens. Standing up and declaring myself an atheist goes hand-in-hand with fighting against the de-secularization that is happening in the US government. I’m not a big believer in epic “good guy, bad guy” type scenarios, but I am more than concerned about the workings of the ‘Moral Majority’ to impose their beliefs and way of life on the rest of the nation. So, I’m an atheist, and I say I am because it is a very clear term; it does not mince meanings. It’s about time that atheists stand up and show the rest of the country that we’re not the immoral, evil cardboard villains the Christian right makes us out to be.
Richard said,
July 31, 2007 at 5:54 pm
When I say that “atheist” is negative, I mean literally that - it is the negative of theist. I don’t mean that atheist has negative connotations (although, obviously it does in certain circles - but this isn’t what I’m talking about).
I just find it interesting that we have to define ourselves (those who call themselves atheist, anyway) as lacking something, rather than having something - shouldn’t atheism be the default position, anyway?
Arkaro said,
August 2, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Atheism can be considered the default position.. but it is just as meaningful to label a child or apathetic an “atheist” just as much as calling them “catholic”, “muslim”, or “hindu” simply due to the position of their parents. None of the commonly used terms are very meaningful in this practice of external labelling.
So.. are we simply going by labels here or discussing our own positions? My position isn’t Atheism, it’s the use of reason and the scientific method tempered by human compassion in order to work out solutions across a population despite religious differences and attempts to trump reason with faith or dogma. Ie: Secular Humanism.
Richard said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I don’t think I’m arguing against the use of the term atheist, just that I wonder what others thought about the idea that - perhaps by using the term “atheist” we’re almost admitting that atheism isn’t the default position.
I’m not saying I agree with the idea (even if I had it!), it was just a thought, and I haven’t quite figured out where I stand on the topic.
rivalarrival said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Implicit atheism is the default position. One cannot label oneself a theist when one has never heard of the concept.
Richard,
Dawkins (and others… Dawkins gets on my nerves sometimes) speaks of memes as one might speak of a virus. When a virus is completely eradicated, the vaccine serves no further purpose. Now, I’m not sure the necessity of labeling ideas as memes, but if we’re working from that model, Atheism would be a vaccine to the religion meme. That atheism is the “birth” position is pointless if the religion meme infects you before you receive the vaccine.
Of course, agnosticism and science could be considered other religion vaccines… I dunno, it’s late and I’m just spitballing.
20 gram Soul : Organised Atheism said,
March 16, 2008 at 2:10 pm
[...] the effort to bring atheists together and to “out” themselves, but on the other, I still see the label “Atheist” as useful as “non-chocolate lover” or non-spice girls [...]