Should we call ourselves Atheists?

[HandsandDreams]

I contemplated posting this under the HAF Logo thread, but I decided it takes the subject on a tangent and deserves its own.  I've been chewing on this for some time, and I'd like to hear some input.

For a long time, atheists have struggled with finding a symbol that represents our views.  I think the real problem is that there is a fundamental flaw in calling ourselves atheists in the first place.  The word "atheist" is itself a negative: "non-theist."  It implies that we need theists in order to give ourselves identity, and it further implies that without theists, we would not exist.  This is quite different from any other belief system, as their names are all positive: Christians worship Christ, Muslims worship Mohammed, Wiccans worship several pagan deities and magic, Republicans believe in their views, Democrats in theirs, etc.  But Atheists, they believe in... um... well, they DON'T believe in God.

This begs the question: what DO we believe in?  Is there any one unifying belief that we can circle the wagons around?  I think if we can answer this question, finding a symbol to represent us will be MUCH easier.

It also begs the question: should we call ourselves atheists at all?  I realize it's probably futile to buck against a word that's become household, but I've never been satisfied with it.  Other people have tried other words.  "Freethinker" is OK, I think it's more accurate.  What I don't like about it is that it's offensive to theists by implication.  "Oh, you believe in God?  You're a slavethinker!"  I also don't think it captures exactly what we believe in.  "Agnostic" won't fit in the same category, since they make their belief clear: man's inability to know for sure (I know that's grossly oversimplified, so please no flaming).  "Humanist" is pretty good; it's a positive, and it comes close to what many of us stand for.  Still, it's pretty vague, which is probably why there are so many offshoots (secular, Marxist, collective, etc.).  I admit to some ignorance of Humanism, and I should probably do more research.

Unfortunately, I don't come prepared with any suggestions for a symbol, or a different word, but I'd like to take a crack at answering the question: what DO we believe in?  I think we can all agree that one thing we hold dear is our unyielding commitment to scientific inquiry; in short: truth.  We seek out the truth in all its forms, and we seek supporting evidence for our beliefs.  I would suggest a question mark as a symbol for this, but a question mark is too often taken to mean "I have no idea."  Perhaps agnostics could adopt it

I would appreciate your thoughts.

[Ninteen45]

Truthist.

We roam the world ppouting truthyness.

[AlP]

I don't think free-thinker is offensive to anyone. A theist could be a free-thinker. They could, for example, believe in a deity nobody else believes in.

Humanism (with a capital H) is pretty well defined by the Humanist manifesto.

This begs the question:

definition: Begging the Question
=)

[iNow]

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Hello HandsandDreams,

You posted a lot of very good thoughts in your OP.  You're certainly on the right track with your thoughts.  However, one thing that I think you may be missing is the simple fact that atheism is not a system of beliefs.  Much like my lack of belief in the accuracy of astrology is not a "system of beliefs"... Much like my lack of belief in leprechauns is not a value system or code of conduct...  Much like my belief that homeopathy is ridiculous nonsense does not inform my approach to the world in any way, shape or form... Atheism is simply the lack of theism... The lack of belief in some celestial dictator or magic sky pixie... It is NOT a belief system or a worldview which we share with others, just a common dismissal of iron age fairy tales.


The label of atheism is rather empty... It's vacuous... and it provides no useful information.  It is just a label, and one which is used often by theists as a method to circumvent logical argument and the need to support their claims regarding the existence of a deity.  Further, it offers a very easy target to those with no ammunition... They will say, "Oh, you're an atheist.  I know your type.  You simply haven't found Jesus yet," and the conversation is over.  We should be cautious falling into this trap, as it does nothing but harm our debating position.



Much of my sentiment above is informed by reading and listening to Sam Harris, who often takes the stance that "atheist" is a ridiculous and useless word.  He makes a pretty powerful point, suggesting that the use of the term itself presents a sort of "ceiling" to the potential success of the movement. He uses examples like race.

It didn't take a group of people saying, "Hey, we're non-racists" to change the sentiment in the world. What it really took was the broad acceptance of the fact that racism is wrong. Same for Thor and Zeus. They didn't die out because a large group of people banded together to say, "We're A-Thorians" or "We're A-Zeusists..." All it took was people realizing how silly and unnecessary these mythological beliefs were, how unfounded they are in reality, and how the control they had over the minds of the populace needed to be severed.

Same with religion and belief in god today. It's not a group of people with a common label who are going to break us from this proverbial spell. It's the realization that these things are counter to rational thought and common sense.

I really do find it a powerful point. The label "atheist" just pigeon holes a huge group who find the evidence available for belief in god insufficient, so if someone comes up to you and says, "I'm a Christian, what are you?" ... you should try to avoid saying, "I'm an atheist," since even though it's easy and close to the truth, the other person will likely dismiss you as some sort of heretic or heathen and the conversation just stops right there.

What we need is for such conversations to continue, and for the valid criticisms and challenges we have of the religious/god position to be addressed, not dismissed.  Below is a quick set of references supplementing my points above:


http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... heism.html
 

"My concern with the use of the term "atheism" is both philosophical and strategic. I'm speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn't even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that "atheist" is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people "non-astrologers." All we need are words like "reason" and "evidence" and "common sense" and "bullshit" to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

<...>

    "Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldviewâ€"and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

    Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of "atheist," it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I'm not saying that meetings like this aren't important. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

    While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the "new atheists" or "militant atheists" has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm's length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them." <more at link>

Those comments were taken from a talk, the video of which is available online in its entirety at the following:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0371&hl=en



This is also a nice short (~3m) summary:

[youtube:1hq5a3ky]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSbdsvCrq2A[/youtube:1hq5a3ky]




From the earlier link:

Rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honestyâ€"and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefsâ€"not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

<...>

The concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions.

<...>

Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweekâ€"a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

Do you have a special symbol representing your lack of belief in Thor, or your lack of belief in purple unicorns?  No, you don't need one.  Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy or the easter bunny?  I seriously doubt that.  Let's try to make the lack of belief in Yahweh just as common.  

Stand up for reason, and rationality... Stand up for intellectual honesty and integrity.  The rest will work itself out.   :twocents:

[HandsandDreams]

Wow, thank you, iNow, for your thoughts and the links.  I read the whole speech, and I'd have to agree with him on all but a few minor points.  I didn't even know about this guy.  I like him.

It's kinda nice to find out that there's someone else out there who's been thinking the same thing I have, and at the same time it's kind of a disappointment because I wanted it to be my own.  Still, I've come to take the stance that arguing in endless pissing contests with religious people - or any people - is useless, and I'm glad to see the idea is catching on.

After reading that I see the fault in trying to turn atheism into a set of beliefs - you can't do it.  It's also brought up the question in my mind of whether I should seek a label at all.  There's something very basic about wanting to identify with a group, and it is not always healthy.

You've given me some great things to think about this week.  Thanks!

[Zenrage]

I like antitheist, but I have something else in mind that will be equally abrasive yet far more marketable than that stupid scarlet A

[HandsandDreams]

I like antitheist, but I have something else in mind that will be equally abrasive yet far more marketable than that stupid scarlet A

Do tell?

[Arctonyx]

I quite like the label skeptic. I've never really liked 'Atheist' for 2 reasons

1) It seems to only ever be in reference to the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God
2) It implies that you 'know' there is no God

Atheist doesn't say I am an anti-leprechaunist, and I think that most people who reject a God also reject the supernatural in general. And the label skeptic does a much better job of implying all supernatural beliefs. It's also good for implying 'I think that X is extremely unlikely, but by the nature of which you describe it, I cannot say it is impossible, however I shall live my life assuming it's not there'. Maybe not so accurately, but it does a better job of putting the general idea across then I think Atheism does.

[HandsandDreams]

Skeptic works well because it implies the application of reason to anything that smells fishy.  Of all the labels we've discussed, I think that one fits best.  I still don't think I'll use it for myself, however.  I think it also implies uncertainty, which does not do my beliefs justice.

[Whitney]

I am starting to prefer the term free thinker.  Free thinker, like skeptic, describes how I think we should approach knowing things about the world rather than describing me by what I don't believe.

[-43-]

I define myself by what I don't believe (quandry anyone?)
It exemplifies my shallow egotism.

[iNow]

Skeptic is a bit problematic since it has the poo-stinky of global warming deniers.  They have tried to dress up their dismissal of the mountains of evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming by calling themselves skeptics, when in reality they're a bunch of paste-eaters who are closing their eyes to reality.  Not to turn any of you away from the term, but it's been rather soured by that crowd, so bear that in mind.


Btw -43-... Your comment is rather silly.  Pretty much none of us define ourselves as atheist.  We simply are not theist, and don't believe in god, and certainly don't use that label to define ourselves.  It's as if you've just suggested that I define myself by my lack of belief in leprechauns or my dismissal of numerology, so really, you've missed the point rather profoundly by suggesting such a thing.  When you take a step back and look at it for just one short moment, you should hopefully realize this.

[Will]

I'm proud to be an atheist. For me, the label has become synonymous with freedom from superstition and breaking through that worldview ceiling into adulthood. I'll always consider myself an atheist.

[rlrose328]

I'm with Will... I will now and forever call myself an atheist.  Using any other word, for me personally, smacks of trying to cover up what I don't believe with a socially acceptable word.  Why do that?  You can call me CocoPuffs... won't stop people from hating me for not believing in their god.

[-43-]

I was referring to myself, not anyone else. Your label of yourself is none of my concern.

And anthropogenic global warming is still a very open topic, as studies have shown surface station data to be unrealiable, the nuances of the global climate system are still largely unknown to us, the planet has been on a cooling trend for the last 10 years, solar activity is varying, water vapor and methane contribute far more to the greenhouse effect than CO2 and so on. The evidence of Global Warming/Climate Change is negligable, I want my mountains of irrefutable evidence.