labelWhat benefits are there to not self-identifying as Atheist; and instead insisting on referring to believers as Theists?
The descriptive word ‘Atheist’ is broadly applied, I would even consider myself one, but I hate being labeled as I’m sure anyone does. However, I haven’t done or not done anything, when someone asks me if I’m an atheist, I usually reply, you’re the theist.
It seems meaningless to be labeled as an Atheist; I’m not militant, nor even advocating for it very aggressively. Why should those who don’t believe in the supernatural be labeled anything? Isn’t it more meaningful to label those who make claims, rather than those who do not?
With all due respect, I think you may be exaggerating a little bit about “labelling”. Labelling means assigning a category, often inaccurately or restrictively. I don’t think that calling me an atheist is labelling, because it is not inacurate or restrictive. It is placing me into a category, sure, but a category that is perfectly okay, which is useful and proper.
We humans use binary classification as a primary way to organise the world around us. Structural anthropology advanced this idea, and despite the criticism that it received, binary classification seems to be present all over the world and across cultures. The theist/atheist duality seems appropriate to me, and therefore I don’t see it as “labelling”.
You suggest not using the word “atheist” and instead refer to believers as “theists”. Well, we already refer to believers as theists. And this fact means that whoever is not a theist is a… You get the idea. You need a category name to point at what is not a theist. Can you imagine “yin and not yin”, or “female and not female”? Complementaries have names too. It’s only natural.
If your objection is that we’re labeling ourselves as anti-something rather than pro-somethingelse, I like “critical thinker” as our designation. The other side of that coin is “magical thinker,” which covers theism, superstition, quackery, and woo, among other things.
I used to be a “liberal” Christian. I preferred that label because it set me apart from those fundamentalists. My church read from the Tao Te Ching, had it’s own hymnal of folk songs and didn’t do group led prayer. If you are thinking, “‘who cares?’, you were still a theist”, that is my point. It is impossible to get away from labels. I eventually realized much of the labeling of me as a “magical thinker” was correct and I had to examine what I really believed. Once I applied some logic, “atheist” was a better fit.
HOWEVER, that put me in a bucket with Christopher Hitchens, who I can barely stand, so I am careful how and when I use that label. It is not an exaggeration to believe that people will assign you to a category if you use it. I think where we draw these lines will have a big impact on the outcome of the current fight over theism. And when planes start flying into buildings and abortion clinics get blown up, it is a fight.
Unfortunately people want to use labels. It makes it easier to build a team of “us” against “them”. This is true for both sides. My attempts to define just what atheism is against at this site have mostly met with closing of my quesions. The debate is too current to be able to have a word or two that defines a position. For now, many of us need a paragraph to define ourselves, and hopefully we can find people willing to listen.
Would you rather be called a freethinker? You should call yourself the term that makes you most comfortable, here are a few to choose from: brights, freethinkers, godless, heathens, heretics, humanists, infidels, irreligious, materialists, naturalists, nonbelievers, non-theists, nones, pagans, rationalists, secularists, skeptics, and unbelievers.
But the reality is that "atheist" is the most broadly recognized term for people who do not believe in deities.
There is an interesting discussion of the relationship between theism and atheism at BornAtheist.com: bornatheist.com chapter 6
The same site also has some intesting commentary about the prejudice against atheists--maybe that is why you are a bit uncomfortable with the label. (Atheists have an image problem)
I don’t care for the word “atheist” either. There are the superstitious and those that aren’t. There are the credulous and the incredulous. “Atheist” is a label that I consider to muddy those very simple distinctions.
Atheist is indeed a strange label when you think about it. We don’t have a word for those who don’t believe in Unicorns (aunicornists?), et cetera. But it surely makes sense in historical context. Or even in present one. If believing in unicorns was so widespread and influent, I’m pretty sure nonbelievers would have a label too.
As for being offensive… no I don’t find it offensive. As someone already mentioned, we are also labeled “humans” and so forth.
p.s. my hair color probably puts me in the same bracket with A. Hitler or at least someone from historical supervillains and I dont give a damn about it.
Both names are not new and have been around for centuries. The word theist comes from Ancient Greek ‘theos’ meaning, naturally, god. The -ist suffix is similar to English -ly, so theist means ‘godly person’. Then you have an ‘a-‘ prefix that corresponds to Anglo-Saxon ‘un-‘, thus atheist means ‘ungodly person’.
Originally atheist sounded just as pejorative as ‘ungodly’ does today, but over time, it has acquired a more neutral connotation.
I think there is clearly a need for a term, since the majority of people are believers. It is an important and useful term to describe a distinction from the typical. When (and if) theists become rare, the term “atheist” will not be so useful or necessary, while the term “theist” will probably come into more common use. Note that the term “sighted” is less useful than the term “blind”…since most people can see, it is rarely needed except in certain contexts, such as when contrasting with blind people.
Although “atheist” is possibly the most accurate term, I think its long use as a pejorative suggests to me that it would be wise strategy to use another term. This happens a lot with groups that have faced prejudice….the older terms go out of favor since they remind people of a time where people were more prejudiced.
My vote is for “non-believer.” I suppose it could be considered ambiguous, but then again so is “atheist” in many respects. (I don’t like to answer the question of whether I am atheist until people 1) define god for me, and 2) tell me exactly how improbable I have to think his existence is, for them to consider that I meet the definition)
The fact that Obama used the term “non-believer” in his inauguration speech means, to me, that the term is mainstream and non-pejorative. And it’s a whole lot less condescending than “bright”.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.