This thread has some relevance to the 'Four Horsemen' but it's basically just about what to call yourself if you don't believe in God (I personally firmly use Atheist and don't have a problem with the word. In fact, I quite like it).

I myself am perfectly comfortable with calling myself an 'Atheist' - because that's what I AM (in respect to belief/disbelief in God) by defnition...

And also...like Dawkins I think it's a good thing to call yourself an 'Atheist' precisely BECAUSE it's a taboo word. No cowering away just because some people don't like it (or don't like it 'being used as a LABEL').

Also, it's the common word and usage for a non-believer in God and it gets people's attention, etc...

Now I'm with Dawkins on that one...

Now I know Hitchens PERSONALLY describes himself as an Anti-THEIST - but he has explained I believe that there is a difference and that's just for him. I don't think he's advocating that atheist should call themselves the same or be more anti-theistic. Although I'm not sure he wouldn't dislike the idea of people being more hostile towards religion

Now...on to Sam Harris...

Sam Harris has said that he thinks not only is it silly to LABEL yourself as an atheist but he thinks the word ITSELF is silly and unnecessary (paraphrasing here, he used other words besides 'silly' here I believe so I'm paraphrasing but anyway...).

Because he has said that 'Atheist' is an unnecessary word because it's a term you don't need like 'Non-Astrologer'.

I.e: If you don't believe in astrology you don't go around labelling yourself as a 'Non-Astrologer' - so why label yourself as an 'Atheist' when an atheist is simply a non-believer in God?(both theistic and deistic included, etc)...

Now, I think the problem with his argument is that religion is 'so popular' and can't really be compared with astrology. And furthermore...no one calls their self a 'Non-Astrologer' so it's silly to compare the two in practical terms...I think the following example might help explain this...

If someone asks you if you believe in God and you say "No"; they could quite easily say something like "Oh, so you're an atheist then?" - or basically label you as an atheist - and if you don't want to label yourself as one, what are you supposed to say? No? When you ARE one by definition? Very confusing and quite silly I think...

Since if you are asked if you believe in astrology and you say "No" - I don't think it's very likely that they'd say "Oh, so you're a NON-Astrologer then?" - or label you as a 'Non-Astrologer' - and treat you differently because you're a 'Non-Astrologer'.

So I think it's kind of silly to compare the two...they are not exactly the same here...I think the analogy kind of fails...

And like Dawkins, I think the fact people don't like the word is not a reason to back out...but a reason to step in and I think a reason to grasp the word precisely BECAUSE it's a 'taboo word' (in some places more than others; more in America than here in the UK (where I live) for example).

On to Daniel Dennett...he advocates the 'Brights' movement....now the way the word is meant is NOT to be arrogant. Apparently he explains that it doesn't mean intelligence but it means bright as in 'standing out'.

And he has even suggested theists have their own word, they can be called 'Supers'.

Now I have a few problems with this idea:

1. I doubt the word will really work or catch on.

2. I prefer the word atheist because it's taboo as I have explained.

3. I don't think it can be compared with what happened with the word 'Gay' because I think that partly (at least) just happened and wasn't exactly engineered to happen deliberately (this is one of the reasons I think it won't work).

4. I think quite a few people (myself included) find it silly to try and change the word atheist...either because they themselves have no problem with it - or they actually LIKE perhaps (as I do) the word Atheist....as I have said; BECAUSE it's 'taboo'.

5. I think there are other reasons that I can't think of right off the top of my head. I'd say that one final reason I can give right now for why I dislike the word 'Bright' as a replacement for the word 'Atheist' is for some reason...I personally don't find the word very attractive...I find it quite silly for some reason and perhaps a bit childish...I dunno why:S

But that last reason just applies to me personally...although some others might share my opinion.

Thoughts?

EvF

Brights is a stupid label, and most atheists I know agree with me on that. Even if it was to be the accepted term I wouldn't use it.

Sam Harris does have a point. It is one of the few things that are backwards in terminology. I don't call myself "avegan" or "non-hat wearer". It is because atheism is not the norm that we need to differentiate.

He has a point I think in principle. There is no real logical reason for WHY 'atheist' should be treated any differently to 'Non-astrologer' since it's really the same thing basically: In principle.

But in practical terms - as I said - I think there's a difference.

Like I said, if you say you don't believe in God OTHERS will label you as an atheist some times if you don't...and if you are an atheist by definition (since that's the commonly used word for a non-believer) and you are asked if you are one but you yourself simply: 'don't like the label'...what are you supposed to say? No? Are you supposed to say you're not an Atheist even when by definition you are? All very confusing I think.

And on the other hand; if you say you don't believe in astrology then I very much doubt you'll be labelled as a 'Non-Astrologer' lol - and if you are; it's not a taboo word.

And if you indeed, don't believe in astrology - I doubt you'd have a problem being called a 'Non-astrologer' for a laugh at least lol...and the term isn't used, so in practical terms no one would label themselves as that anyway.

The word 'Atheist' has a big history...the term 'Non-Astrologer' does not. I think this difference matters in a practical sense, despite that, in principle - there isn't really any difference.

I think in principle the analogy is correct. In practical terms though I don't think the two can really be compared. The word 'Atheist' is taboo and has a much greater impact than 'non-astrologer', like I said, the word 'Atheist' has a history, the term 'Non-Astrologer' does not. In practical terms I don't think they can be compared the same...in principle, yes - I'd say they can. Atheist is to theist as non-astrologer is to astrologer. But in practical terms it's just not as simple as that, not so easy to apply.

You get called up on for not believing in God and can be called an 'Atheist', and it can be a problem for others, taboo, etc.

If you don't believe in astrology you don't really have the same problem. And you don't really get labelled as a 'Non-Astrologer' lol, and that's not taboo either

And yes, as you say. It's because atheism is the norm that we need to differentiate. Since being a vegan for example, isn't the norm (I.e: it isn't more common) and being an Avegan isn't exactly taboo (except perhaps to some very zealous vegans out there that are very strong animal lovers lol - but not really to anyone else; it's not really taboo lol) - it doesn't apply to those words/terms the same, practically speaking. And you don't have to go around labelling yourself as an Avegan if you're simply not a vegan. It isn't taboo, etc.

EvF

I'm happy calling myself atheist.

I have no problem with the word atheist in the same way that I have no problem words like amoral, agnostic, abiogenesis, acausal, acentric, asocial or athermic. Ultimately that's all the prefix "a" does ... it means non or absence of and I genuinely don't give a rats nuts whether the meaning of "atheism" relies on that of "theism".

Interestingly, at my new job, I filled in my religion from a drop down list and it had "atheist" ... granted it shouldn't be a religion (though it is, IMO, a religious stance) but hey it's a step up

Kyu

Haha

Very well put Kyu. I think that's a good point. Perhaps Sam Harris misses that there ARE plenty of words out there LIKE the word Atheist ALSO with an 'A' prefix.

And besides, the word itself I don't even want to ditch personally. I like it precisely because it's taboo - IOW I don't think we should just slink away because some people don't like the word and/or think it's silly! If they don't like it tough! (I say).

If we're atheists and others don't want us to be known as that, that's their problem.

I like grasping it like Dawkins suggests. Sam Harris says he thinks we don't need it...and it seems that he doesn't want to be up there and 'millitant'...he has said that we should go 'under the radar'.

But if an atheist doesn't label itself as an athesit, and they're asked if they believe in God...what are they supposed to do if they say "No" and get labelled? Say they're NOT an atheist when they ARE by DEFINITION?

That I find stupid.

EvF

Yeah ... and add to that I really, really don't like the use of the word "Bright" to mean what the "Brights" use it for. At the risk of sounding contentious I resent its use more than I resent the use of the word "Gay" being used to mean homosexual. Both words had their own entirely innocent meanings before but now I can't use the word "gay" to describe myself as happy, carefree (as in the "Gay Divorcee") and in my youth I could do, and "Bright" is trying to go the same way (granted no one really gives a shit but hey, it's the principle).

I mean I know the English language evolves 'n all that but GET YER OWN FUCKING WORDS why don't you?

OK ... rant over ... sigh!

Mr Angry out.

Kyu

lol

And furthermore on the matter of just ditching the word and offering no replacement...

..I also think it's kind of pretentious and a bit snobbish perhaps to be like "Oh...well I MAY be an Atheist by DEFINITION but I just don't like to CALL myself an atheist because I don't like to LABEL myself as one".

Kind of like a "I'm above that" sort of thing, meh.

Pfft.

EvF

Astrology doesn't divide people as much as theisim does, we put a lot of emphasis on that particular beleif. The question becomes does a negative label (negative in that it implies something you do not do, not that it's a bad label) make sense if that particular topic has deep importance to the population.

I mean right now a lot of people say atheist (myself included, openly and loudly) to seperate themselves from the churches as much as possible. As education grows eventually the majority of people will be atheists and the word will no longer feel relevant. If someone declared 'I'm an atheist!' everyone would say "and?"

So it's big right now but, will fade when the usefullness of it fades as well. As for the term 'bright'; why would we make up a new word just because people have decided they don't like the one we already have. This language is convuluted enough as it is we don't need to have 5 words that mean the same thing just because people don't like the first one. They can suck it up and get over themselves.

We already have a word for people who make an effort to stand out as well, we call them activists.

I wholeheartedly agree Demonaura; I think the word 'Atheist' is definitely the best option. It doesn't need to be changed and I think it does the job too.

EvF

I continue to say this but where I live the word "atheist" has no relevence among youths. Claiming a belief in a god is seen as farfetched. Doncaster is quite the opposite of America.