So in my ongoing youtube binge, I've heard Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens argue against having a collective label such as atheism for a variety of reasons, and certainly at the time, I believe they made a strong case for it. But the one reason that seems to stick out most in my mind is the analogous arguments that there is no name for a rejection of the belief in Santa, elves, fairies, unicorns, etc. For example, the term "asantist" is not one accepted by probably more than 10 people (although it was either asantist or asantism - or possibly both - that was taken as a youtube account when I recently tried to register them.)

But I think those examples are only somewhat analogous to the atheist position. And that's why I think the atheist label is still a practical one. Every serious thinker agrees there are no elves, fairies, etc. So there remains no need to distinguish yourself among a crowd of crazy people. Among religion, that's clearly not the same. Among whom I'd consider rational people, I think the label "atheist" can be worn as a badge of honor. It's useful in identifying yourself as not being irrational, amidst a sea of irrational beliefs. And I think that's a distinction that justifies the use and acceptance of the word. But in a world where everyone is an a-unicornist, who cares to coin the term and apply the non-distinction? It has no practical value.

What do you guys think? What are the other reasons for rejecting its use?

I don't mind the label.... It's a good way to distinguish me from the believers.... Of course, non-believer would be just as good a label, but would require more letters.
The problem with "atheist" is that it has a double meaning.
1. Person who believes there is no god.
2. Person who does not believe there is a god.

And most atheists fall on the second category.

I view atheism as a non-belief in the supernatural, with gods and deities referenced in the word because they are the most extreme examples.

An atheist who believes in ghosts or astrology or the Loch Ness Monster may still technically be an atheist, but they're just replacing fictional concepts with other fictional concepts. They may not believe in gods but they are just as irrational as any theist.

Hmm, interesting linguistic issue. Doesn't one directly imply the other, if not being an explicit agreement exactly?

I don't like any pizza.
I like no pizza.

They are differently phrased, but aren't they nevertheless identical expressions?

Ahh, good point, Ryan. So I guess I assume that an atheist rejects all irrational beliefs, but that may not be the case. So I guess, what is its specific definition? Rejection of a belief in the supernatural? So that doesn't preclude Lochness, etc?

I don't like the label. In its literal sense it only means non belief in the biblical 'God'. Why should there be a name for that? There should be a name for those who DO believe in it-'idiots'. By the same token many people who are technically 'atheist' believe in all kinds of other nonsense-astrology, crop circles, alien abductions.......They have nothing in common with me.

Asking to reject all irrational beliefs may be a bit extreme, irrationality is part of the human experience, and being irrational is not exactly the same as believing in the impossible. Believing you can win the lottery is definitely irrational, but it's also far from impossible.

I guess it boils down to how serious those irrational beliefs are, and how strongly they influence your life. The same irrational belief which leads one to plunk down five bucks on the lottery when the jackpot is really high is fundamentally the same irrational belief that leads one to spend a hundred on it.

But, believing in things that are not possible at all, that's a different story. I don't know if Nessie technically counts as supernatural, but except for the specific properties being different, Nessie might as well be a ghost, no?

Quote:In its literal sense it only means non belief in the biblical 'God'.

It means non-belief in gods of any kind.

Well, they can't have "nothing" in common if you both don't believe in the existence of a god. You must necessarily share at least that much in common, if you both qualify as atheists. Also, I think it has to be more than just biblical, because that suggests Christianity only. I'd also wish to reject the concept of god for all other religions. If atheism is simply anti-Christianity, the term is not broad enough for my likes.

And I think your sentiment helps support the use for "atheism". You wish to define those who do believe as idiots. Thus the atheism label distinguishes you from that crowd.

I accept it and display it proudly and fuck anyone who bitches, especially the dickshits that call atheists "obnoxious" or "loud."

Disclaimer: If you do not call atheists obnoxious, you are exempt from any of the following, regardless your stance.

Disclaimer: If you DO call atheists obnoxious and you are insulted by any of the following, please feel free suck my dick.

Agnostics who call me that are people who ought to be glad that they live in an era where their passive doubt can be afforded because not long ago such doubt would have earned them the apostate's treatment. If you think such crimes against the freedom of thought and the pursuit of curiosity and inquiry ought to be forgotten and unpunished, even in such a way as to remind people of their occurrence history, by such spineless cowards then fuck you.

Christians who call me that are people who seem to casually forget that everywhere we as a collective society must go we must be faced with symbols of thier belief upon buildings, on billboards, on our fucking televisions, in our fucking faces early in the morning from people coming to "spread the good word," on the radio every time I flip past the damn country channel on my way to the rock station because every 2 seconds it's all about "god bless this" and "god bless that" so I have to hear it AGAIN, and since my job's radio is set firmly on the country station I get to listen to "I know god loves me" and "god bless America" and "god is power" and "god is great" and god god god god FUCK YOUR GOD YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT OBNOXIOUS? BITCH. PLEASE.

Muslims...never call me that, actually. I haven't actually personally dealt with any muslims who complain about me being an atheist or ostracizing me for being an atheist. Well, except for on here, but Al-Fat is the only one in recent memory I've had to deal with in that capacity.

Jews...yeah, the same, basically. Jews essentially seem to not give a damn, as far as personal experience goes.

And the irreligious, the people who are like "I believe but I'm not religious!" who say it? Fuck you, your stupid pithy ambiguity doesn't excuse you for being a part of the fucking problem, especially considering that I get more whining from "non-religious theists" about atheists being "obnoxious" than I do even from the fundies. Considering that all non-religious theists are the cherry-picking little shits that are the ones hopelessly deluded about how very violent and cruel god would have been if he existed and they're the ones the least educated about their articles of faith, they can deep-tongue the darkest part of my white ass.

When i was an atheist i use to reject the title when discussing with religious people as i was seemed to be lumped into a category of people. That the theist had automatic assumptions. It was demonstrated well by my atheist friend who is against abortion. But the theist Christian assumed she was for abortion due to the fact she said she was an 'Atheist'.

(January 19, 2013 at 8:54 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Asking to reject all irrational beliefs may be a bit extreme, irrationality is part of the human experience, and being irrational is not exactly the same as believing in the impossible. Believing you can win the lottery is definitely irrational, but it's also far from impossible.

I guess it boils down to how serious those irrational beliefs are, and how strongly they influence your life. The same irrational belief which leads one to plunk down five bucks on the lottery when the jackpot is really high is fundamentally the same irrational belief that leads one to spend a hundred on it.

But, believing in things that are not possible at all, that's a different story. I don't know if Nessie technically counts as supernatural, but except for the specific properties being different, Nessie might as well be a ghost, no?

Quote:In its literal sense it only means non belief in the biblical 'God'.

It means non-belief in gods of any kind.

The meaning has evolved over the centuries. Today it means someone who doesn't believe in 'God'. It's essentially a worthless word, originally an insulting one.