'Not labeling ourselves' Vs 'Bright' Vs just plain good old 'Atheist', etc.
May 13, 2009 at 1:45 pm
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
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
