Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?

[mediamogul]

Is there a need to try and "rebrand" atheism by another name due to the negative connotations that have been built up around the label? Or should we be working to reclaim our word?

Here is the paragraph from the God Delusion that got me thinking. (The first part is not specifically relevant but it is still a great point so I left it in)

'Charming? Heart-warming? No, it is not, it is neither; it is
grotesque. How could any decent person think it right to label fouryear-
old children with the cosmic and theological opinions of their
parents? To see this, imagine an identical photograph, with the
caption changed as follows: 'Shadbreet (a Keynesian), Musharaff (a
Monetarist) and Adele (a Marxist), all aged four.' Wouldn't this be
a candidate for irate letters of protest? It certainly should be. Yet,
because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, not a squeak
was heard, nor is it ever heard on any similar occasion. Just imagine
the outcry if the caption had read, 'Shadbreet (an Atheist),
Musharaff (an Agnostic) and Adele (a Secular Humanist), all aged
four.' Mightn't the parents actually be investigated to see if they
were fit to bring up children? In Britain, where we lack a constitutional
separation between church and state, atheist parents
usually go with the flow and let schools teach their children whatever
religion prevails in the culture. 'The-Brights.net' (an American
initiative to rebrand atheists as 'Brights' in the same way as homosexuals
successfully rebranded themselves as 'gays') is scrupulous in
setting out the rules for children to sign up: 'The decision to be a
Bright must be the child's. Any youngster who is told he or she
must, or should, be a Bright can NOT be a Bright.' Can you even
begin to imagine a church or mosque issuing such a self-denying
ordinance? But shouldn't they be compelled to do so? Incidentally,
I signed up to the Brights, partly because I was genuinely curious
whether such a word could be memetically engineered into the
language. I don't know, and would like to, whether the transmutation
of 'gay' was deliberately engineered or whether it just
happened.150 The Brights campaign got off to a shaky start when it
was furiously denounced by some atheists, petrified of being
branded 'arrogant'. The Gay Pride movement, fortunately, suffers
from no such false modesty, which may be why it succeeded.'

My thought is that it's our word and we should unite under it and be proud of it. The right wing is great at selecting a phrase and then sticking with it like the way they turned "liberal" in to a dirty word. I think we should be atheists and work to fix the public perception of our lack of belief.

[Shell B]

Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't care that much. The word only has one definition. People will redefine no matter what campaign a group of atheists launches to "reclaim" it. Furthermore, such a thing is bound to create ideas popping up with individual atheists being attributed to atheists in general, furthering the problem. I say let people actually try to understand it for what it is if they want to. If not, they can call it whatever they want, if it helps them sleep at night.

[Matt231]

I think we should keep the label. Changing it would diminish our power and influence. We need stability. We need to show the public that our belief is strong and that we will not back down.

If we make a new label for ourselves, then the people who are associating negative things to the term atheism now will simply move on to the next label and we will be in the same position.

[Aegrus]

I think we should keep the label. Changing it would diminish our power and influence. We need stability. We need to show the public that our belief is strong and that we will not back down.

If we make a new label for ourselves, then the people who are associating negative things to the term atheism now will simply move on to the next label and we will be in the same position.

Belief? Our position is based in fact, not belief. Though I agree we need unity, and should not change the term "atheist."

[Shell B]

Why do we need unity? For what do we need unity? Do all people who prefer chocolate icing over vanilla need unity? Do people who don't believe in fairies need unity? I'm confused about the end to which this unity is proposed.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, just those who have good reason to worry about the availability of chocolate icing given the actions and thought process of the pro vanilla camp..lol.

[Shell B]

Bah, we all know damn well that not all theists bother atheists. Some do not try to place restrictions on us. There is absolutely no reason for atheists to unite in any way for the sake of atheism. It is not a fucking religion. Now, if someone wants to start atheistianity and unite under that name, have at it. I do hope, however, while they go about taking some imagined stand, they don't say things like "we atheists," because I'm not part of any atheist club and , if I was, I would make it clear that the club and atheism are two very different things.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Is there a need to try and "rebrand" atheism by another name due to the negative connotations that have been built up around the label?

Atheism is not a brand. Use of the word in this context is a silly neologism. There will always be people with different views/understandings and I could not care less.


PS The Brights are a bunch of wankers.

[mediamogul]

Why do we need unity? For what do we need unity? Do all people who prefer chocolate icing over vanilla need unity? Do people who don't believe in fairies need unity? I'm confused about the end to which this unity is proposed.

My big thing is that organized "minority" groups have a much more power within government and society. I doubt we would ever have the pockets as deep as the Discovery Institute or any of the crazy Republican fundamentalists but there are other groups out there that very successfully protect their political and social interests.

Also, I think that the gay rights example is a good one and a fairly successful example of "rebranding". Atheists would be more fairly represented and well protected in society if they would unite a bit under the banner of "atheism" and demand rights in a more vocal way. we had a president say that atheists should not be citizens? What would the response have been if he had said that about blacks or gays?

[The Grand Nudger]

All kidding aside, any terrible thing one might care to invoke as a reason for "uniting" are better handled by organizations that specialize in the area. Human rights advocates, educational lobbies, lawyers etc. That being said, Mogul does have a point.....perhaps we should hire some lawyers?