What is in a label?

[Eilonnwy]

Sam Harris says that Atheists shouldn't use the atheist or atheism label. And they shouldn't 'call' themselves anything at all. Obviously himself included.

I disagree with that sentiment completely. I'm always proud to call myself an atheist. I'm never shy or afraid to do so because I want people to know they exist and that they're people like me.

I realize that the atheist label comes with some baggage. But so did the term queer or gay and the gays reclaimed that word, I think atheists should do the same.

I don't like the idea of the "brights" movement. I think it's silly.

[Kyuuketsuki]

What exactly is unclear about the statement "I have no belief in god(s)"?

"Atheist" is more succinct than "I have no belief in god(s)" and if the English language were full of phrases instead of words a discussion would be awfully long.

Kyu

---

Kyu - what do you reckon about agnostics?

See page 3 (sorry linking to the page is best I can do).

i thought that agnostic distinguished that we have no possible way of finding out if there is a god - forever. i do not agree to this. i don't know if i like the term agnostic much any more.. it sounds pussy weak.. like i am hopefull for there to be a god or some shizz.

Not quite the phraseology I'd use but yes, I think it is a weaker term for atheism and, given the way it was introduced by Huxley, it would appear to be an avoidance term i.e. one that avoids the perceived connotations of atheism.

what about the term 'spiritual'? i am not really sure why but i am to like clinging to it. maybe i am a Spiritual Agnostic Atheist ?

Personally I don't think spiritual (in a faith or religiosity sense) describes much except, perhaps, a weakness with respect to religious beliefs.

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

What exactly is unclear about the statement "I have no belief in god(s)"?

"Atheist" is more succinct than "I have no belief in god(s)" and if the English language were full of phrases instead of words a discussion would be awfully long.

Succintness is only an illusion when you have to define it over and over again. Also, why adopt a label for yourself in terms of how you are not complying to the stance of someone else?

---

Sam Harris says that Atheists shouldn't use the atheist or atheism label. And they shouldn't 'call' themselves anything at all. Obviously himself included.

I disagree with that sentiment completely. I'm always proud to call myself an atheist. I'm never shy or afraid to do so because I want people to know they exist and that they're people like me.

I certainly recognize the emotion of proudness you express but in time my mind has changed on the matter using the label. The position I take is not about what I don't stand for, denial of stances of others, but what I do stand for. Most words in the latter category, like reason, democracy, church state separation and the like, have already sufficiently defined meaning.

[Kyuuketsuki]

"Atheist" is more succinct than "I have no belief in god(s)" and if the English language were full of phrases instead of words a discussion would be awfully long.

Succintness is only an illusion when you have to define it over and over again.

Sounds like philosophical BS to me!!!

Also, why adopt a label for yourself in terms of how you are not complying to the stance of someone else?

Why not? I assume most words derive their meaning from somewhere ... it doesn't bother me that "atheist" inherently relies on the meaning of "theist". Why should it?

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

"Atheist" is more succinct than "I have no belief in god(s)" and if the English language were full of phrases instead of words a discussion would be awfully long.

Succintness is only an illusion when you have to define it over and over again.

Sounds like philosophical BS to me!!!

Believing that you need a lot of discussion on labels to say just six simple words isn't too difficult to grasp. But sure, if it is hard to understand that all these discussions on the meaning of the words atheism and agnosticism do not constitute clear communication, you might drag in the label 'philosophical BS', that is pretty clear the end of communication altogether.

Also, why adopt a label for yourself in terms of how you are not complying to the stance of someone else?

Why not? I assume most words derive their meaning from somewhere ... it doesn't bother me that "atheist" inherently relies on the meaning of "theist". Why should it?

Kyu

Well, that's your choice Kyu, go on defining yourself as you like, an anti-KKK, a non-vegetarian, a non-totalitarian dictator, a non-asshole if you like, but I was speaking for myself. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine with me.

[Edwardo Piet]

At the moment at least I prefer Dawkins stance of the outspoken Atheist to calling ourselves brights or not having a label at all.

I like how Sam Harris suggests we should just use words like 'reason', 'evidence', 'science', etc. And try and go under the radar. We don't need to call ourselves atheists just as we don't need to call ourselves "non-astrologers", its a word we don't need, etc.

But I still don't know how you'd: A) get over the herding cats problem (trying to get organize atheists has been likened to herding cats).
And B): if you're asked if you believe in God and you answer "no" you'll probably be labeled as atheist then anyway. And if you're asked if you're an atheist. What are you supposed to say?
evf

[Eilonnwy]

It's all BS to me. We need to reclaim the word not shy away from it.

I personally hate labeling myself, but people do it anyway. It's all silly to me, but don't make up new labels because the other one gets a bad reputation. I'm a bisexual, and that word has some baggage too, but I own it because it most accurately describes me as well as "Atheist" and "Secular Humanist" and "Independent Liberal" and so forth. The labels, as misleading as they can be, are useful to some degree.

I don't care if people shy away from the word atheist, but don't tell me I should. I will say I'm an atheist because it cuts to the chase, I don't believe in a god and I'm not gonna pussyfoot around it with an arrogant and silly term like "bright". I'll talk about my reasons for being an atheist based on "evidence" and "science" but otherwise I'm gonna wear that atheist T-shirt and hope that by being an honest and reasonable person that people will see past the atheist label and understand there's more to us than they thought. (and btw, I do own an atheist t-shirt)

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree. I think the being an outspoken Atheist and wearing the atheist label is the best way to go. We're not so weak as to have to change our labels or drop them altogether I think. It is more honest and outspoken to not shy away I think. I agree with you at LEAST thus far. Seems much better to just say we are atheists when we are atheists. And to be outspoken about it.

Why shouldn't atheists get together anyhow? And also, why change the label? We've already got one and I think we should be outspoken about it.

If it misleads people - all the more reason to be outspoken about it! I think we'll just be going around in circles if we change the label or drop it altogether. We won't be getting anywhere. In fact we might go backwards because its less outspoken and immediate. Why have to go around all that? As I hope I have had some success at explaining here in this post and the previous few.

I think that we should be outspoken as our label - As I'm sure you can tell with my avatar - Definitely!


At least for now.
evf

[puglover]

Well, when I went to hospital a while back lol.. they asked me if i had any beliefs and i said atheist. ROFL. beat that! So on my wrist band it said I was atheist. Haha.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well, that's your choice Kyu, go on defining yourself as you like, an anti-KKK, a non-vegetarian, a non-totalitarian dictator, a non-asshole if you like, but I was speaking for myself. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine with me.

Perhaps you could define yourself as not-the-asshole-Kyu-maybe-thinks-you-are too?

Kyu