Utility of the Label "Atheist"

[Kilgore Trout]

Depending on who you are talking to, if you simply provide them with the information that you are an "atheist," they might interpret that as anything from "you've somehow never heard of the concept of a god before, perhaps due to growing up alone on a deserted island" to "you are a devil worshipping Satanist who eats babies and hates Jesus" and an endless assortment of things in between.

This being the case, how useful is the label "atheist" in terms of conveying anything meaningful about your positions or worldviews? Does constant bickering over insane feats of logical and semantic hair-splitting help to increase the utility of the label?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Typically most people seem to assume that "atheists" are exactly what they are. People who don't believe in god. End of story. Obviously they have heard of god. Obviously they don't eat babies (hopefully). The term is pretty useful. The only time I have ever had issue with the terminology is when theists have attempted this kind of psuedo argument that "Atheism is a religion therefore you have more faith that I do go god! w00t!"

I don't have to believe there is no god it is lack of belief. Thus the definition should not be as convoluted as it is. Again in day to day conversation this isn't an issue. Its only ever an issue when someone attempts to shift the burden of proof off of their own theistic claims by claiming that atheists claim something they do not lay claim to. Yes that last sentence was intentionally and unnecessarily difficult. Thus is the issue of the definition of "atheism" when splitting hairs in this argument.

 

[Politesse]

About as useful as any other religious label, I reckon. You don't really know someone until you take the time to get to know them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This being the case, how useful is the label "atheist" in terms of conveying anything meaningful about your positions or worldviews?

I've found that some people tend to presume that I'm religious by default, usually Christian (because I'm white, I guess) and usually Protestant (because I never cross myself and my last name doesn't suggest a predominantly Catholic ethnicity). In these cases, saying "I'm an atheist" conveys plenty, even though the word doesn't convey much in contexts that don't have these assumptions.

 

[leibowde84]

Depending on who you are talking to, if you simply provide them with the information that you are an "atheist," they might interpret that as anything from "you've somehow never heard of the concept of a god before, perhaps due to growing up alone on a deserted island" to "you are a devil worshipping Satanist who eats babies and hates Jesus" and an endless assortment of things in between.

This being the case, how useful is the label "atheist" in terms of conveying anything meaningful about your positions or worldviews? Does constant bickering over insane feats of logical and semantic hair-splitting help to increase the utility of the label?

It is a general term for those who aren't theists. I'm not sure why its utility makes a difference. There are many general terms. Look at theism, which includes belief in any god.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Typically most people seem to assume that "atheists" are exactly what they are. People who don't believe in god. End of story. Obviously they have heard of god. Obviously they don't eat babies (hopefully). The term is pretty useful. The only time I have ever had issue with the terminology is when theists have attempted this kind of psuedo argument that "Atheism is a religion therefore you have more faith that I do go god! w00t!"

Interesting. I can only assume you've been lucky in having such limited feedback regarding the term "atheist" in real life usage. For myself, in 20 odd years, I've found that most people's views of what atheism is isn't that simple at all. To start with, most people seem to have an extremely strong view that everyone has to believe something, and therefore assume that atheism is a belief or set of beliefs. They will sometimes ask what you believe as an atheist, but will often assume any number of things that you support or believe which they think are inextricably linked to atheism, depending on what their particular church/church leader has fed them regarding atheism. This often includes things like being promiscuous, abusing drugs, being homosexual, hating god/jesus/Christians, and/or worshipping satan, but, even absent those, nearly almost always resolves down to atheism meaning you believe that god doesn't exist. I've rarely encountered anyone, particularly people who are religious, who view atheism as simply not holding the belief that god exists, or even many who seem capable or willing to understand the logical difference between the two statements.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is a general term for those who aren't theists. I'm not sure why its utility makes a difference. There are many general terms. Look at theism, which includes belief in any god.

And another good example. In real life, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who described themselves as a "theist," and have rarely encountered use of the term at all other than on internet message boards - and usually in conversations that tend to be internet-specific for a variety of apparent reasons.

 

[leibowde84]

And another good example. In real life, I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who described themselves as a "theist," and have rarely encountered use of the term at all other than on internet message boards - and usually in conversations that tend to be internet-specific for a variety of apparent reasons.

That just speaks to people not being specific, and it makes perfect sense. If you believe in a specific God, you are inclined to specify. If you merely lack beliefs in all gods, them you aren't able to be more specific.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That just speaks to people not being specific, and it makes perfect sense. If you believe in a specific God, you are inclined to specify. If you merely lack beliefs in all gods, them you aren't able to be more specific.

Yes, but you invariably will need to be more specific after labeling yourself an "atheist," in order to counter whatever baggage people have applied to the label which doesn't apply to you.

Personally, I generally stopped using "atheist" as a label for myself in real life 10 years ago after finding myself having to spend extra time "correcting" people's assumptions about me after finding out exactly what their interpretation of atheism entailed. I've found it more useful to actually just state what my worldview and beliefs are as opposed to using such a variably-interpreted label such as "atheism."

And now, with ever-increasingly hair-splitting interpretations among atheists themselves about what exactly "atheism" means to them, it seems to have lost most of its utility altogether.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suppose once it reached that point that people were actually willing to claim, with all seriousness, that rocks and infants were atheists, the label gasped its last dying breath of usefulness and meaning.

 

[Thana]

Yes, but you invariably will need to be more specific after labeling yourself an "atheist," in order to counter whatever baggage people have applied to the label which doesn't apply to you.

Personally, I generally stopped using "atheist" as a label for myself in real life 10 years ago after finding myself having to spend extra time "correcting" people's assumptions about me after finding out exactly what their interpretation of atheism entailed. I've found it more useful to actually just state what my worldview and beliefs are as opposed to using such a variably-interpreted label such as "atheism."

And now, with ever-increasingly hair-splitting interpretations among atheists themselves about what exactly "atheism" means to them, it seems to have lost most of its utility altogether.

Do you not think that this happens with all labels?
Why would Atheism be different?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but you invariably will need to be more specific after labeling yourself an "atheist," in order to counter whatever baggage people have applied to the label which doesn't apply to you.

Personally, I generally stopped using "atheist" as a label for myself in real life 10 years ago after finding myself having to spend extra time "correcting" people's assumptions about me after finding out exactly what their interpretation of atheism entailed. I've found it more useful to actually just state what my worldview and beliefs are as opposed to using such a variably-interpreted label such as "atheism."

And now, with ever-increasingly hair-splitting interpretations among atheists themselves about what exactly "atheism" means to them, it seems to have lost most of its utility altogether.

I think most of the issue is due to theists of all sorts trying to gain ground in arguments against atheists. They want to assume that atheism demands the active belief that God does not exist or that God's existence is impossible, but that is not the case. All in all, it just seems like a straw man to me. They want to ignore the fact that "atheism" does not necessarily profess any active beliefs. Thus, the burden of proof is always on theists, as they are the only one making an actual claim, as atheism is merely the absence of a specific belief.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you not think that this happens with all labels?
Why would Atheism be different?

Of course it does. The question is whether a specific label is so diluted and variably-interpreted as to lose its utility. All labels are subjectively-interpreted. However, it's a matter of how useful and consistent the shared interpretation is.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose once it reached that point that people were actually willing to claim, with all seriousness, that rocks and infants were atheists, the label gasped its last dying breath of usefulness and meaning.

Nah, when I tell people I'm an atheist, they instantly grok that I don't believe in gods.
It's a useful label to convey that info.

Note:
The actual number of people who find significance in arguing about whether or not rocks are atheists is vanishingly small.
Normal people don't concern themselves with such things.
Even we abnormals don't care about it.

 

[leibowde84]

I suppose once it reached that point that people were actually willing to claim, with all seriousness, that rocks and infants were atheists, the label gasped its last dying breath of usefulness and meaning.

That is another straw man, though. The term "atheist" only applies to people, according to the definition of the term ... no matter what variation you use.

 

[Willamena]

Depending on who you are talking to, if you simply provide them with the information that you are an "atheist," they might interpret that as anything from "you've somehow never heard of the concept of a god before, perhaps due to growing up alone on a deserted island" to "you are a devil worshipping Satanist who eats babies and hates Jesus" and an endless assortment of things in between.

This being the case, how useful is the label "atheist" in terms of conveying anything meaningful about your positions or worldviews? Does constant bickering over insane feats of logical and semantic hair-splitting help to increase the utility of the label?

You're right. I suggest we all drop the label entirely.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think most of the issue is due to theists of all sorts trying to gain ground in arguments against atheists. They want to assume that atheism demands the active belief that God does not exist or that God's existence is impossible, but that is not the case. All in all, it just seems like a straw man to me. They want to ignore the fact that "atheism" does not necessarily profess any active beliefs. Thus, the burden of proof is always on theists, as they are the only one making an actual claim, as atheism is merely the absence of a specific belief.

I prefer the more meaningful and direct "I do not hold the belief that god(s) exist(s)." Saying I "lack" or am "absent" of that belief sounds kind of hollow and a bit silly to me.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That is another straw man, though. The term "atheist" only applies to people, according to the definition of the term ... no matter what variation you use.

Indeed, and why it would apply to "people" is because people are capable of holding beliefs. However, infants are not capable of holding beliefs any more than rocks are, so an infant human is no more meaningfully an "atheist" than a rock is.

 

[leibowde84]

I prefer the more meaningful and direct "I do not hold the belief that god(s) exist(s)." Saying I "lack" or am "absent" of that belief sounds kind of hollow and a bit silly to me.

They mean the same exact thing. To not hold something = to lack something = to be without or absent of something.

 

[leibowde84]

Indeed, and why it would apply to "people" is because people are capable of holding beliefs. However, infants are not capable of holding beliefs any more than rocks are, so an infant human is no more meaningfully an "atheist" than a rock is.

I agree that labeling babies as "atheists" is a meaningless endeavor. That being said, personhood is achieved when a baby is physically autonomous. This is when most legal rights are attached.