Comments on: On Branding http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:38:45 +0000 By: B.C. Lack http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27778 B.C. Lack Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:37:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27778 I just read this article of Haris', and at first I was a bit dissapointed to read the cynnicism and pessimism he attaches to the label "atheist" (and all other euphemisms). Sam has been relentless in his work to educate people, religious and non-religious alike, on what atheists are and are not...on the benefits of reason...on the evils of religion. But minds are difficult to re-educate, as Sam puts it, "So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism?". Alas, many, many, many times, my poor Sam. I also agree entirely that a beautiful future for atheism is one in which we are utterly free of all dogmatic labels (religious and non-religious). Aah...Utopia! My childhood was free of a religious-badge, and, just as importat, free of an atheist-badge. Whenever one of my grade-school palls asked me which religion I was or what church I attended, I always replied (and often still do), "I don't subscribe to any religion". **In my experience, this type of response typically fosters a healthier dialog than if I say, "No, I'm an athiest", but your mileage may varry** Then as I grew and learned so much about science, philosophy and logic, I learned lables like "atheisst", "agnostic", "secular humanist", "deist", etc. I loved it! I cherished knowing about so many people in this world who shared my beliefs/dis-beliefs. I loved my new atheist-badge. So in this manner, labels can be beneficial. Now, I am older, and hopefully wiser, and my badge is a bit duller -- it has lost it's glitter of novelty. I simply am. I'm still an atheist to my closest friends and family, but to most others I strive to (oh geez, I can't think of any other way to put this) 'walk the walk' more and 'talk the talk' less. This is the jist of Sam's speech, I think. Let's not get so enamoured with trumpeting our atheism that we lose sight of reason. However, I also agree with many of the comments here about the need to reclaim and devillify atheism -- I will probably never cease to do so. In the end, though, it's really only just a label, and we shouldn't live and die for labels. I just read this article of Haris', and at first I was a bit dissapointed to read the cynnicism and pessimism he attaches to the label "atheist" (and all other euphemisms). Sam has been relentless in his work to educate people, religious and non-religious alike, on what atheists are and are not...on the benefits of reason...on the evils of religion. But minds are difficult to re-educate, as Sam puts it, "So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism?". Alas, many, many, many times, my poor Sam.

I also agree entirely that a beautiful future for atheism is one in which we are utterly free of all dogmatic labels (religious and non-religious). Aah...Utopia! My childhood was free of a religious-badge, and, just as importat, free of an atheist-badge. Whenever one of my grade-school palls asked me which religion I was or what church I attended, I always replied (and often still do), "I don't subscribe to any religion". **In my experience, this type of response typically fosters a healthier dialog than if I say, "No, I'm an athiest", but your mileage may varry**

Then as I grew and learned so much about science, philosophy and logic, I learned lables like "atheisst", "agnostic", "secular humanist", "deist", etc. I loved it! I cherished knowing about so many people in this world who shared my beliefs/dis-beliefs. I loved my new atheist-badge. So in this manner, labels can be beneficial.

Now, I am older, and hopefully wiser, and my badge is a bit duller -- it has lost it's glitter of novelty. I simply am. I'm still an atheist to my closest friends and family, but to most others I strive to (oh geez, I can't think of any other way to put this) 'walk the walk' more and 'talk the talk' less. This is the jist of Sam's speech, I think. Let's not get so enamoured with trumpeting our atheism that we lose sight of reason.

However, I also agree with many of the comments here about the need to reclaim and devillify atheism -- I will probably never cease to do so. In the end, though, it's really only just a label, and we shouldn't live and die for labels.

]]> By: LindaJoy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27650 LindaJoy Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:26:31 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27650 Erich- I did some hunting for words to fit your "I am not an X" phrase. Here goes- I am not a mythologist...I am not bewitched...I am not an illusionist....I am not a delusionist....I am not a cultist....and last, I am not gullible. Isn't this fun? Erich- I did some hunting for words to fit your "I am not an X" phrase. Here goes- I am not a mythologist...I am not bewitched...I am not an illusionist....I am not a delusionist....I am not a cultist....and last, I am not gullible. Isn't this fun?

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27643 Erich Vieth Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:36:26 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27643 Ebonmuse: Good points all through your post. It's true that we don't usually create words to describe people who are <u>not</u> acting dysfunctionally. For instance, we don't have readily available labels for people who are not psychotic, not anorexic, not dyslexic, not gamble-holics or not arthritic. Why make an exception for those who don't believe in ghosts? Maybe it's political expediency. Once you have the label, it's easier to manipulate the concept in thought and conversation, for any of a variety of motives (some of them for the benefit of the group). I'd like to have the use of a SLIGHTLY derogatory label to apply to adults who believe in ghosts. I don't have that word figured out yet, but I'm going to give it some thought. Rather than say that I'm an "atheist," (which means that I don't buy into one particular dysfunction), I think it would be more satisfying to say that I'm not an X (meaning that I don't believe in the literal truth of fairy tales and afterlives). Ebonmuse: Good points all through your post. It's true that we don't usually create words to describe people who are not acting dysfunctionally. For instance, we don't have readily available labels for people who are not psychotic, not anorexic, not dyslexic, not gamble-holics or not arthritic. Why make an exception for those who don't believe in ghosts? Maybe it's political expediency. Once you have the label, it's easier to manipulate the concept in thought and conversation, for any of a variety of motives (some of them for the benefit of the group).

I'd like to have the use of a SLIGHTLY derogatory label to apply to adults who believe in ghosts. I don't have that word figured out yet, but I'm going to give it some thought. Rather than say that I'm an "atheist," (which means that I don't buy into one particular dysfunction), I think it would be more satisfying to say that I'm not an X (meaning that I don't believe in the literal truth of fairy tales and afterlives).

]]> By: KShep http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27609 KShep Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:36:52 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27609 Dawn Rhapsody: <blockquote>The fact that we only state what we aren't makes it easier for theists to fabricate tales about what we supposedly are.</blockquote> Right on the money. This is what I think Harris is trying to argue; if we refuse to let them use the word "atheism" to tell lies about us, we are then in control of our own message, not them. Dawn Rhapsody:

The fact that we only state what we aren't makes it easier for theists to fabricate tales about what we supposedly are.

Right on the money. This is what I think Harris is trying to argue; if we refuse to let them use the word "atheism" to tell lies about us, we are then in control of our own message, not them.

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27605 Thumpalumpacus Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:14:41 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27605 Heh, Jim, if you want to see Christians wince, answer their questions of your faith by saying "I'm faithless." The attached negative connotations far outweigh those of "atheist". Heh, Jim, if you want to see Christians wince, answer their questions of your faith by saying "I'm faithless." The attached negative connotations far outweigh those of "atheist".

]]> By: Jim Baerg http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27602 Jim Baerg Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:13:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27602 Re: Infidel I like it. I've been trying to think of a term that emphasizes the rejection of 'faith'. It fits perfectly. "I've been doing my best to avoid the vice of faith. So I'm an infidel." Re: Infidel

I like it.

I've been trying to think of a term that emphasizes the rejection of 'faith'. It fits perfectly.

"I've been doing my best to avoid the vice of faith. So I'm an infidel."

]]> By: LindaJoy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27601 LindaJoy Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:51:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27601 I've always liked the term "explorer" (a tip of the hat to Edgar Mitchell's The Way of the Explorer") because it was the act of exploring other ways of thinking that helped to free my mind from the shackles of a belief system. Or how about Infidel!? That word has such a strong and solid feeling to it and it was used throughout history to describe non-believers (as well as others not of your religion). I can see it now- a new campaign sweeping the country- "Power to the Infidels!" Sam Harris continues to make us think. I love that.... I've always liked the term "explorer" (a tip of the hat to Edgar Mitchell's The Way of the Explorer") because it was the act of exploring other ways of thinking that helped to free my mind from the shackles of a belief system. Or how about Infidel!? That word has such a strong and solid feeling to it and it was used throughout history to describe non-believers (as well as others not of your religion). I can see it now- a new campaign sweeping the country- "Power to the Infidels!" Sam Harris continues to make us think. I love that....

]]> By: Damien http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27599 Damien Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:15:32 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27599 <blockquote>Perhaps, instead of falling back into a defensive mode, we should go on the offensive. We need a good derogatory name for theists, that we, as self-proclaimed atheists, can use when needed."</blockquote> Hmm. I'm not sure trading insults back and forth is going to accomplish very much, either for one side of the argument or against the other.

Perhaps, instead of falling back into a defensive mode, we should go on the offensive. We need a good derogatory name for theists, that we, as self-proclaimed atheists, can use when needed."

Hmm. I'm not sure trading insults back and forth is going to accomplish very much, either for one side of the argument or against the other.

]]> By: JustAnOutsider http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27598 JustAnOutsider Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:14:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27598 The problem with the term atheism is that it's a property of a belief system, not a belief system in and of itself. Buddhists and Communists have just as much right to call themselves atheists as I do; so does the guy I work with who is convinced his ex-girlfriend can use astrology to predict the future. Any educational efforts to change the image of the term are going to have to deal with the problem that it simply doesn't mean what we're claiming it means. The on-line Atheism community is pretty much universal in it's reliance on evidence-based belief; this simply isn't true of everyone who chooses not to believe in God. My belief system is based on the assertion that faith is not a valid means of ascertaining truth. Disbelief in God is a consequence of this assertion; it's not a central assumption. It just seems that by singling out that one particular consequence and using it to identify myself I'm conceding ground to the theists by elevating it's importance. I don't really have a problem being called an atheist; I am one. I don't really agree with Harris that changing the name will be of any significant benefit to the community. I just don't think that it's a particularly accurate term and carries a lot of baggage we would be better off without. Personally, I tend to describe myself as an Agnostic since it more accurately reflects the nature of my actual beliefs. I wouldn't be adverse to using another term, but I really haven't heard one I like yet. Has anyone suggested Brights yet? The problem with the term atheism is that it's a property of a belief system, not a belief system in and of itself. Buddhists and Communists have just as much right to call themselves atheists as I do; so does the guy I work with who is convinced his ex-girlfriend can use astrology to predict the future. Any educational efforts to change the image of the term are going to have to deal with the problem that it simply doesn't mean what we're claiming it means. The on-line Atheism community
is pretty much universal in it's reliance on evidence-based belief; this simply isn't true of everyone who chooses not to believe in God.

My belief system is based on the assertion that faith is not a valid means of ascertaining truth. Disbelief in God is a consequence of this assertion; it's not a central assumption. It just seems that by singling out that one particular consequence and using it to identify myself I'm conceding ground to the theists by elevating it's importance.

I don't really have a problem being called an atheist; I am one. I don't really agree with Harris that changing the name will be of any significant benefit to the community. I just don't think that it's a particularly accurate term and carries a lot of baggage we would be better off without. Personally, I tend to describe myself as an Agnostic since it more accurately reflects the nature of my actual beliefs. I wouldn't be adverse to using another term, but I really haven't heard one I like yet. Has anyone suggested Brights yet?

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27597 Polly Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:01:41 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-branding.html#comment-27597 My wife told me about a co-worker who when asked her religion (presumptive question, no?) hemmed and hawed for about a minute before finally just saying "christian, I guess." My mother was saying something about Bhuddists and their many gods and I corrected her telling her that Hindus have many (1,000s) gods, but Buddhists have no official god, they are ATHEISTS. I thought this would be an interesting little factoid. She turned around and said, "well, then the Hindus are better. At least they have a god(s)" or something to that effect. I just bit my tongue. For my mother, "atheist" is a 4-letter word. This was just the past week. People should feel free to say "atheist" or simply "I don't have a religion" without feeling pressured to default to xianity. It's not the words so much as letting everyone know they have another "valid" option. My wife told me about a co-worker who when asked her religion (presumptive question, no?) hemmed and hawed for about a minute before finally just saying "christian, I guess."

My mother was saying something about Bhuddists and their many gods and I corrected her telling her that Hindus have many (1,000s) gods, but Buddhists have no official god, they are ATHEISTS. I thought this would be an interesting little factoid. She turned around and said, "well, then the Hindus are better. At least they have a god(s)" or something to that effect. I just bit my tongue. For my mother, "atheist" is a 4-letter word.
This was just the past week.

People should feel free to say "atheist" or simply "I don't have a religion" without feeling pressured to default to xianity. It's not the words so much as letting everyone know they have another "valid" option.

]]>