Defining Oneself in the Negative

[Quintessence]

We can communicate our identities to others in a variety of ways, and as we communicate who we are to others, we solidify our own sense of self-identity. Sometimes, we communicate to others what we are, or define ourselves in the positive. For example, we can tell someone "my favorite color is purple" and that clearly communicates something about ourselves. On the other end, we also have a habit of defining ourselves in the negative. This is often a less useful way of communicating our identities to others, because it is less informative. If we tell someone "my favorite color isn't black" that leaves others guessing about what our favorite color actually is.

The label of atheist is an example of defining oneself in the negative. It is saying "I do not believe in God." It tells us little to nothing about what a person does believe in, accept, or value unless we attach additional meanings and assumptions about the atheist identifier beyond its core meaning (something that, as I have observed on here, many atheists dislike!).

How does using the identifier "atheist" help you solidify your identity and communicate that identity to others? What are some other terms you might use to define yourself in the positive and communicate more about what you do believe or value? Is it difficult to find a way to define yourself in the positive that you feel adequately circumscribes your worldview? Would many of you embrace an identifier like secular humanist? Empirical naturalist? Freethinker? Something else? Should we challenge ourselves to use terms like this that define ourselves in the positive and communicate more meaningfully with others? Or does that term "atheist" have its useful place? If so, what is that place?

P.S. I was going to post this up in the debate forums, but as I thought about it, I realized I really didn't want this topic to turn into a debate because I'm primarily curious about the reflective thoughts of those who identify as atheists on the forums.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tis true that the term "atheist" says little about one, but then no term does, even the religious ones.
So it's useful to add terms, like: libertarian, pervert, gourmand, humanist

 

[Bunyip]

An interesting question indeed.

My first reaction is that I don't identify as an atheist other than in the specific context of talking to Theists. As you say, there are so many better words - libertarian, bohemian, altruist, protester, activist and a thousand others.

Atheism is not my worldview, it is my position on a specific claim. My worldview is rich far beyond my position on that one contentious matter. As I'm sure is the case for most atheists.

 

[LuisDantas]

The label of atheist is an example of defining oneself in the negative. It is saying "I do not believe in God." It tells us little to nothing about what a person does believe in, accept, or value unless we attach additional meanings and assumptions about the atheist identifier beyond its core meaning (something that, as I have observed on here, many atheists dislike!).

There is an upside to it. It may encourage people to seek the nuances instead of jumping to conclusions.

How does using the identifier "atheist" help you solidify your identity and communicate that identity to others?

By stating upfront that people should not attempt to reach me by using the concept of God.

It does backfire on occasion, because some people insist on attempting to deal with disbelief as if it were a big deal.

What are some other terms you might use to define yourself in the positive and communicate more about what you do believe or value?

Rationalist. Dharma adherent. Naturalist. Non-supernaturalist. Skeptic.

Is it difficult to find a way to define yourself in the positive that you feel adequately circumscribes your worldview?

Sure. I don't think I'm all that different from anyone else in that particular detail, though.

Would many of you embrace an identifier like secular humanist? Empirical naturalist? Freethinker? Something else?

All of those fit, but I actually like using "atheist" and "anti-theist".

Should we challenge ourselves to use terms like this that define ourselves in the positive and communicate more meaningfully with others? Or does that term "atheist" have its useful place? If so, what is that place?

It will depend a bit on context. On the most general case, I think atheism suits me fine, but not all atheists will have the same appreciation that I do. Not all of us will want to make a point of reminding others that belief in God is not to be taken for granted.

P.S. I was going to post this up in the debate forums, but as I thought about it, I realized I really didn't want this topic to turn into a debate because I'm primarily curious about the reflective thoughts of those who identify as atheists on the forums.

Thanks.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't identify as an atheist unless it's highly relevant to do so, like someone asks if I am one, or there's a religious thread talking about it, or something. I still prefer to say, "I'm not religious" or "I'm not a theist" or something like that though.

Like I'm not going to walk around identifying as a non-Canadian. I have no identity attached to being non-Canadian, like I have no identity attached to being a non-theist. I know some atheists, particularly some of the ones that are kind of within a few years of leaving whatever religion they were, seem to build an identity around it. Some others do too.

I don't even think any members of my family know what my worldviews or lack of worldviews are.

I don't usually bother to call myself anything like a secular humanist either, although I am one of those too.

Basically I feel that a lot of people have these specific supernatural worldviews with gods or afterlives or things like that, and I just don't have one of those.

 

[columbus]

Penumbra summed up my attitude very well.
Often people who don't know me well mistake my prolife and prudish sexual mores for Christian beliefs.
Tom

 

[`mud]

We have to invent a new nomenclature.
Since there is no 'now',
and yesterday is a memory,
and tomorrow may not get here.
I was thinking of the word 'shadowist'.
But that didn't work, cause we'd be in the shadows all the time.
Soooooo.....even if 'now' is flying by as fast as shadows pass,
I'll think of myself as being a 'nowist'.
That's one that isn't sure whether one has a spirit or not.
Where does one go when one dies and become's a memory to others ?
Where's the spirit go ? We have to think about that, don't we ?
Remember, one thinks about this stuff when one gets old like me.
Maybe I'll stick to 'humanist', and keep counting trees.
~
'mud

 

[Revoltingest]

The word "now" works for me.
Fleeting though it is, it's always with us, & everyone
(except for extreme navel gazers) knows what it means.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How does using the identifier "atheist" help you solidify your identity and communicate that identity to others? What are some other terms you might use to define yourself in the positive and communicate more about what you do believe or value? Is it difficult to find a way to define yourself in the positive that you feel adequately circumscribes your worldview? Would many of you embrace an identifier like secular humanist? Empirical naturalist? Freethinker? Something else?

That would be an insufficient identifier for me. I am a Hindu Advaitist Atheist. Other labels (secular humanist, Empirical naturalist, Freethinker) do not identify me. Since I am a Hindu it goes without saying that I am a secular humanist. Since I am an advaitist it goes without saying that I am an empirical naturalist. And since I am an atheist it goes without saying that I am a freethinker.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If someone asked me to define myself, I'd probably use terms like "skeptic" or "humanist" before I used "atheist"... and both of those would be after I described myself as a gearhead or engineer.

That being said, I think it's fine to describe oneself in the negative. It can be useful and relevant when a particular characteristic is common: in this respect "atheist" is just as meaningful as "non-smoker" or "vegetarian". If there was no god-belief, smoking, or meat-eating, then these terms would be less useful, but that's not the world we live in.

Also, I don't know if a positive description is always useful. In fact, I think demanding a positive description can come from preconceptions about the world: I've heard theists ask things like "what do you believe in instead of God?" To me, this makes about as much sense as a NASCAR fan asking "what do you express your loyalty to instead of a car brand?" There's no "instead"... no "god-shaped hole" in an atheist's life.

When someone asks "who are you?", a person could respond with "I'm a deist" or "I'm a Muslim", but it's just as valid to answer in a way that makes religious belief irrelevant to a person's identity ("I'm an Englishman"; "I'm a tennis player"; "I'm a grandparent").

It's like height: even though we all have a height, and it can be perfectly valid to say "that man is 6'", we'd be justified in not buying into a system where height is the main deciding factor about a person's identity.

For some people, religion is just irrelevant... and that's okay.

 

[`mud]

hey 9-10th,
I liked that one a lot....it hit's the point,
just like angels on a very sharp point.
~
'mud

 

[lewisnotmiller]

About the only time I would ever say 'Atheist' would be in response to a question on what religion I follow. I tend to say atheism rather than 'none', even though none is a more correct answer. Dunno why that is...

*ponders*

I suspect it's because I think people will take atheism as a statement that I've considered and rejected belief, whereas 'none' might easily be considered straight agnosticism? Dunno. But there ya go.
As already stated by others, I'd use all sorts of everyday labels to describe myself, but atheism is only used in response to questions about religion or belief.

 

[Orbit]

Atheist is a term I use when describing myself to an Abrahamic believer, because they immediately know what it means. If I'm describing myself to an another atheist, I go deeper, and say "I don't believe in mythic-literal gods but am a panentheist", which would just confuse a garden variety believer, but works with atheists because they tend to be better educated about what these terms can mean. If they're not, I would call myself a "spiritual atheist". All of this defining in the negative is simply for convenience. When in the panentheism forum, I identify in the positive.

 

[Cephus]

Atheism is just a rejection of religion, it is nothing more. I only identify as an atheist because religion is so commonplace and tries desperately to force others to take it seriously. If religion went away, I wouldn't bother with atheism because it would have no purpose.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I call myself an Agnostic Atheist Humanist. This still tells people very little about me. I could be funny. I might be into punograhpy. I could be an *******. I could be a really nice guy. Any label anyone has on them doesn't scratch the surface of who they are. But they are useful in that they draw lines in the sand. It gives them a particular bit of information usually relevant to the conversation.

If I have someone trying to talk to me about how Christianity is better than Islam or how silly Scientology is or something like that then I can bring up the fact that I am an atheist and that serves a useful purpose in showing them my viewpoint on that subject. Usually it doesn't even come up and most people don't know I'm an atheist. I don't hide it at all but it just doesn't come up a lot in general conversation. Being a white guy in the American south almost brands me as "Christian" until I correct them.

It is far more common and INFINITELY more complicated to explain my political position as there are no current labels to accurately define my political position. Sure I don't believe in gods. Not a single one. But what about my feelings on the border, healthcare, food stamps, military spending, national language, immigration policies or international affairs? That is complicated and without a "positive' to provide its a long-winded conversation to say the least.