Labeling

Atheist Revolution blog recently posted about the issue of non-religious people who are reluctant to call themselves "atheists".  His assessment appears to be that this reluctance is a problem and such people should be encouraged to embrace the label; you can read his views for yourself at his post.  My own position is different.

In general I don't attach as much importance to labels as some people do.  It's the thing itself that matters, not what label we attach to it; labeling something often encourages people to pigeonhole it and not seek a more nuanced understanding of what it actually is.  For example, I don't think it's of any interest to discuss whether Giorgia Meloni is "fascist" or not.  That's just an argument about a label.  If you want to know what her election signifies, you need to look into the details of her political views and why people voted for her, without bothering your head over whether a specific label fits them or not.

Labels carry connotations beyond their literal definitions.  In the case of "atheist", I think a lot of people reject the label because words ending in "ism" or "ist" carry the implication that one is a member of a group or an adherent of a cause, something which emphatically should not follow from the plain fact of not believing that any god exists.  Most people who don't believe in a god seem to simply identify as "nones" when asked, and it's really a more accurate term, since it conveys the lack of religion without suggesting being a member of, or crusader for, anything.

I increasingly tend to do this myself.  When I'm filling out a survey that asks about my religion, I generally just say I don't have one, if that's an option.  It better addresses the issue of people who wrongly claim that atheism is itself a religion or a belief system. Rather than waste time arguing that point, it emphasizes that there isn't a thing called atheism which I'm putting in the "what's your religion" slot -- that I simply don't put anything at all in that slot.

I feel similarly impatient with the hairsplitting some people do about "atheist" vs "agnostic".  Some will say, you can't absolutely prove that no god exists, so you should call yourself agnostic rather than atheist.  While technically true, this defines the terms in such a way as to make the distinction between them useless.  My position on this point is that I put "God" in the same category as unicorns, dragons, and leprechauns -- I can't absolutely prove it doesn't exist, but it's so implausible that it's not worth spending any time or mental energy on the question.  This may technically be agnosticism, but in practical terms it is unbelief.  "Agnostic" should be reserved for people who consider both the "God exists" and the "God doesn't exist" viewpoint to have some genuine plausibility.

I don't believe there exists any kind of "god", and I view religions as ridiculous nonsense.  This does not make me a member of a group or a crusader for a cause, any more than my lack of belief in unicorns does.  In a sane world, not believing in any god wouldn't require a label at all.