Is “Friendly Atheist” a Stupid Term?

Published on April 1, 2009 in Commentary. Comments Tags: , .

My friend Franklin recently posted a critique of the term “friendly atheist”. Franklin reviews a definition of “friendly atheist” by Hemant Mehta and says,

He continues by saying that almost all atheists he has met are friendly atheists, and I have to agree with him. I’ve always said (and by always, I mean for a while now), that the term “friendly atheist” itself is stupid, as it implies that most atheists aren’t, or at least only a subcategory of them are. Quite silly.

I posted a comment in response to Franklin, where I said,

You’re missing the forest for the trees. The point isn’t with the word “friendly atheist,” or “new atheist” for that matter. The point is that there are two opposed camps within the atheist community — those who think religion itself is a problem and should be eradicated (“new atheists”) and those who are critical of aspects of religion but not religion itself (“friendly atheists”). This is what the distinction refers to. Although the word is not perfect, it refers to a real difference. Some have even referred to it as the Great Atheist Schism.

Perhaps you think it is an unimportant distinction because so many of the people you have met have been friendly atheists, but I don’t think we should be so quick to lump all atheists together. When I polled the group at least 19 (28%) people agreed with the statement, “Atheists should try to eradicate religion because it is a major source of problems in the world.” Mind you, it doesn’t say be critical of religion — it says eradicate. I really don’t consider these people to be friendly atheists, and I don’t see how you could either. A simple search for “atheist appeasers” will also show you that you’d probably make several atheists even angrier than they already are either by lumping them in with friendly atheists or dismissing them as an unimportant subcategory of atheism.

As for your other point, I can understand why you might think the word implies “that most atheists aren’t [friendly atheists], or at least only a subcategory of them are,” but you also have to remember that the term is a response to the very negative image that society has of atheists. While it is unfortunate that we have to do so, calling ourselves friendly atheists is a way of undermining the stereotypes and assumptions that others have about us, and gives us a better chance of engaging others in dialog.

I would love it if all atheists were friendly atheists, but we’re not quite there yet, so I think it’s important to use the word — or some word — to talk about the differences that exist among atheists.

What do you think?

  • Icon
    There is certainly an important distinction and there should be a term for it. However, as the commenters above have stated, using 'friendly' as that label is misleading and probably does a disservice to both groups. I suggest "tolerant atheist" or more self-evident. Personally I'm fine with wearing the "intolerant atheist" label.
    Its also important to note that eradication doesn't necessarily mean by force. It can be similar to the way one would like to eradicate racism/bigotry through fundamental shift in human thought, none of which are most likely achievable.
  • Mat Rayman
    I agree with the above comments. "Friendly atheist" is a pretty meaningless term. It's an unnecessary label that only serves to inflame negative sentiment against those who don't label themselves as such. Also, it's a bit silly to talk about a "schism" in atheism, as if we atheists are some sort of monolithic entity.
  • Michelle
    While I completely understand the need for terms to distinguish between the subgroups you are describing here, I agree that the term "friendly" is lacking the full sense of that meaning. It is not a bad term, but it is not a particularly substantive one either. I can see why there would be this kind of confusion or dismissiveness in using this label, even among self-described friendly atheists. Maybe the term "open" would apply to the friendly atheists in this particular group just as or more effectively? "Open atheists" implies, to me, an open-mindedness to ideas, an openness to discussing the topics of atheism and religion and belief, and a nonexclusionary or nonexclusive approach to social organizing. The minority of stricter atheists in the group would then be confronted with the necessity of defining themselves against this openness, and maybe that would clarify their own positions and/or challenge them to be less exclusionary in their willingness to discuss other possibilities (if that is a desired effect at all, which I don't know). Interesting problem of intra-group dynamics and self-identity of members, but clearly has an effect on how the group is able to communicate with non-atheists or atheist-curious folks, so the straughtforward use of terms seems important on several levels.
  • Angie
    I understand the interest in making a distinction, but I think the name sounds silly and doesn't convey its meaning well. When I hear it, I get the impression that you're saying (1) you are a nice person and (2) you are an atheist and (3) you feel the need to make such a distinction because these two terms are usually contradictory. The problem is, I don't get all that other meaning from the word "friendly." I just get nice, likes people, etc and "open to other religions" sounds like the more important distinction.

    But if your group is any indication, then it is the other group that is the real subgroup, not the "friendlies." What are they called?
blog comments powered by Disqus