The definition of atheist is so weak. Why do we need a label for someone who doesn't believe in something that doesn't exist?
So I am not an "atheist", I am a scientist. Not educated as one, but a scientific thinker. I am a realist. I live in reality, not in the realm of imagination. I am a rationalist, I believe in rational thinking, not imaginary thinking.
Sometimes I do call myself an "atheist," but only to observe the reaction I get from believers.
The fact is, we live in the real world, but imagine ourselves in the imaginary world.
For the same reason that we have labels for lots of other things.
It saves time.
Labels are a convenient way of communicating. Not all labels are 'one size fits all' and not all labels are accurate, but they are a good starting point.
If you don't like the label because it desn't fit, then don't use it.
Personally, depending on the definition, I don't think the definition of atheist is weak. If there wasn't a significant number of people out there who believe in some sort of god, then there wouldn't be a need for anyone to say they don't believe in god.
I am an atheist. I don't generally run around bragging about it and I rarely tell people about it in general conversation. But the label does accurately reflect my position - I don't believe the claims of theists that gods exist. That's it.
No other word accurately reflects my position on the god claim. And that's all it is. It doesn't say anything about my politics, the way I think, my sexuality or my morality.
I hate labels. I refuse to identify with any of them. When anyone asks me questions like are you a feminist ,liberal ,atheist, vegetarian, foodie, Christian or any of the millions of labels we give individuals I know it's a bear trap and I'm getting ready to lose a limb.
I just tell people I'm an Atheist, explain it if needed, and get on with my day. It's a shortcut way of saying that I don't swallow crap and call it a cookie.
What else would we call ourselves ?
I don't call myself... I don't label me and I always know were I am.
Because labels are a way of understanding by talking to other people.
Dude, there is so much b.s. out there. I have no label. There's no club with dues and a card that I belong to. But thumpers arguments are tedious and at 70 I don't waste time on convincing some moron the error of they're ways. Not pertinent to my life. But shit like pence holding bible studies in the fuckn Whitehouse will cause me to get nasty pissed.
Fuck the white house.
is that a double negative ?
Sounds like it, doesn't it? If I don't believe in something that doesn't exist, I must believe in things that do exist Things like reality.
I guess as long as we're in the minority, we have to be labeled.
We could not have any exact science without strict definitions. They define the realm and acknowledge our limits. They also make for shortcuts in communications. When I say "mean value theorem" every Mathematician understand me w/o any confusion. And it is much shorter than stating it and proving it every time I utter it.
But philosophy and especially theology do not have this mechanism and people do not get the exact same information from a term like "atheist". Labels based on ignorance, even partial ignorance, are a bit dangerous, but still mostly useful. Dangerous because atheist will be beheaded in some places. This actually proves that tolerance is the key.