Chapter 5. Names and symbols.

We live in a day when there is a great war going on in the society in which we live. There are many
battlefronts and aspects to the war, but the primary war in our day is between Christianity and secular
Abounding Joy Christian Website

[W]ords have power to mould men’s thinking, to canalize their feeling, to direct their willing and acting.
Conduct and character are largely determined by the nature of the words we currently use to discuss
ourselves and the world around us.
Aldous Huxley

a. Names

Religionists like to use sharp-edged terms to describe atheists--terms like “secular humanists.”
There is nothing inherently wrong with the term secular humanist. “Secular” simply means
nonreligious and “humanism” is a philosophy that emphasizes ethics and personal responsibility for
the good of humanity without the need for god. There is even a “Council for Secular Humanism,” that
publishes the popular Free Inquiry magazine.

But alternatively, the term “atheist” comes with a lot of baggage. Atheists are one of the most
despised minorities in America. It is little wonder that the majority of people without religion avoid the
term and cluster in a majority known as “nones.” Only about 10% of nonreligious people call
themselves atheists.

Because religionists have been negative about atheists for so long, atheists have sought alternative
terms to describe themselves, including: brights, freethinkers, godless, heathens, heretics,
humanists, infidels, irreligious, materialists, naturalists, nonbelievers, non-theists, nones, pagans,
rationalists, secularists, skeptics, unbelievers and more. This chapter looks briefly at some of these
terms, but I will be up front, the term I prefer and the term I believe we should gather under, is atheist.


Paul Geisert coined the term “brights” in 2002 as a positive term for people with a naturalistic world
view and a commitment to fairness. “Brights” is intended to be positive and empowering in a manner
similar to the adoption of the term “gay,” instead of the sharp-edged and clinical term “homosexual.”

I have two concerns about the term “brights.” The first is that “brights” are unknown except among
those who have been reading about atheism or trolling the Internet for atheist information. If you go to
the local shopping mall and announce that you are a “bright,” the majority will think you are conceited
and only a few will perceive you to be atheist. The second concern is that it sounds elitist, as though
only smart people can be atheists and that theists are dim. I remember reading an Internet
discussion of whether janitors could be atheists. I was appalled. Of course there are many atheist
janitors, I was an atheist janitor at one point in my life. Atheism is not dictated by education,
intelligence or high-status employment. Atheists are everywhere. Taking an elitist approach will result
in atheism being limited to mostly white, college-educated males. I believe we need a more broadly
recognized and inclusive term.


“Freethinker” has a long and honorable history. A freethinker is one who forms opinions on the basis
of reason, independently of authority, especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma.
Freethought was born in Europe in the 1700’s and flourished in Germany. A number of German
freethinkers immigrated to the U.S. in the 1800’s and established freethought communities here,
including Comfort, Texas. The oldest continually published atheist magazine is The Freethinker,
started in Britain in 1881. Putting the lie to the claim that “new atheists” are the first to challenge
religion, the introductory issue said, “The Freethinker is an anti-christian organ, and must therefore
be chiefly aggressive. It will wage relentless war against superstition in general, and against christian
superstition in particular. It will do its best to employ the resources of science, scholarship,
philosophy and ethics . . . [and] any weapons of ridicule or sarcasm that may be borrowed from the
armory of common sense.”

I am fond of the term freethinker. However, “freethinker” describes a process of open-minded
thought, rather than the status of rejecting religion. Further, some argue that religionists can be
freethinkers and conversely, that not all atheists are freethinkers. Additionally, applying the shopping
mall test, if you went to a shopping mall and declared you were a freethinker, the majority of the
people might think you were open-minded, but most would not conclude that you reject religion.


“Godless” is a clear and powerful term. It is a virtual synonym for atheist. But it comes with a lot of
baggage, even more baggage than “atheist.” During the cold war, “godless” was repeatedly linked
with “communist,” and the “godless communists” were vilified. Additionally, “godless” is used by
religionists as a synonym for “wicked or immoral.” In fact, Godless is the title of a book by arch-
conservative Ann Coulter in which she argues that liberalism is a religion.

“Godless” passes the shopping mall test–the majority of the population would understand what you
mean when you tell them you are godless, although it might not apply to non-theistic religions, like
Buddhism. Another problem is that “godless” has the dreaded word “god” in it. Atheism has the
same meaning, but the Greek origin of “atheist” softens the impact and makes it sound a little more
scientific. But absent these factors, only personal preference leads me to choose “atheist” over
“godless” to describe myself.

Irreligious, nonbelievers, non-theists and unbelievers.

The terms “irreligious, nonbelieiver, non-theist and unbeliever” are similar to “godless,” in that they
are quick, clean and easily understood. Each passes the shopping mall test. The hyphenated words
are a little bit tricky to write, and to my ears, they lack a nice ring. The biggest problem is that none of
these terms has been widely adopted by atheists to describe themselves. “Atheist” has a broader
history and better identification by the general public as term describing a person with no belief in


Recent surveys recognize the rapid growth of the number of people with no religion and call them
“nones.” The term has also gained usage in some atheist circles. Unfortunately, when spoken, “none”
sounds exactly like “nun,” sometimes leaving even atheist insiders wondering why the speaker is
talking about a religious woman in a funny outfit. “None” is handicapped because it requires a whole
lot of additional words to get the point across. In a shopping mall, the speaker would first have to
explain he is not calling himself a religious woman and then add another sentence to explain “none”
refers to an absence of religious belief. A quickly understood single term is preferable to the easily
misunderstood “none.”

Heathens, heretics, infidels and pagans.

Religionists use the terms “heathens, heretics, infidels and pagans” to demonize outsiders. Further,
these terms do not designate a rejection of all religion, but rather rejection of a specific religion.
Heathens, heretics, infidels and pagans might well follow a polytheistic religion–just not Judaism,
Christianity or Islam. Also, these terms would not result in broad recognition if used to the general
public in a shopping mall. These may be fun terms to get the attention of certain religionists, but they
are not a multipurpose tool to describe a movement based on a lack of belief in religion.

Materialists, naturalists, rationalists and skeptics.

Multiple meanings and no immediate link to the rejection of religion are shortcomings of the labels
“materialist, naturalist, rationalist and skeptic.” For example, if I announce I am a naturalist, more
people would think I like visiting nudist colonies than understand that I reject religion. None of these
terms conveys specifically the rejection of religion and none passes the shopping mall test.


“Secularist” refers to someone who rejects or excludes religion. It is a fairly good synonym for atheist.
I have three main objections to the term. The first is that religionists really like to use it. This may be a
little silly, but I do not want religionists to choose the term that describes me. The second is that
“secular” is a hard, angular sounding term. Perhaps that is why religionists like using it so much–it
sounds unpleasant. Or maybe religionists like it because “secular” sounds a bit like “sexual,” a term
they are accustomed to using in demonizing “homosexuals,” and a term they think polite company
wants to avoid. The third objection is that for a substantial portion of the population, the rejection of
religion does not pop into mind when they hear the term “secular.” The average college-educated
person understands, but I would guess that 50% of the people in the shopping mall would not
understand that it means a rejection of religion. Atheists need a broad coalition and a name
understood by the great majority of the general public.


The American Humanist Association describes humanism as “a progressive philosophy of life that,
without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal
fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” Humanists seem like nice people and I have
little disagreement with their goals. But I see two problems with humanism. First, humanism does not
exclude religion. There are a number of humanists who are also religionists. Second, humanists
seem to be working awfully hard to prove that they can be good without god (see Chapter 7). I do not
disagree with humanism, but it adds an unneeded factor, like saying you must be liberal to be
atheist. I am both, but the categories are not necessarily intertwined, there are plenty of right-wing
conservatives who are also atheists. There is no need to add an extra requirement to our common
bond–the absence of religious belief. Humanists say you must be both ethical and not supernatural. I
am both, but once again, the categories do not need to be intertwined. Ethical conduct and morality
appear to be as important an element of the humanist agenda as the rejection of supernaturalism. To
me, humanism is “atheism plus,” atheism plus ethics structured in response to a challenge from
religionists. In fact, humanism was originally called a new religion and retains some of the structure of
religion. Most humanists may be atheists, but humanism is more than atheism.


“Atheist” is the term I support. First, it is the most common term to describe a person with no belief in
religion. When you say, “I am an atheist” in the shopping mall, almost everyone knows what you are
talking about. Second, it is a term that has been around for hundreds of years, so it has a lot of
history behind it. Third, using the term honors the proud atheists who came before us, people who
accepted the label “atheist” and worked hard to educate a mostly hostile population about the merits
of atheism. Fourth, the term “atheist” does not intertwine itself with other issues like ethics. And
finally, fifth, atheism does not imitate or duplicate religion, it is the absence of religious belief and
nothing more. However, the first reason is the strongest reason, “atheist” is the most widely
recognized term to describe a lack of belief in religion.

In a rare study of the terms organizational atheists choose to describe themselves, Luke Galen found
that when they were allowed to choose multiple terms to describe themselves, 77% included the term
atheist, 63% humanist and 29% agnostic. However, when only allowed one term to describe
themselves, 57% choose atheist, 24% humanist and 10% agnostic. Galen additionally found that the
term atheist is used more commonly by younger people. So there is support that atheist is the
preferred term among the godless, and is becoming increasingly preferred among our younger
members who represent the future.

It is true that the term “atheist” was originally used as an insult (people were accused of being
atheists, they never labeled themselves as such). But instead of minting a new term like “brights,” we
can take an already recognized one and make it positive, much like “homosexuals” did with the term
“gay.” It is also true that “atheist” is negative–it defines a person by what he is not (more about this in
Chapter 6). But I find it the best term to describe myself. It does not carry the additional burdens of
fairness or ethics desired by the humanists and brights. It is quickly understood by the general
population to describe a person with no belief in religion, and it is a term that has stood the test of
time. For these reasons, I prefer to be called an atheist. So to adopt a marching chant of others
seeking equality, “Say it loud, atheist and proud.”

Atheist organizations.

Atheists have little in common other than their lack of belief in religion. Additionally, atheism, as a
mass movement, is a relatively recent phenomenon. As such, there are few national organizations
with broad membership. The American Humanist Association, which claims to be America’s largest
and oldest, has 15,000 members. The Freedom From Religion Foundation which claims to be
America’s largest atheist organization, has around 14,000 members. American Atheists, one of the
oldest national atheist groups still operating in the U.S. has about 3,000 members. The Secular
Coalition for America has attempted to become an atheist umbrella group, but as of this writing, it
has just ten member groups. The Atheist Alliance International serves a similar purpose with an
international scope and has about 56 member groups. The Secular Student Alliance is doing better
than its elders with about 186 U.S. member groups.

Atheists have not yet developed a strong national voice. Atheist organizations look pitiful when
compared to religionists. For example the National Association of Evangelicals claims a
membership of 30 million people. Although there are national atheist organizations, no single
organization has succeeded in uniting the atheists’ voices. At this point in time atheists remain a
relatively powerless and generally despised minority.
All original contents copyright 2010 & 2018, all rights reserved.