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.
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.
Is “Friendly Atheist” a Stupid Term?
My friend Franklin recently posted a critique of the term “friendly atheist”. Franklin reviews a definition of “friendly atheist” by Hemant Mehta and says,
I posted a comment in response to Franklin, where I said,
What do you think?