Nine years ago, I walked away from Christianity. But I  am not an atheist! Initially, I didn’t embrace atheism, this took some time. Atheism didn’t appeal to me then. My Christian belief system started to change when I submitted to the voice of reason within. Reason became my friend because it encouraged me to abandon the life of faith and the Bible.  

Sunday, August 29, 1999 was officially my last day performing any type of church function. I was asked earlier in the week to lead the closing prayer and complied as a non-Christian.  I am certain that the prayer sounded “funny” because on Friday the 27th, I had determined to make a clean break away from Christianity and only return to church for things like weddings and funerals.  If you would have asked me then, “Are you leaving because you became an atheist?” I would probably not have known how to answer you. 

The either/or proposition: where the trouble begins 

I left Christianity because it didn’t make sense to me.  The position of atheism was a non-factor in my decision. I didn’t believe in the god of the Bible any longer and could plainly state my case against it.  I was confident that I could withstand any Christian’s questioning that intended to persuade me to remain a Christian. However, I would have become “testy” if someone came at me with something like the following “either/or” proposition, ”Since you are no longer a Christian Brian, this would make you an atheist!”  I would not have allowed anyone to brand me then with the “atheist label”.  This isn’t due to any type of rebellion; I just didn’t want to claim that god does not exist! This was my understanding; back then, of what an atheist believes. 

Lifelong or long-term atheists might not understand where I am coming from when I refer to the atheist label. This is one reason why I am writing this article.  Another reason is due to the definition of atheism that is in the minds of perhaps 95% or more of today’s Christians.  This understanding of a Christian’s working definition of an atheist isn’t scientific, but in my belief, this is the reality of the situation! The Christian definition of atheism/atheist would be viewed something like this, “ anyone that rejects their god and/or anyone else that expresses or believes the idea that god does not exist”.  

Nine years after leaving Christianity, I see how clever those that desire the perpetuation of religion were at successfully MISLABELING atheism. At this point in history, it isn’t important to find out how or who “mislabeled” atheism, but to realize the fact that atheism was indeed mislabeled!  

How Atheism acquiesced into the theist trap and why atheism will always be misunderstood! 

Theists have yet to offer satisfactory proof of their god(s). This is their burden, as well as their trap that is set for anyone that will accept the opposing identity of theism (atheism).  People who do not accept god(s) should run from identifying themselves under the naked term of atheism!  That is if they wish to reach the Christian decision maker. As soon as we accept the term atheism, within the Christian mindset, we accept the opposing burden of needing to prove that god(s) do not exist! This absurd idea should never become the burden of those that reject god(s). 

The term atheism should have never been coined, because to do so you have to accept the validity of the delusional term of theism. Atheism will always be misunderstood, because it has always been a bastard term. People that reject god(s) should have never fallen into the trap, nor should they have accepted the inappropriate label of atheism as an identity! When we use the term atheism we have to accept the legitimacy of the concept of theism and then turn around and reject it by placing the prefix “a” before it in atheism!  

It is to be understood that I am not calling into question the Greek etymology of theism here, just the legitimacy!  Since god is an intangible and unverifiable concept, should atheism be considered as a legitimate term since theism cannot be verified? I am not a linguist, but when researching for this article,  I encountered a fascinating introduction to the term null morpheme (see Appendix I at the end of this article).  If a reputable linguist could establish that  theism/atheism are indeed null morpheme terminology, I would love to know what the ramifications of this discovery would mean. Perhaps my musing is baseless, but I have long suspected that something is wrong with the term atheism. 

I’m certain that the clever perpetuators of religion understood this trap and were very pleased that people who don’t accept god(s) acquiesced to the identity of atheism! Rather than choosing an antonym for theism, they instead chose a prefix. With no middle ground, the theism concept becomes an “either/or” proposition with atheism.  Either you’re a theist or you are an atheist. The theist takes comfort in the fact that their opponent, the atheist, who cannot prove that god(s) don’t exist, has been effectively neutralized within the Christian mindset! 

Why Christian’s claim that atheists have faith 

With this understanding, (the either/or proposition) it is easy to see why Christians claim that atheists accept their belief by faith, just like the theists do their belief! Plainly stated, when you cannot prove something but wish to believe it, this becomes a belief in belief or a faith proposition! Atheists get upset when Christians claim this, but hopefully now you will understand why it is that they could conceive this idea in their minds. 

The atheist can effectively cast strong doubt upon the Bible and the faith of the Christian. But ultimately the Christian views the atheist as failing to prove his point about god not existing.  The atheists can ask the Christian to come over to his atheism position, but the Christian isn’t likely to leave Christianity and walk directly into atheism, even if the atheist destroyed his faith in faith! Offer him a better alternative than this flawed concept of atheism and perhaps atheism gains a new member. 

Earlier, I stated that I would not have allowed anyone to “label” me as an atheist at that point in my life.  It had nothing to do with lacking courage; I was already ashamed and refused to be called a Christian any longer!  The key to understanding atheism’s failure to reach the Christian decision maker is contained within the idea of atheism already having been “mislabeled”!   

The Value of Proper Labels 

Lets take a quick look at the concept of branding. There are perhaps thousands of types of candies, but when you say M&M’s we all know generally what you are referring to. The Coca-Cola trademark is so strong that not only is the drink internationally known, people also know from which country it originated. 

Taking a closer look at the M&M brand, you should understand that you have several varieties of those small chocolaty treats.  To be specific, you must make a choice from one of the 12 different varieties that are now available.  To vocally express which type you desire, you must first place a descriptive adjective like “Peanut” in front of the M&M’s so that the clerk knows which specific product of the twelve types of M&M’s that you wish to purchase.  Otherwise, you will probably be given one of the most popular types by default. 

 This, in short, is an example of what happens when the word atheism appears or is expressed by someone. Christians don’t know, or perhaps don’t care to know the differing types of atheism. Whenever the words atheist/atheism arises with the Christian decision maker, their “working” default definition of “ anyone that rejects their god and/or anyone else that expresses or believes the idea that god does not exist” settles the matter! In the Christian mind, this “cocky” idea that the atheist knows that there isn’t a god is repugnant to them. Educated Christians know that you cannot prove that god does or does not exist, you can only choose if you want to believe in either concept.  They see the atheist as being unreasonable by overlooking this elementary fact and thus tune out whatever it is that the atheist might want to say now or in the future!  At this point, and forward, atheism has lost the respect and attention of the Christian decision maker! 

Atheists that fail to understand this point will only perpetuate atheism’s failure to reach the Christian decision maker in the future. I strongly urge my fellow atheists to not overlook or lightly dismiss this important point!  Good salesmen know that if you ignore an objection during a presentation that it will come back and “bite” you when you try to close the deal. 

 I desire to see atheism grow, not because it is my position of choice, but due to the fact that I see religion as being so detrimental to society!  Atheism’s targeted growth market should be aimed at Christians. We are all familiar with atheists that exalt atheism and combatively come out swinging against Christians. I think that atheists should take a business like approach and work on the concept/perception of atheism. I think that atheists should rather trumpet reason than atheism. 

We know how people become Christians, but do we understand why people become atheists? Of the two positions, atheism and theism, atheism should be considered the default position from birth. A breakdown in reason allows man to become a theist. An application of sound reason will restore that same theist back into the atheist position.  I think it is easier to apply sound reason than to fix a flawed concept of atheism. 

Trouble begins at point (a): The parallels of (a)millennialism & (a)theism 

To fix this flawed concept, I suppose you could throw some money at a  marketing company and ask them to resolve this problem, but this would be an expensive indulgence into fantasy. I would rather show my atheist brethren the history and results of something similar that has happened within the Christian world within the last century! Those familiar with the Bible understand the “heat” generated when Christians discuss their views of the millennium! Just as you add an “a” to theism and thus mislabel the position of atheism, you do the same when you add an “a” to millennialism and thus mislabel the position of amillennialism! 

How to Frame a Strong Oppos ing Viewpoint 

People in control created gods and religions to better manage people. When smart people got wise to this manipulation and abandoned those gods, the people in control framed these dissenter's position in an unfavorable light by skillfully using simple but clever language. Staying within a religious context, let us look at a present day fundamentalist stronghold of the premillenial return of Christ as a classic example of framing an undesirable competing viewpoint.  

It is common knowledge that Augustine took the view that the Rev. 20 usage of the term 1,000 years was to be properly understood as figurative language, not literal! The scriptures plainly state that John saw the “souls” and those “beheaded” and that these reigned a 1,000 years with Christ. Realistically, can anyone see a soul (non-corporeal being)? How can a beheaded person reign and render judgment without having a head to reason with? Both of the previous questions are impossible to be understood literally, and thus the early church took the view that this 1,000-year period was not intended to be literally understood as premillenialists misinterpret it to be today! 

Those that take the amillennial position, this meaning that the Bible doesn’t intend to proclaim a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ upon the earth, have correctly understood their Bible’s intent.  This premillenialist viewpoint has great geo-political ramifications, but to establish this position the other reasonable millennial concepts had to be framed in an unfavorable understanding.  Amillennialist today are casts as those that do not believe the Bible literally (the Amillennialist is falsely portrayed). One hundred and thirty years ago, you would have had a difficult time finding a premillennial Baptist, the majority of Baptist then were either amillennial or postmillennial.  The magic of miscasting an undesirable position by adding the “a” prefix has done wonders for the premillenialist position. So much so, that it is difficult to find an amillennialist Baptist today. How do I know? I was an amillennial Baptist!  

My point of showing this slice of history is to illumine the fantasy that the concept of atheism can be worked upon, fixed or repackaged to produce favorable results. We have a couple of hundred years of history to look upon as atheists. Are you satisfied with the results?  In my opinion, whatever we do while holding the identity of atheism will ultimately under perform. Yes, people will keep leaving the faith because they finally listened to reason, but they are not directly walking into the atheist household.  Simply put, atheism isn’t an attractive alternative for Christians.  

Searching for Solutions 

My thesis for this article is atheism’s failure to reach the Christian decision maker. Atheists may have some minor differences within, but we all basically understand each other in that we do not believe in gods! But this understanding is good only within our own house or movement. 

When I converse with atheists, I call myself an atheist because we understand each other. I am not trying to persuade them to become a disbeliever in god(s). In the  In Two Minds: The Anatomy of a Christian Hate Letter  series when I wrote to Christians, I referred to myself as an agnostic. Why? Because in their “Christian mindset” this is exactly what I am.  To me, the message is more important than my label. I find it ironic that I could state my religious atheist position to a Christian and that they would in turn classify my stated position not as an atheist, but as an agnostic! It is apparent to me that it is human nature for people to put you into some type of category (labeling) when they know the discussion will involve intellectual depth.  The Christian’s perception of atheism is often different from the reality. Atheists know who and what we are, but the Christian’s perception of atheism has been distorted by the afore mentioned problems. 

Those of us that do not believe in god(s) find it desirable to have a recognizable identity.  The atheist identity allows us to come together in discussions and thus works within our own community. But it doesn’t work so well outside of our community!  So either we maintain the status quo or seek a better alternative. In my opinion, the content and diversity within atheism is exceptional, but the label is just horrible!  My hope is that atheists would be open to paradigm shifts to facilitate a better Christian understanding of our godless position. 

The salesman in me sees a vast ripened market full of Christians that some atheists have given up on.  Atheists need to quit presuming that Christians are stupid and show them respect until they lose the respect with stupid arguments!  We need to instruct and nurture then like a child, rather than scold them like a stray dog. I think that we need to reach the Christian decision maker and get them excited!  Most people, Christians included, will get excited about a better life, if we properly show them the way! This process starts when we quit telling them that we know that god doesn’t exist! Those atheists that still claim that they know that god doesn’t exist need to clearly identify the mental process (deduction, hypothesis, etc.) by which they make this claim.  Dogmatic sounding claims are received better when you reveal the rational process of acquisition. 

Some suggestions to consider 

First, perhaps we should drop the atheism “buzzword” and simply refer to our position as humanism, and thus call ourselves humanists! This way we have avoided the “trap” of the either/or proposition of theism-atheism. He have an identity that is uniquely ours and we are escaping the absurd expectation of trying to prove that gods don’t exist. This would bewilder the Christian decision maker! When the Christian counters with the “straw man” line of, “Well you are still an atheists in my mind” we simply look them in the eye and say “ We believe in tangible humanity, not some imaginary god(s), now when you prove that god(s) actually exist then we can legitimately discuss atheism”!  Simply put, we shouldn’t allow anyone to pull us back into the either/or proposition of atheism. 

Second, we should avoid using “stupid arguments” when trying to reach the Christian decision maker!  Kai E. Nielsen has written a sound refutation about these stupid arguments” !  Any good Bible college trains their students to watch for those that will try to change the meaning of classic definitions.  The stupid argument that I am referring to is those atheists that push the “lack of belief” definition of atheism. They, in their own minds, think that they have clandestinely changed the world’s dictionaries to redefine the classic definition of atheism.  This crowd besmirches our character and intellectual reputation as atheists! 

Third, if you insist upon keeping the identity of atheism then at least add a descriptive adjective in front of atheism to indicate what it is that you are atheist about (#1 the impossibility of god existing   #2 belief in god(s) of faith and religion). In reality, this is what I attempted to do in my earlier article “What Are You? An Atheist or Agnostic?” when I referred to myself as a religious atheist. When you communicate with theists are you saying that: 1) god(s) don’t exist (Hardcore, strong or whatever other name you want to give this type of  atheist)  2)  or that you reject religion and faith but not addressing the possibility of a God question for whatever reason   (Religious atheist).  Remember if you don’t spell it out clearly to them, they will automatically place you into their default definition, which is the “hardcore” atheist position. 

Fourth, de-converted Christians are perhaps the most zealous “evangelistic atheists” around. The problem, in my observation, is that many of them haven’t fully worked through their grief issues from “losing Christianity”. I think that Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’s  theory about the 5 stages of grief:  1) Denial 2) Anger 3) Bargaining 4) Depression 5) Acceptance is often applicable to those recovering from deep-seated religious beliefs. Although their intentions maybe good, I think that often they do much more harm than good! Angry atheists make it more difficult for well-adjusted atheists to reach the Christian decision maker!   

In closing, I think that it is unwise for those of us that don’t believe in gods to try to rewrite dictionaries due to the fact that some do not like certain classic definitions. We don’t need to try to sneak in the “back door” because the front door is wide open and even has a welcome mat! I think that there are many Christians, who like my former self, are reachable, open to reason, and have the capacity to walk away from their faith. Perhaps we just need to fire the “Atheist CEO” and all of the ineffective salesmen because they have failed to reach the Christian decision maker. Yes, we have grown but we can do so much better!  Calling ourselves humanist would generate curiosity and open dialogue. Dropping the atheist label is long overdue. Humanism is a better alternative!

 APPENDIX I   (A cut and paste primer gathered from Wikipedia)

a morpheme is the smallest linguistic unit that has semantic meaning.

The concept morpheme differs from the concept word, as many morphemes cannot stand as words on their own. A morpheme is free if it can stand alone, or bound if it is used exclusively alongside a free morpheme. Its actual phonetic representation is the morph, with the morphs representing the same morpheme being grouped as its allomorphs.

English example:

The word "unbreakable" has three morphemes: "un-" (meaning not x), a bound morpheme; "-break-", a free morpheme; and "-able", a bound morpheme. "un-" is also a prefix, "-able" is a suffix. Both are affixes.

Bound morphemes are primarily root morphemes that cannot stand alone. To determine if a root is bound, strip the root of all of its affixes. If the root is standalone, it is usually immediately obvious (ex. fire, run, help). If you are not sure, you might have a bound morpheme

In morpheme-based morphology, a null morpheme is a morpheme that is realized by a phonologically null affix (an empty string of phonological segments). In simpler terms, a null morpheme is an "invisible" affix. It's also called zero morpheme; the process of adding a null morpheme is called null affixation, null derivation or zero derivation. The concept was first used over two thousand years ago by Pāṇini in his Sanskrit grammar. [(Some linguists object to the notion of a null morpheme, since it sets up (they say) an unverifiable distinction between a "null" or "zero" element, and nothing at all.)] Within this [] is Exminister’s emphasis!

The null morpheme is represented as either the figure zero (0), the empty set symbol ø, or its variant Ø.

POSTNOTE:  When you express things publicly like I do, you open yourself up for a variety of things. I readily admit that my views have evolved when I speak about labels and identities. At the end of each article, I have placed the date of when it was written. In essence, this article is a sequel to my article:What Are You? An Atheist or Agnostic?” . I think that I made some very good points in that article, but as far as labels go, humanist is superior and a better expression than a religious atheist, or atheist! From this point forward, I consider myself a humanist and will seek to avoid calling myself any type of atheist. People that know me personally, would tell you that I am more concerned about being effective and getting the job done than I am about some position or title placed upon me by others. I have always been the type that could admit that I had changed my mind about something because my ego isn’t that big.  

 I suppose that it took a few of the rabid and unethical atheist knuckleheads of the “lack of belief crowd” on exchristian.net to open my eyes about definitions of atheism.  I have sensed that some people just like to argue. I certainly enjoyed my interaction with several fine people at the afore mentioned site, but it is time to move forward and identify with people that represent similar values that I seek to live by.  Kudos to a man named Rich that started my thinking about humanism. Although at the time I was familiar with http://www.secularhumanism.org/  and the writings of Paul Kurtz  (I have always listed then on my links web page), I had not yet considered humanism as a superior identity when compared to atheism.

Ex-minister's Blog

Website/Contact Information