I certainly wouldn't say everything you don't believe in affects what you do. I'm assuming that you don't believe in unicorns...how much does that lack of belief affect what you do? You can make the argument that I don't go to church because I'm an atheist (although I know plenty of christians who don't go to church) but you can't make the argument that I would go to church if I wasn't an atheist. You can only speculate about what a person does not do because of a lack of belief....and such speculations don't really inform you about that person at all.
Fair enough.
I think that believers want the label atheism to carry with it a bunch associated beliefs and practices because without those, it's hard to demonize an atheist. How do you criticize and judge someone whom the only thing you know about is the lack of one particular belief? Youcannot make claims about that person's morals, behavior, beliefs, intellect, ideologies, etc...because you don't really know these things. You would have to spend time getting to know each atheist as a person...not simply a label...to find out all those things about them. If you're getting to know them personally....that makes it that much harder to judge them harshly.
Yea, same goes for pretty much any label. No group is homogeneous.
But you asked if there is more to atheism than simply lack of belief. And I contend there is because there are definite trends among self-identifying atheists that go beyond random correlation.
I think that's behind the need of some believers attempts to attach all sorts of beliefs and behaviors to atheism. Without that label meaning more than a lack of belief in god, there isn't much to dislike/hate/mistrust/fear. Without the ability to paint us all in broad strokes and generalizations...one would have to actually get to know atheists as people, not just a label. Lol terrifying.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to demonize anyone.
Labels, generalizations and stereotypes are actually really useful because as humans, we don't have time to get to know each person we interact with on a personal level. Evolution has taught us to make quick judgments about a person and we do it constantly all the time. Its also a way to categorize people so we can remember them.
"Generalizations" and "stereotypes" are seen as a terrible thing it seems, especially on this forum. People get all upset if you stereotype them...even if the person doing the stereotyping is correct!
Atheist: "I'm an atheist."
Me: "Oh, so you're likely politically liberal because that's a fairly statistically reasonable assumption."
Atheist: "Don't stereotype me! Not all atheists are liberal you know!"
Me: "Oh my bad, so you're conservative?"
Atheist: "No...no I'm liberal."
I don't know. I think labels are useful because they can give you a lot of information very quickly. If someone tells you they are a Christian, that gives you a lot of information about what they
likely believe. You might be wrong, but at least it gives you some information as to where to place your reference point.
I think the same goes with atheism. And that's why I said there's more to atheism than just lack of belief. If someone tells me they are an atheist, that gives me a reference point and lot of information about what they are
likely to agree or disagree with. Sure, I might be wrong and there is
always nuance as each individual is unique.
And if someone doesn't want a label (and the associated stereotypes attached), then don't use the label.
Stereotypes are useful if used properly: as reasonable statistical assumptions.
I mean, if you have 100 atheists, how many do you think believe in the supernatural?
Stereotypes can be statistical in that, if I meet an atheist I can be 90-100% sure that they do not believe in supernatural agents or causes.
I'm not out to demonize anyone. I'm just using the information that I've seen, read, heard or experienced to make a synthesis about the myriad number of labels people apply to themselves.
Isn't that what everyone does all the time? Often subconciously?