Perception of Atheism

[Stevil]

It would be interesting to know what the public perception is of Atheism and how any of these Atheist campaigns, billboards, tv commercials etc are impacting this perception.

I did a search for Atheist in my country and found this old article from 2007 "Atheism scary in its sheer conceit" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10418878which is an opinion piece offering one man's opinion on why our country's leaders won't say they are Atheists outright and instead choose to say they are Agnostic. I actually agree with the bishops stance.

An atheist, the bishop decided, believes in human wellbeing but does not source that commitment to a religion.
They were better described as humanists, he said, and in that sense they were deserving of respect.
The bishop also noted, happily, that the parliamentary prayer is under review, as is the nature of prayer at Anzac Day services.
"As a church leader I feel uncomfortable leading prayers in public that have an exclusively Christian ending, thus excluding people of other faiths."

I don't agree with the unbeliever author's stance

It should not fall to an unbeliever to say this but, God help us. This country's religious heritage is Christian; people of other faiths know it. They do not feel excluded when our ceremonies reflect our heritage.

They probably worry, as I do, that if we dilute that identity into some arid catch-all we lose a little more of our society's spiritual roots.

Its actually strange because his reasons to be worried about atheism actually have nothing to do with atheism

Atheism, humanism, rationalism, call it what you like, is a conviction that offers nothing beyond the reach of human knowledge, when their plainly are such things. Not just the obvious: the boggling infinity of the universe and its density that suggests matter we still cannot see. Or the apparently random behaviour of subatomic particles that comprises everything we see. Quantum physics sounds like metaphysics to me.

Our very brain remains largely unexplained. How do thoughts happen? Physically, what is going on in there? How do neurons compose a symphony? What makes us love?
I like mysteries in existence. I'm not religious about it but there are things I sense spiritually, for want of a better word. I want to be awed by infinite possibilities.
A politician who admitted he or she was an atheist would be denying these possibilities. Worse, they would be declaring a fearful conceit that no power is beyond them.

This seems quite an odd stance to me, it's certainly not reflective of what Atheism actually is. Is this man off track or is this actually what the common perception of Atheism is?
Is this why people are fearful or negative towards Atheism?
If this is the case then I don't think the current Atheism advertising campaigns are addressing this perception. The campaigns, to me, seem to be focusing on God or lack of God or life without God. Which in some ways could be perceived as being anti god.
I think the campaigns are struggling to get the focus onto an atheistic stance of tolerance, love and open mindedness which I think is much more key than the "without God" message.
The difficulty is that Atheism simply means that there is a lack of belief in God. Trying to tie in the tolerance, love, rational thinking and open mindedness is a challenge as these are just naturally derived in evolved humanity once religious dogma or scripture are taken out of the equation, however these things are hard to promote as being key selling points of Atheism as there are no teachings or scriptures or constitution towards these.

[terranus]

Hmm...it seems to me that the writer is trying to make a valid argument, but the problem is he is so brainwashed by the "supernatural" he doesn't realize how slanted his point of view is.

If you doubt his bias, then just take another look at these 2 statements:

I like mysteries in existence. I'm not religious about it but there are things I sense spiritually, for want of a better word.

See, right there he is succombing to the same tendency humans have succombed to for millenia...the tendency to blame anything we cannot thoroughly and scientifically explain on some type of supernatural existance.

[xSilverPhinx]

Hmm...it seems to me that the writer is trying to make a valid argument, but the problem is he is so brainwashed by the "supernatural" he doesn't realize how slanted his point of view is.

If you doubt his bias, then just take another look at these 2 statements:

I like mysteries in existence. I'm not religious about it but there are things I sense spiritually, for want of a better word.

See, right there he is succombing to the same tendency humans have succombed to for millenia...the tendency to blame anything we cannot thoroughly and scientifically explain on some type of supernatural existance.

The word 'spiritual' ought to be changed. People can't think beyond it. *eyeroll*  

I, as an atheist with a 'mind', read these ramblings coming from 'spiritual' people while taking them just as seriously as I would take a colour-blind person telling me about how I see colour.

 

Atheism, humanism, rationalism, call it what you like, is a conviction that offers nothing beyond the reach of human knowledge, when their plainly are such things. Not just the obvious: the boggling infinity of the universe and its density that suggests matter we still cannot see. Or the apparently random behaviour of subatomic particles that comprises everything we see. Quantum physics sounds like metaphysics to me.

Is he equating knowledge that humans have achieved or are in the process of investigating with knowledge that are beyond the reach of human knowledge? :| I think it's better than a politician who thinks the highest power is on their side, though...

[Awolf26]

If this is the case then I don't think the current Atheism advertising campaigns are addressing this perception. The campaigns, to me, seem to be focusing on God or lack of God or life without God. Which in some ways could be perceived as being anti god.
I think the campaigns are struggling to get the focus onto an atheistic stance of tolerance, love and open mindedness which I think is much more key than the "without God" message.

I think that the campaigns, so far, have focused more on letting the "closeted" atheists, or those on the fence, know that they are not alone and less to do with changing people's minds. A billboard will not change someone's mind anyway. I think the best thing is for them to focus on who they are focusing on, and maybe some will hit up the websites and learn what the movement is all about.

I agree with you on the "atheist is not a thing" issue too. However, I think they have adopted the name as label for the movement.   

[Sweetdeath]

Why do people always attach the word spiritual to someone?  It's annoying, and I can't take them seriously. I do consider myself a humanitarian though.

I could care less what someone thinks of me as an atheist, but I am definitely someone who does things to help others just because. That's enough for me.

[Gawen]

Perception of atheists? What, the general public or the theistic public? Jeeez, even atheists have differing perceptions of what atheism means. I am not going to give credence to the etymological basis of the term "atheist"; in other words, I will not pry its meaning from outdated dictionaries. Instead, I shall forge forward with what I think it means to be an atheist. Ohh...I can smell the brimstone!

Given the definition of atheism that has been widely "accepted", many moons ago, atheists had been cast in a light which misrepresented their position by the theistic mindset that brought about that very way of thinking. It is bullstein to depict the essence of an atheist as one that disbelieves in Gods.  I don't care what the dictionary says; a definition that fails to capture the essence in/of its meaning is a worthless convoluted definition not deserving of respect by those that grasp what it means to be an atheist. Concluding no Gods by reasoning and therefore believing the reasoned conclusion is an intelligent conclusion, but the theists and/or general public have been hooked into thinking this was a 'believe-one-way' vs a 'believe-another-way' situation.

Atheism has nothing to do with belief, yet theists and the general public simply see atheists as those that believe otherwise. Though it is a conclusion of a few strong atheists that there is no God, it is NOT, I think the position which captures the atheistic essence.  But there's ignorance on the theist's and general public's part, for they can't get past the differentiation between us. It's not a believe versus believe issue. It's a faith versus reasoning criterion that theists have attempted to obfuscate. And THAT is how I see theists and the general public's perception us.

So, after all the bluster above you may finally ask, what is the essence of atheism? It's the internal logical order of concluding' it's the ideology of reasoning. We look at the natural world and see, or for a lack of a better word, sense that which is 'there', and it's from 'there' we make logical conclusions. Our worldview, as it were, naturally flows from our experiences of the natural. At its core, atheists reason. It's a forward-looking...and safe mentality. The theist and general public simply cannot perceive this.

[Whitney]

Gawen, I think you are mixing the word atheist with skeptic and rationalist....there are many atheists (as noted in another recent thread) who lack belief in god just because that's what they feel is true due to how they were raised or through their own experiences; not because they reached the position rationally.

I don't see the point in trying to attach additional qualifiers to the word atheist when other words that already describe a rational approach to understanding the world already exist and can be used as labels in addition to the word atheist.

[Awolf26]

Gawen, I think you are mixing the word atheist with skeptic and rationalist....there are many atheists (as noted in another recent thread) who lack belief in god just because that's what they feel is true due to how they were raised or through their own experiences; not because they reached the position rationally.

I don't see the point in trying to attach additional qualifiers to the word atheist when other words that already describe a rational approach to understanding the world already exist and can be used as labels in addition to the word atheist.

Although I believe people can define what defines them however they want, I mostly agree with you Whitney. I approach the world in a scientific matter. I base my conclusions about the world given empirical evidence, most of the time anyway (it's impossible to look through all the evidence). Because I do so, my conclusions can be changed given new evidence. Hence, I cannot be 100% sure of anything, let alone that there is no god. I am an atheist as a result of my scientific rational approach. I do not use a scientific rational approach because I am an atheist. 

[Gawen]

Let me reread what I wrote...

Well, I did say that I think the general public's and/or the theistic public's perception of atheists are misrepresented by faulty dictionary theistic mindset definitions, which most say "those that don't believe in a god". I think that much is true enough. But I also said the current definitions do not capture the "essence" of atheism or what it means to be an atheist.

But I did say this: "Concluding no Gods by reasoning and therefore believing the reasoned conclusion is an intelligent conclusion..."
Then you (Whitney) say: "....there are many atheists (as noted in another recent thread) who lack belief in god just because that's what they feel is true due to how they were raised or through their own experiences; not because they reached the position rationally. Yes, I concede your point. There is a tribe of nomadic herds-folk in the east Gobi Basin of the Democratic Republic of Mongolia that is entirely without a creation/armageddon/what's-it-all-about mythos and are completely without a thought of a God/s.

But that doesn't quite fill the bill when we're speaking of Western people's and the inundation of Western religions. Would it be true enough today for an atheist who was brought up atheist to never examine or rationalize why they think the way they think? Would it be true enough for such an atheist, when inquired of their stance to answer "Things are the way they are"? Or "I'm an atheist because I was brought up that way"? Especially when so many people around them believe in god/s? Perhaps there are people like that, but I would wager they are in the minority.

As for confusing atheists with skeptics and rationalist, I'm quite aware that all atheists are not skeptics and all skeptics are not atheists. After all, one can have atheistic tendencies toward Christianity's God and be a perfect believer in Wicca's gods and goddesses, for example.

But tell me why you think there is no "essence" of atheism? Consider the definition of "essence" as the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is.

[Whitney]

I don't think there is an essence to the word atheist because I don't see a need to redefine it to include a definition that is already covered by other labels.

[Davin]

Adding in an essence is exclusionary of many people which would require a new word for them to fit into the dichotomy. Theist covers everyone who beleives in a god and atheist covers everyone who doesn't. Changing the definition of the word "atheist" from this destroys the dichotomy requiring another term, instead of keeping things simple and clear, it confuses things and makes them more complicated. Other terms used in addition to atheism/theism to describe a person, keeps things simple and doesn't exclude anyone.

[Gawen]

hmmmm...must think on this.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think (and hope) that one of the simplest explanations of what atheism means is that it isn't theism, deism or any other -ism with a belief in an interventional or non interventional but still conscious god.

That covers everybody who wouldn't be categorised as a theist, whatever the religion. It's better to put it as what it isn't rather than what it is IMO, especially since so many people who are not atheists already think they know everything about atheistic worldviews.

If there were no theists, deists or believers in any sort of conscious and intelligent god or gods, there wouldn't be atheists. It's that simple. People who say that if there were no god then there would be no atheists and can't stop quoting Chesterton don't know how ridiculous they sound.

Now...try explaining to people that 'atheist' does not mean 'communist'. That's a tiring handful.