What is Atheism's supposed PR problem?

[BlackLight]

Sam Harris has said that "'atheist' is right next to 'child molester,' as a designation" - which seems more than a little hyperbolic to me. Dan Barker, a former minister turned atheist, has also remarked on atheism's PR problem.

Honestly, it's never occurred to me to duck the atheist label, except in cases where I didn't want to invite a conversation that I didn't think was going to go anywhere. Now, I don't think that an open Atheist is ready to become President or anything, but to compare it with homosexuals, they have a PR problem. It's not of their own doing, unless it's a crime to exist and not wanting to be treated like 2nd class citizens, but they have a PR problem none the less. Compared to that, atheism doesn't feel like it's even registering a blip. At worst, atheism is getting itself lumped in with secularists, humanists, evolutionists, and gays as trying to actively subvert America's moral and allegedly religious foundations.

I get that, according to the polls, most Americans believe in a God of some sort, and some organized religions see it as part of their mission to fight against forces that don't fall in line with their doctrine. But that, to me, is different than a truly organized effort to create an aura of shame around the word 'atheist,' or beat back atheism's influence.

 

[Unwardil]

Little bit of good natured hyperbole on Sam's part I think. Try casually mentioning that you're a child molester as an off colour joke and see what kind of reaction you get.

Imagine the conversation.

"Whoa dude, check that girl out."

"Is she over Twelve, cause if so, not interested."

"...Yeah, right, no seriously..."

"Yeah. Like Micheal. And I don't mean dunking ability. Unless we're talking about Child Molestation, in which case..."

"...I don't even know how to respond to that. A-are you joking? I mean, you have to be joking because nobody actually just comes right out and says that..."

And then if you really pressed the issue it would really only go two ways, 1 with them walking away with an acute need to bathe, the other with them punching you in the face.


Say you're an atheist though.

"Thank God that car stopped in time."

"Nah, I'd rather thank the Motor Vehicle safety regulations that require all vehicles to pass a safety inspection, including brakes."

"Well, I'm just saying, good thing he stopped."

"Yeah, or you'd be dead."

"It's what you say though."

"Not me."

"Huh. I never knew that about you."

"I am pleased to have enlightened you as to my religious beliefs slash affiliations and or lack thereof."

"You're also a pretentious little shit aren't you..."

"Yes, but in all fairness, you already knew that."

"I did at that good sir."



See? Nothing like being a self admitted child molester.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Sam Harris has said that "'atheist' is right next to 'child molester,' as a designation" - which seems more than a little hyperbolic to me. Dan Barker, a former minister turned atheist, has also remarked on atheism's PR problem.

Honestly, it's never occurred to me to duck the atheist label, except in cases where I didn't want to invite a conversation that I didn't think was going to go anywhere. Now, I don't think that an open Atheist is ready to become President or anything, but to compare it with homosexuals, they have a PR problem. It's not of their own doing, unless it's a crime to exist and not wanting to be treated like 2nd class citizens, but they have a PR problem none the less. Compared to that, atheism doesn't feel like it's even registering a blip. At worst, atheism is getting itself lumped in with secularists, humanists, evolutionists, and gays as trying to actively subvert America's moral and allegedly religious foundations.

I get that, according to the polls, most Americans believe in a God of some sort, and some organized religions see it as part of their mission to fight against forces that don't fall in line with their doctrine. But that, to me, is different than a truly organized effort to create an aura of shame around the word 'atheist,' or beat back atheism's influence.

The only people who have low opinion of atheist are those who are already out to demonize it, and they feel threatned. Being lumped togheter with "secularists, humanists, evolutionists, and gays" says allot about the people lumping them. What exactly is wrong about being a secular or a humanist? Are moments in life not associated with religion such an alien concept? Altough "evolutionists" doesn't exist, but lets use it as people who think evolution is an acurate explenation of our origins, what is wrong about looking at reality as it is? And what the hell is wrong if some people are gay?
I will tell you what is wrong, it is because those fundamental creationist bigots are also a bunch of idiots who still live in the dark ages, that is what is wrong with it.

 

[SleepingDragon]

The term "Atheist" has had negative connotations since it's origins, and the church has certainly capitalized on that. I was always lead to believe that all atheists were rude, swearing, in your face ranters striving to end Christmas and persecute the religious. The flip side is that most of the people who believe in that stereotype can very rarely name one example of an atheist actually acting that way--well, that stands up to scrutiny anyway.

Atheism will have a PR problem as long as the religions of the world campaign against it. I would expect most of my religious family members to have a problem with opinions -- after all, most of them think that atheists are going to hell. Instead of asking themselves how any form of "Heaven" could be complete without those they love in it, they will chose to believe that atheists are simply condemning themselves.

I'm not sure if there's a true solution to the problem. All I can think of is to defy the stereotypes concocted in the heads of the masses, and be civil but firm in our opinions.

 

[RedYellow]

Frankly I think it's because atheists get associated with people like Richard Dawkins, who, to be quite honest, I find to not be the best at representing the broader scope of what it means to be an atheist. I mean he's a smart guy, sure, but he's a little too smart and sort of detached from the more emotional and philosophical side of atheism. Believers use him as an example to say that all atheists are cold, intellectual elitists who mostly argue from a scientific point of view while allowing them to ignore the more down-to-earth atheists that are just trying to live their lives free of religion. I'll even say that I'm not particularly impressed by Dawkins either. I like Sam Harris alot better. He argues very human reasons for rejecting religion, and he kicked WL Craig's ass because of that.

 

[MorituriMax]

To me the explanation is simple.

Atheists are grouped together solely based on a lack of belief in something, not a belief in something. It's like saying all the people in the world who don't like fishing should get together and form a group based on the idea that not liking fishing is a goal we can all get behind.

We're not out to convert the whole world into not liking fishing just like us. It's like trying to prove a negative.

 

[Aught3]

Frankly I think it's because atheists get associated with people like Richard Dawkins, who, to be quite honest, I find to not be the best at representing the broader scope of what it means to be an atheist. I mean he's a smart guy, sure, but he's a little too smart and sort of detached from the more emotional and philosophical side of atheism. Believers use him as an example to say that all atheists are cold, intellectual elitists who mostly argue from a scientific point of view while allowing them to ignore the more down-to-earth atheists that are just trying to live their lives free of religion. I'll even say that I'm not particularly impressed by Dawkins either. I like Sam Harris alot better. He argues very human reasons for rejecting religion, and he kicked WL Craig's ass because of that.

That's interesting. I like Richard Dawkins a lot better than I like Sam Harris. I've started reading both Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith but couldn't finish either. I've never seen a Dawkins book that I could stop reading. Sometimes I would like Dawkins to go a little bit deeper on the philosophical side but his strength is around science and biology so I can see why he sticks with it. Harris on the other hand has some views that I strongly disagree with, I can be persuaded to be about as militant as Hitchens but Harris takes it to another level. For example, I just won't view torture as a form of collateral damage.

As for the debate I heard it described by one person as a joint press-conference - sounds right to me. If you want to see Craig called on his BSing tactics check out his debate with Shelly Kagan.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I think it's just a leftover from generations past. My parents are still uneasy about interracial marriage and gays, and they think atheist is a dirty word. Older generations were just brought up taught that atheists were commie scum who hate America, love, and kittens.

 

[BlackLight]

For the record, here is a link to Sam Harris making the "child molester" comparison. The video is on the right, 3rd one down:

http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist

Now, it may not be completely in context, but it doesn't seem like "good-natured hyperbole" on Sam's part.

Scanning this thread, I see a lot of commonsense reasons why atheists aren't hugely popular in a country where something like 90% of people self-identify as believing in a God. And I can even understand why some atheists might not feel inclined to "out" themselves at work, for fear of discrimination. I just don't see how all this adds up to a PR problem on the scale of what Sam Harris is talking about. He seriously makes it sound like, if he were both an atheist and a child molester, but was allowed to choose which fact people people would know about him, that he'd almost have to flip a coin.

If anything, I think the reason atheists don't have much of a PR problem is that we're not really organized in any significant way (certainly not on the level of other unpopular groups in America). And the reason we're not that organized is that we don't really need to be. Creationism in the Classroom has been beaten back on school boards and in courts in virtually every place they've tried to push it through. Ditto for the Ten Commandments in school. Without much active opposition from the atheist contingent, the Evan-Right has been effectively running in place trying to get their issues taken seriously.

 

[Laurens]

What we need is to address the PR problem, perhaps with billboards like this:

That should change people's opinions :mrgreen: