One thing we did not discuss the other day is the surprisingly negative opinions held towards atheists. For instance, Muslims are better received in our nation. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

Matt

Matt--At some of our previous meetings, many of us have commented on how negatively atheists are viewed by the US public. We seem to be about where gays were 15-20 years ago. Many of us are at least partially "in the closet" or use the less offensive term "agnostic". Our consensus has been that theists are very threatened by atheists, who, by definition, do not believe in God, versus an agnostic whom they see as uncertain and possibly will "come around". The truly religious people I know define themselves largely by their faith, and any threat to that is a major threat to who they are. Their world view is also dependent on their faith, hence atheism could potentially throw that into chaos. I suspect this dynamic will gradually change in this country as it did in Europe, with demographics showing each younger generation is less likely to be affiliated with particular Christian sects. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be true of Islam, even in immigrant populations,i.e., they don't appear to be assimilating secular Western values.

I would certainly be interested in any studies that have specifically looked at these trends in the U.S., but this is my general feeling from the reading I've done.

Just like the Boy Scouts - they will accept anyone who professes to believe in a higher power - any higher power. I'm sure some local groups might be more or less strict on this, but that is the official view. So yes, Muslims would be ok, but atheists are not. Girl Scouts don't reqire that. My boys were very disappointed when I told them that when they wanted to join after the Boy Scouts came to their school to recruit. (Biloxi MS) I didn't let my kids go to any more of those school "meetings".

I think a big part of atheist being demonized more than people of other religions has to do with the the indoctrination/recruitment process. Most religions have to worry much more about their children and local citizenry not buying into their dogma than converting to some rival religion. I remember my Paster spending for more time bashing atheism than other religions, and I am sure it is because it posed a far greater threat to the integrity of his flock.
I was in the Boy Scouts as well and must admit it was a blast. I remember the literature containing a bunch of god references , including the oath, but no one in the organization seemed to care much about it. I don't think I would let my kids join though.

Jamar,

interesting thought that "most religions have to worry much more about their children and local citizenry not buying into their dogma than converting to some rival religion." I would think that is likely in developed countries.

Barbara Alex and Jamar,

cost is quite high isn't it? I think I am most interesting in sharing a few key exponents without need to label myself. I don't really like any of the names, though I might choose freethinker if it did not sound a little too much like Free Mason -

M

Matt--I'm not particularly enamored with the term "atheist" either, in part because of the negative connotations and assumptions associated with it. I tend to like "freethinker", but you do make a good point about the possible confusion with "Freemason." As Alex pointed out to me, using the term "freethinker" would probably just lead to more questions and confusion from people we interact with. I am guessing that Matt(a.k.a. Stacey) would say there's nothing wrong with the very accurate term "atheist", i.e., non theist, and that society just needs to catch up with the legitimacy of our world view. The term "gay" was particularly heinous to a majority in this country not so long ago, and that has radically changed with persistent advocacy on their part. Almost more important, I think, was more and more gays coming out of the closet, so your average person began to know them. I suspect that as more of us "come out" as gays did, it will lead to more understanding that we aren't evil sorcerers waiting to devour someone's children.

Plus at my age I have to worry about bad cholesterol, of which I am sure American children are a leading source.

There has been quite a bit written on this topic, and it's fairly well researched. Some reading highlights are this University of Minnesota study, published in 2006 (.pdf); Austin Cline's overview of the UofM study; this 2006 article in Legal Times (.pdf); and the most recent Gallup poll on prejudices as they pertain to voting, from 2007. Of note in that last one: 42% of respondents said they would not vote for their own party's well-qualified 72-year-old presidential nominee. In reality, 90% of Republicans voted for McCain in 2008. So hypotheticals don't always match reality.

A whole lot of atheists - preferably the friendly ones - coming out of the closet is the only thing that will positively affect public perception of us. It's easy to demonize outsiders when they're invisible and you don't know any of them personally. It's not so easy when your beloved friend or family member is one of those outsiders. That's why I wear my atheism on my sleeve, literally and figuratively.

One thing that's popular for discussion among atheists is the idea of coming up with an alternative term for ourselves, so we don't have to use the A-word. But that won't work at all. If the label has to be explained to everyone, it's useless. If part of the explanation includes the fact that you don't believe in gods, it's doubly useless, since it'll just be one more demonized label to add to the list. We've already got a perfectly good and reasonably well understood label. We just need to fix its public perception by being living proof that atheists are fine people, while being open about who we are. I do understand that some atheists would suffer severe and certain consequences if they came out of the closet, and for those atheists, I'm plenty willing to let them remain in the closet. The rest of us, though, should come out. It has worked for every other formerly vilified minority. It will work for us, too.

Once again, we all realize we can count on our fearless leader(Matt a.k.a. Stacey) for guidance on this issue. I've been learning much from him since I joined in April, as reflected in my above comments, but Matt has the ability to make the argument so much more eloquently. We should not in any way be ashamed about being labeled atheist just because of the ignorance of others. I must admit I'm trying to be quiet about the term in my own life due to having children in school with an overwhelming majority of kids from devoutly Christian homes. I don't want them to suffer from my choices, but am teaching them how to assert their own beliefs in inoffensive ways(I hope). I can't imagine what a megaphone I'll turn into once I'm free from this situation and can belch out all this repressed identity.

Matt, I always appreciate you as a source of seemingly infinite information, books, etc..., and these articles were fantastic. I found the Gallup poll info the most interesting. It can be depressing, but I'm a "glass half full" sort of person. While in 2007 only 45% of the electorate would vote for an atheist, in 1958, the first year the question was even included, only 18% would. Between the beginning of the poll in 1937 and 1957, the question wasn't asked, I presume because the thought of electing an atheist for president wasn't even conceivable. I also note the gays don't fare much better: in 1937 33% would vote for one, versus only 55% in 2007. That really isn't much progress in 70 years, or at least much less than I would have thought. Lastly, I was surprised that the numbers for self-identified liberals were so bad. In 2007, 33% would not vote for an atheist and 19% wouldn't vote for a homosexual. I expect conservatives, most of whom are religious, to have worse numbers(and they do), but I have to wonder if "liberal" Christians have reservations about atheists and/or gays. Specifically, the poll did not ask about party affiliation, but rather the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I suspect that many Democrats consider themselves liberal, but wouldn't fit my concept of the word. As a Libertarian, I'm far more liberal on social issues than many Democrats I know.

Anyway, thanks for the articles and your thoughts, Matt. I've printed them off, and hope to see improvements in future years.

The word atheist carries with it an ignorance based negativity. Free people in our free society have a constitutionally protected right to worship anything they choose or not, just as long as no one is being physically harmed. The long term mental manipulation that comes from worship based teaching is deemed to be perfectly acceptable by the majority of society. You can't change that overnight. I have always preferred the term "free thinker" because that is what I do; think free from what I was forced to believe as a child. I don't think atheist, although by the definition of the word, that is what I am. Many words can be interpreted in more than one way. I have had people refer to me as a devil worshiper because that is how they interpret the word atheist. If I don't believe in the existence of God's then it would be kind of hard to believe in the existence of a fallen angle that turned to the dark side. People love to label other people. It is quicker and easier to label people than it is to understand them. Inside organized worship, the rivers and streams of the mind often end up in stagnant mental pools. I like to think my mind continues to expand with truth, knowledge and understanding and is more of a constantly evolving ocean rather than a puddle on the ground. I have been "out of the closet" so to speak for decades. Many people I have known for years slowly loose their religion. I think this is because I offer logic based in fact instead of belief based in tradition. Regardless of polls, I am confident we (atheist/free thinkers) are growing in numbers. No poll has ever asked me what I think about the issue. When viewed from a logical perspective...If by labeling ones self an Atheist places you in a ignorance based negative light with the majority of people you encounter, then why use it? If the label is in the way of being understood and accepted, then loose the label. What we do matters much more than what we say. If ones actions portray an honest and productive person and ones words indicate they are a person who thinks freely, then accepted into this free society one will be. If more and more people start thinking instead of believing, we will slowly shift from minority to majority. It is unfortunate however that societies can be changed overnight through violence but only slowly changed overtime through peace.