Richard Dawkins has a bright idea: Atheists are the new gays. Is he joking? Not at all. The bestselling author of The God Delusion has been suggesting for two years now that atheists can follow the example of gays. You see, gays have found a good name. Gays used to be called homosexual, but then they decided to pick a positive-sounding name like "gay." Suddenly the meaning of the term "gay" was entirely appropriated by homosexuals. Dawkins cited this example in advocating that atheists call themselves "brights." After all, atheist is a somewhat negative term because it defines itself by what it is opposed to. "Bright" sounds so much happier and, more important, smarter. "Bright" kind of reflects the high opinion that atheists have of their own intellectual abilities. Even the stupidest village atheist gets to pat himself on the back and place himself in the tradition of science and philosophy by calling himself a "bright."
Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don't want to? I don't know if Dawkins would support "outing" atheists. Can an atheist "rights" group be far behind? Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?
Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. How bright is it for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn't seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America. And if Dawkins' public relations skills seem lacking in this area, they are positively abysmal when they come to building support for science. Remember that Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science. He has a chair funded by a Microsoft multimillionaire. If I were that guy, I'd withdraw the support, not because I disagree with Dawkins, but because I think he is setting back the cause of science. Basically Dawkins is saying if you are religious, then science is your enemy. Either you choose God or you choose science. No wonder that so many Americans say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions. Indeed Dawkins takes the same position as the most ignorant fundamentalist: you can have Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can't have both.
Dawkins is in some ways a terrible representative for atheism, which I'm glad about because a bad cause deserves a bad leader. He is also a terrible advocate for science, which I'm sad about because science deserves all the support it can get.
Reader Comments ( Page 29 of 30)
421. *laughs at the idiot who actually thinks people are "of the devil.*
What a complete moron! He actually believes in demons. What a superstituous nutcase.
And the idiot also thinks that god wasn't created! What a hoot! He screams that humans and everything else had to be created--but not god! Why? Because he wants god to exist. So he just defines him as not being created.
What a total idiot.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 8:23PM on Nov 12th 2007
422. RIch at 12:48PM on Nov 12th 2007 @ post 413 said:
"So that's why 93% of the National Academy of Science members don't believe in "god"? I'm all for letting everyone believe whatever complete fairy tales they want (I'm a Pastafarian from the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster) as long as they keep it too themselves and the other brain dead sheep."
--So that's why 93% of the National Academy of Science members don't believe in "god"?--
Several points for you to consider:
#1- From where did you acquire this purported statistic?
#2- Even if your position is from a valid source, it is still an "argument from authority" (which constitutes a logical falacy). Because, let's say that 100% of scientists do not believe in God, that still dosen't mean - or prove - that God does not exist.
--I'm all for letting everyone believe whatever complete fairy tales they want (I'm a Pastafarian from the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster) as long as they keep it too themselves and the other brain dead sheep.--
Perhaps, one of the most important aspects of Christianity is that it is FOUNDED on the HISTORICAL person we know as Jesus Christ... I do not know of any historical EVIDENCE to support "Flying Spagetti Monster"... But, this is your belief and you are entitled to it...
Again, whatever makes you happy…
ManOfMettl at 8:46PM on Nov 12th 2007
423. 419.*laughs at the idiot who actually thinks life came from non-life.
What a complete moron! He actually believes in the big bang theory and Darwins theory. What a nutcase.
And the idiot also thinks their is no God! What a Hoot! He screams that humans and everything else had to evolve and their is no God! Why? because he does not want God to exist so he just rejects the truth.
What a total idiot.
Observant at 10:13PM on Nov 12th 2007
424. And for those who claim to "KNOW" science...
A SCIENTIST by the name of Pasteur, who made great contributions to our understanding of microbiology and for whom the process of “pasteurization” is named, disproved a prevalent SCIENTIFIC BELIEF of "SPONTANEOUS GENERATION". That is: LIFE cannot come from non-life; microbes arise from other microbes - or more plainly, Something cannot come nothing...
ManOfMettl at 10:58PM on Nov 12th 2007
425. *laughs at the idiot who thinks life can only come from life, but god, who is alive, didn't come from any life, thereby denying his own premise*
What a complete moron! He actually believes that there is a god and that god wasn't created. What a nutcase.
And the idiot also thinks there is a god! What a Hoot! He screams that humans and everything else were created, but god wasn't! Why? because he wants god to exist, so he denies his own premises, like a good little hypocrite.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:11PM on Nov 12th 2007
426. Poor ManofMettl,
He's so stupid. He doesn't know that Pasteur disproved cretinism, not abiogenesis. Further, if life can only come from life, god must be alive. Therefore, god must come from some other life. Otherwise: the person saying god didn't come from some other life is a...
You know the word, ManofMettl.
You can say it.
You are one.
A HYPOCRITE!
That's right
HYPOCRITE!
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:13PM on Nov 12th 2007
427. Addendum to post 422...
...So then, how did the first "microbe" or any "life" for that matter come into existence?
Answer: CREATION
And yes, this is a dogmatic position - based on my belief in "A CREATOR"... And it is logical belief because if there is “Something” which is capable of CHANGING things or acting on them, but is not actually doing so, there cannot be change (for That which has a potentiality need not exercise it).
ManOfMettl at 11:17PM on Nov 12th 2007
428. How did god come into existence?
Remember: life can only come from life
Ergo: god is alive.
Ergo: god came from some other life.
What life brought god into existence?
If god wasn't brought into existence, then the premise (life can only come from life) is wrong.
Take your pick, ManofMettl: either your premise is wrong or you have an infinite regress. Your choice. Those are your only two options. Anything other than those to options is an admission that you have no intellectual integrity, that you are intellectually dishonest, and frankly: no one should believe anything you write.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:23PM on Nov 12th 2007
429. Knight_of_BAAWA at 6:41PM on Oct 21st 2007 said: "The universe didn't "come from" anywhere. It has always been, necessarily."
That is YOUR dogma... AND YOU KNOW IT... TRY AGAIN
ManOfMettl at 11:49PM on Nov 12th 2007
430. It's not dogma, AND YOU KNOW IT. Try again.
Who created god?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:56PM on Nov 12th 2007
431. To Believers and Non-believers:
Knight_of_BAAWA at 6:41PM on Oct 21st 2007 said: "The universe didn't "come from" anywhere. It has always been, necessarily."
Both Knight_of_BAAWA and ManOfMettl hold different – but dogmatic – positions on the origins of the universe and "life". My scientific rationale for a CREATOR is predicated on the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another -AND- a SCIENTIST by the name of Pasteur, who disproved a prevalent SCIENTIFIC BELIEF of "SPONTANEOUS GENERATION". That is: LIFE cannot come from non-life; microbes arise from other microbes - or more plainly, Something cannot come nothing...
Every effect has a cause.
I think we all should hold Knight_of_BAAWA accountable to offer us an explanation that is AT LEAST as scientifically motivated as the position that I have laid out for all to judge and critique.
Believe me, I welcome the honest review...
Respectfully,
ManOfMettl at 12:18AM on Nov 13th 2007
432. To all rational people:
ManofMettl refuses to acknowledge his hypocrisy and his evasions. He is a coward.
Further, he stupidly thinks the universe is an effect, yet he will not demonstrate that it is an effect. He just asserts and asserts and asserts and asserts. Yet he never demonstrates.
He doesn't even understand what Pasteur disproved (which is actually a form of creationism), and he doesn't understand the law of conservation of energy. If he did, he'd know that the universe can't be created.
He's a total idiot. I think we should hold ManofMettl accountable for an explanation of god's existence. What is god? Where did god come from? Who created god? Any refusal to acknowledge that god was created means that he no longer believes that life can only come from life. Any refusal to tell us what god is means that he doesn't know what god is.
You're screwed, ManofMettl. Leave now, before you get thrashed again.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:35AM on Nov 13th 2007
433. Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:35AM on Nov 13th 2007 said:
"You're screwed, ManofMettl. Leave now, before you get thrashed again."
Boy, now that is really scientific!!!
Oh, and another thing: YOU telling me to "leave now..." is about as effective as your argument.
LOL!
I will remind you that YOU have no authority here... Can tell us where you "think" you get your "authority" from? (since you obviously can't explain anything else)...
LOL!!!
ManOfMettl at 12:55AM on Nov 13th 2007
434. Nice attempt at evasion, little one. Too bad that everyone else will see it as an evasion, too.
You really should leave before you get thrashed again.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:17AM on Nov 13th 2007
435. ATHEISM AND DARWINISM: MYTHICAL & UNSCIENTIFIC
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
prffsrx at 9:33AM on Nov 14th 2007