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 4 of 30)
46. The individual that was sounding off on this news blog probably is "gay". Having the old vice myself when I was a youth, fighting it and finding Christ, I find this blog's reasoning of truth hitting the mark. There will be a time that men lovers of themselves think that their lifestyle is acceptable with the majority of the world. I, myself, if president, will have tolerance with them. Some of them are born or have been put in this situation by mankind. But, I will do everything it takes to make sure that marriage is only for a man and a woman. My argument is as followed: If you put "gay men and gay women on a private island, would civilation die? No, because the instinct of what God created within ourselves is what we were created for: To have sexual relation between a man and a woman. Tolerance is to a point. Atheists are people who fight the creation of God, and that goes for sexual nature behaviors. This is why many gays are leaning to Barrack Obama and not Hillary. Hillary will not rubber stamp their marriages, but, Obama will do anything to get to power.
Jaki Baez at 9:58AM on Nov 9th 2007
47. Silly christians--god is for stupid people.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:00AM on Nov 9th 2007
48. Well, DD, I for one am THRILLED to be out of the atheist closet! It has been a revelation to find others who are like me! With so many theists around, sometimes I feel very alone. I generally do not argue "religion" with my friends and family, unless they want to. But now I am proudly proclaiming when asked that I am an atheist. The reactions are priceless. Knee jerk responses are de rigeur, denial is also.
I personally admire and sympathize with people who are gay, because their lives are fraught with difficulty, mostly caused by people who cite religion (bible) as the justification for their prejudice against them. They, too, are used to knee jerk responses.
By the way, I think Dawkins is a terrific author and public speaker.
Linda at 10:28AM on Nov 9th 2007
49. "I as a Christian I have no issues with Atheists (and have several close friends who don't believe). I worry for them at times - it must be sad to believe that this is it, with no hope for any future life."
Why, why, WHY do Christians think this way???? Why do you all think that just because I do not believe in an invisible sky daddy that watches my every move that my life is somehow meaningless and miserable? That is so goddamn arrogant and insulting.
Here's a zany thought-- instead of doing nice things because you think you'll get into heaven when you die, how about doing nice things because they're the right thing to do? How about looking at eternal life as being remembered for the great things you did IN YOUR LIFE after you're gone? How about just living in the here and now and NOT WORRY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE?
Good Lord (no pun intended), why can't you all just enjoy yourselves and your lives? Why is this such a death cult???? Why will nothing wonderful happen until you die???? That's MEDIEVAL thinking, when people were literally eating dirt and wearing rags and wallowing in mudpits and spitting out their teeth everyday. In their eyes, the future held no joy or promise-- the best you could hope for was that the Black Death would pass over your hamlet. So yes, an afterlife of paradise made this life bearable, believing you were going somewhere awesome when you died.
Do we wallow in mudpits and spit our teeth out today (Well, only if you get your kicks from that, I suppose)? No, we live in warm and sturdy housing, we have medical attention, we have plenty to eat, we have warm clothing and shoes and entertainment and everything we could possibly want at our disposal. We are the most literate society this planet has ever seen, where EVERYONE is entitled to an education. OK, sure, there's violence and death and disease and destruction in the world, but by and large, human beings have never lived so well in all of Earth's history. So WHY aren't certain people happy with all we have? And here's the clincher-- to have even mo' better stuff, WE HAVE TO DIE TO GET IT!!!!!! Doesn't this seem the tiniest bit fucked up to anybody????
Breathing deeply...and exhaling. OK, that was my morning rant. I have to go to work now. Stay tuned for this evening's rant at a later time.
J Boyd at 10:33AM on Nov 9th 2007
50. Good heavens I hope that this is not true. An atheist-gay: What a concept? If your gay and you know that it is wrong according to GOD and then to not even believe in GOD, how terribly sad that would be. Not only living as GOD has commanded you not to do, and then blaspheme that there is no GOD! What is to become of this world? I am Christian, have the right to dissagree with people who would mock and say there is no GOD but, neither do I agree with a certain person Mr. Pat Robertson. I do think you have to agree that in every walk of life that there are going to be some people who go way.......out there and cause more harm than help. If you want to know the truth I really do not even have a hope for a rational president however, God has told us to vote for the we feel will do the best job, and then pray for him or her in this case and then it is our of our hands. It is now up to that person who has been put into an office of high position and it is up to that person to either lead morally, or not. It is the same with the atheists, and gays. I as a Christian can give you the information you need to have eternal life but, it is up to you to accept or reject it. If you decide not to put that information to good use and find out for yourself, then I as a Christian have done my duty to inform and now it is up to you. I only hope that you decide to know absolutely before its tooooo late that what I told you was the truth. May God Bless Each and Everyone. Rita
Rita at 10:46AM on Nov 9th 2007
51. Preaching is rude, Rita. Jesus doesn't like rude people.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:50AM on Nov 9th 2007
52. Dear Knight,
Not preaching just telling it like it is.
Rita
Rita at 10:57AM on Nov 9th 2007
53. You're preaching. It's rude. Don't be rude.
Do you think ANYONE will listen to you when you just scream at them as you do, Rita? No. No one listens to that nonsense. If you actually try engaging people in conversation, it works much better. But preaching--that just turns people off, since it rude. Don't be rude.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:01AM on Nov 9th 2007
54. Dear Knight,
Again, not preaching, if I were then I would be quoting bible phrases left and right and asking all the questions as to why you and the others believe as they do. I am only stating that I as a Christian have the right to state my beliefs as you do yours. I can't judge you only GOD can do that but, if you have the information you need to check out and either accept or deny what I have told you that's information not preaching. Rita
Rita at 11:06AM on Nov 9th 2007
55. No matter how many times you try to convince me that someone who isn't there IS there, it still won't work. You are delusional.
steve at 11:55AM on Nov 9th 2007
56. So what is D'Souza advocating here? That atheists should just shut up and "stay in the closet" because doing other wise would not win "popularity contests?" Brilliant reasoning....
Grant at 3:48PM on Nov 9th 2007
57. " Both are roughly only 10% of the population "
This MYTH of 10% is so bogus its stupid.
probly closer to 1/10th of 1.% and that is no doubt wrong.
You have more supporters than acutual people who follow the gay lifestyle. And the people who say there is no God, are a bunch of fools anyway.
tony at 11:14AM on Nov 9th 2007
58. Religion is a drug. The only cure for drug addiction is rehabilitation. Curing society of religious addiction should be our first priority because religion spawns terrorist zealots who are a threat to our safety and stability. Rehabilitation and psychiatric care care centers should be opened in an attempt to cure these unfortunates of their delusional sicknesses.
steve at 11:18AM on Nov 9th 2007
59. Rita: It is people like you that keep atheists in the closet, so we don't have to listen to your NONSENSE.
"If your gay and you know that it is wrong according to GOD"
No. It is not. There is one bible passage that states men should not lay down with men. Somebody wrote that down in the Torah. If it were not there, would it be OK for people to be gay?
Talk about a personal choice....It's OK for christians to claim a personal choice in their deity, but not for people who are attracted to members of their own sex to claim their choice to be gay?
You really have no right to judge gays.
Linda at 11:20AM on Nov 9th 2007
60. Guys... a little note.
Complaining here does little good. The more hits Dinesh gets on his blogs, the less likely he is going to be removed. Think about it. So long as people are coming to the site, then they're having people see their advertising. So Dinesh being inflamitory works in his favor. You coming here to complain how offended you are works in his favor. The AOL customer service reps don't read these posts. They read how many people viewed a blog in a month.
If you seriously are offended, you need to call AOL's customer service representatives and complain to them. If you don't have an account with AOL then don't expect much, but if enough people with accounts DO complain then they'll start considering removing him.
Now! On to the subject at hand. Gay atheism! Wait? That's not the subject? Oh damn. And for once I thought I was in a perfect position to post being a gay atheist.
But the gay rights movement as a mode to follow? Hmmm... well then I guess it depends on if atheists are willing to make the dangerous step of trying to change the world according to our beliefs. If we try to push for legal change, for social change, then we enter a very messy battlefield. This is something atheists have been accused of doing for years; trying to make the world more atheist. But if we were to actually try and make a political movement out of it... well... wouldn't we be just like Robertson and Phelps using our belief to justify changing the lives of those who believe otherwise?
First... is there a need for an atheist progressive movement? Are atheists discriminated against? I've faced plenty of illegal discrimination for being a woman and being gay... but being an atheist? Sure there's the annoying pity party I have to deal with from the theists... but afterwards we just go on to other things. You can't legalize respect for a belief.
(author's note. I use the word belief as a conclusion based upon a lack of supporting evidence. Atheists have no evidence for or against the existance of God and conclude that he doesn't exist. It's a little unfair, but I think the word fits. It's also a word that theists understand easily. Sorry for the interruption.)
Secondly... Dawkin's suggestion of inventing a word for atheists to use is silly. Gays, like blacks, didn't invent the terms used to define us. The white male hegemony did. When the dominant force establishes a name, be it gays, dykes, faggots, niggers, negros, kikes, whops, gooks, nips, or spics... then it is for that minority group to either denounce the label, ignore it, or embrace it. Gays didn't sit around and go "hey, let's call ourselves Gay." They said, "well Gay is a term the dominant ethnic group knows, because they invented it for us, so lets take that term and use it for ourselves and redefine it in our favor." The lesbians did the same with the term lesbians because that dominant hegemonic ethnic group liked two classification of homosexuality. One was icky to like but the other made for really hot girl-on-girl porn!
The point is that, right now, the label that the domiant ethnic group has for atheists is... well... atheist. If Dinesh or one of his ilk invented a derogotory term that was simple and possibly cool, then atheists could latch on to it and make it our own. But they really haven't. And for the minority to make a term to label themselves with doesn't really work. For a label to stick, it has to be created by the dominant force to pidgon hole the minority. Once holed, though, the minority is free to preempt the term.
Thirdly, atheists can be socially progressive through other methods. One would be the establishment of atheist and agnostic clubs in colleges. These clubs would be open to all, theists included, and would discuss... well... whatever they wanted to. They could debate philosophy. Read Nitchzie. Have a bakesale. Whatever. There are tens of thousands of different theistic centered clubs on campuses. So why not an atheist club?
Next, push for the support of accurate science in the classroom. If you hear that some one is going to try and introduce ID into biology courses, then demand a hearing and expose it for the bad science that it is. Don't try to use it as a platform to say how stupid you think theism is. Simply present it as just bad science or non-science. When some one insists on not teaching evolution, challenge them to present an alternate scientific model.
Third. Keep it civil... as in keep the fights in the civil domain. Don't go out of your way to ban a church's nativity scene. Don't try and get every cross removed from your sight. That's a pretty arrogant attitude and one that does nothing to help progress atheism. When it's the ten commandments in a courthouse... yeah. That's a fight worth fighting. When it's a public school trying to impose a theistic prayer or event, then it's noteworthy. However, a little tolerance goes a long way. Especially when you remind them that the law is technically on your side. And a little magnamomy goes a long way in establishing that unlegislatable respect atheists crave.
Here is my atheistic social goal: complete and total legal separation of state from faith. The state completely blind and impartial as to its dealings of people's faith. The state would be required to show no preference for one theism over another in the letter of its law. Laws trying to restrict or enforce a religious moral code would be unconsitutional. The ethics of a law would matter far more than how closely it adheres to the values deliniated in scripture or religious code. Of course the state should help religious organizations, just as it helps countless non-religious organizations. But in the end belief should be deligated to the actions of the individual. If an individual wishes to believe, then they must be permitted to do so. If they wish to build or rent a facility to have a congregation, they must be permitted to do so. I think that their earnings should be monitored by the IRS after a certain million dollar marker, but that's more to ensure that they remain non-profit and that all their income goes right back into the church or the community.
That's my take anyway.
Somber at 11:22AM on Nov 9th 2007