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 5 of 30)
61. " Religion is a drug."
"Rehabilitation and psychiatric care care centers should be opened in an attempt to cure these unfortunates of their delusional sicknesses."
Where do think that rehab centers and the psych center come from?
They didnt come from the Atheist people. They came from compassionate CHRISTIAN people
tony at 11:24AM on Nov 9th 2007
62. The reason there is a misunderstanding between creation and the big boom theory is that many fail to realize that while God created the heavens and the earth, He did so in Such a way that we see it in scientific terms.
------------------------------------------
Big Boom? LOL...
And so it's important to remember that God created this place in such a way that we can practically prove that He doesn't exist, with TONS of false evidence pointing at him not being real, just so that He could have the pleasure of burning those souls silly enough to believe God's lies about reality, in searing agony forever. Because it would have been way too hard to let us KNOW that He existed. What do you think, he's omnipotent or something? And also because God loves a good barbecue. He's from the SOUTH, remember.
Brian at 11:27AM on Nov 9th 2007
63. 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
Hey Somber, all you have to do is get a ticket and move to any COMMUNIST state anywhere in the world and you will get your wish!!!
tony at 11:28AM on Nov 9th 2007
64. Dinesh D’Souza has demonstrated yet again his refusal to let even the simplest research conflict with his already-made-up mind. D’Souza ignores whatever evidence doesn’t fit his conclusion. He states flatly that “the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd” without providing anything resembling supporting data, instead proffering this brilliant demonstration of ignorance:
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.
D’Souza is apparently too lazy to perform a 10-second Google search, or he would have been unable to overlook Dawkins’ announcement of the Out Campaign, http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins which sympathizes with the “unfortunate individual not yet – or not ever – ready to confide in the world” and then clearly states:
Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves.
D’Souza also misrepresents Dawkins’ knowledge of atheist acceptance outside of England: “Dawkins, being British, doesn't seem to recognize that [outing] would not win many popularity contests in America.” In the announcement mentioned above, Dawkins notes that outing:
…may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death.
D’Souza, you’ve demonstrated time and time again that: a). You don’t know what you’re talking about, and b). You don’t care to learn. Please STFU until you remedy these shortcomings.
http://www.cognitivedissident.org/2007/11/dsouza_on_the_gayatheist_compa.html
cognitive dissident at 12:12PM on Nov 9th 2007
65. Why do some of you insist on debating with lunatics? These people are ill. They need help. You can't conquer delusional people with logic. Delusional people need therapy. Belief in a non-existent omnipotent being is dangerous. It gives people an excuse to commit horrible acts of terrorism and murder while believing that their god will reward them after they are dead.
steve at 11:31AM on Nov 9th 2007
66. Kinda preachy, somber.
Just kidding. Good points all. But I can tell you after a lifetime of being magnanimous towards religions, it can get old, especially in the workplace. However, I am fine living in the world with people of religion.
Although I think DD is a fool, I do enjoy this forum to see the banter, the arguments, and mostly, the humor.
I never look at the ads.
Linda at 11:37AM on Nov 9th 2007
67. Hey Somber, all you have to do is get a ticket and move to any COMMUNIST state anywhere in the world and you will get your wish!!!
tony at 11:28AM on Nov 9th
--------------------------------------------------
I'm curuious, Tony. Does an abysmal moron like yourself get born that way, not being able to keep a binkie in his mouth, falling over a lot, eating paper, that sort of thing, or are you made, as in sat down in a dark room with about five evangelicals when you're about ten, with them beating you with a stick whenever you say something logical?
I'm just wondering how someone can get to be that dumb. It seems too dense for random chance and the bell curve to explain.
Brian at 11:57AM on Nov 9th 2007
68. Hey Somber, all you have to do is get a ticket and move to any COMMUNIST state anywhere in the world and you will get your wish!!!
tony at 11:28AM on Nov 9th
--------------------------------------------------
I'm curuious, Tony. Does an abysmal moron like yourself get born that way, not being able to keep a binkie in his mouth, falling over a lot, eating paper, that sort of thing, or are you made, as in sat down in a dark room with about five evangelicals when you're about ten, with them beating you with a stick whenever you say something logical?
I'm just wondering how someone can get to be that dumb. It seems too dense for random chance and the bell curve to explain.
Brian at 11:42AM on Nov 9th 2007
69. Good old Brian....
See what I mean?? Now that's funny.
Linda at 11:50AM on Nov 9th 2007
70. You know, when I read today's headline, my first thought was "Brilliant!! Lots of bashing, beating, flaming (no pun intended) posts, vitriol, and hate filled comments today"... and I was not disappointed.
My second thought was "I wonder what Somber will say"...
Somber, may I just say that your response was easily the best post I have read since DD started his "Buy my book, you bad atheists" Crusade (pun intended).
Bravo! Bravo!!
chuckles at 11:52AM on Nov 9th 2007
71. As usual, D'Souza shows just how stupid he is.
Mister D'Souza, Atheists are the new gays because Atheists are the one minority it is still okay to hate and bash, as proven by your incessant and unprovoked attacks against us and our great country's Constitution.
Adam H. at 11:58AM on Nov 9th 2007
72. I'm going to buy his book. Delusional people have to eat too.
steve at 11:56AM on Nov 9th 2007
73. 47. "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."
----------------------------------------------
And we worry about you, too. It must be sad to have beliefs that block you from seeing the real world, an artificially inflated ego that makes you "know" that you're right even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and no ability nor desire to understand logic and science or the world around you. It is incredibly sad that you trade in living this life to the fullest for nebulous promises of a childish afterlife where everybody is happy as they watch the atheists turning on a flaming spit for God' pleasure. I grieve for your loss of your mind and your spirit to a death cult. It must be sad to focus on your silly beliefs, to the point of not learning the lessons that are here in this world for you to learn. Or perhaps you think you were put here to bash gays and atheists?
I pity you, yes I do. Feel better now? Do you like my pity? Then SAVE YOURS.
Brian at 11:57AM on Nov 9th 2007
74. >Where do think that rehab centers and the psych >center come from?
>didnt come from the Atheist people. They came from >compassionate CHRISTIAN people
Pssst. Sigmund Freud was Atheist. Don't tell anyone.
Adam H. at 6:48PM on Nov 9th 2007
75. Are Atheists the New Gays? Stupid question.
Are Christians the New Assholes?
Nope. They're the Old Ones. Perfecting assholishness for two thousand years.
Brian at 12:02PM on Nov 9th 2007