Posted on 11/13/2007 8:07:51 AM PST by NYer
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. This would put the atheists last in the line of liberation groups: first the civil rights movement, then the feminist movement, then the gay liberation movement, and now the cause of atheist liberation.
What makes Dawkins want atheists to be like gays? Dawkins explains that 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. Gays went from being defined by their enemies to defining themselves in a favorable way.
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 and the philosopher Daniel Dennett have both written articles promoting the use of the term “bright.” Not all atheists have warmed to the term, but Dawkins and Dennett clearly envision themselves as far-looking strategists of the atheist cause. But how bright, really, are they?
Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don't want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support "outing" atheists. But 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. It seems strange 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.
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 the Microsoft multimillionaire Charles Simonyi. 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.
Having debated Christopher Hitchens, I’d like the opportunity to debate Dawkins. I think I can vindicate a rational and scientific argument for religion against his irrational and unscientific prejudice. When I wrote Dawkins to propose such a debate, however, Dawkins said that “upon reflection” he decided against it. He didn’t give a reason, and there is no reason.
In his writings on religion, Dawkins presents atheism as the side of reason and evidence, and religion as the side of “blind faith.” So what’s he afraid of? How can reason possibly lose in a contest with ignorance and superstition? I have written Dawkins back offering him the most favorable terms: a debate on a secular campus like Berkeley rather than a church, with atheist Michael Shermer as the moderator, and a donor ready and willing to pay both our fees.
So I hope Dawkins takes me up on my challenge to an intellectual joust. If you want to encourage him, write Dawkins and send the email to dineshjdsouza@aol.com. I’ll forward your thoughts to our wavering atheist knight. He may want to pattern atheism on the gay rights movement, but surely he doesn’t want the world to think that he’s a sissy.
Dawkins is absolutely correct, just check this forum. Pederasts have become 'happy' everywhere, including here. I've an idea: how about we call necrofiliacs 'merry'?! It's the language, stupid!
ping
I wonder what his screen name is.....
I’m just wondering what happens to someone after an atheist parade ends.
I’ve stated it before, but the psychologist Carl Jung clearly made the case that Socialism is merely an attempt to replace God with the State. I would agree that most forms of collectivism fit a broader definition of religion.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
“Muslims are the new gays. Atheists are the new Muslims.”3
Then I take it that Globalishts are the new Atheists...?
*****************
LOL! Brilliant, er..bright!
LOL
Oh man I hate that term “bright”. They were trying to push that for a few years, but if I had a nickel for every atheist I knew that was dumber than a handful of Georgia clay, I’d be freaking set.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4
Lenin called them Useful Idiots.
Marxism is our nation´s most serious threat! Marxists are in the legislatures, every government bureaucracy, and have thoroughly and completely taking over the schools.
The Marxist´s most important weapon against freedom are our nation´s K-12 schools and colleges and universities. We can survive a nuclear suitcase bomb but will will NOT survive if the Marxists succeed in indoctrinating the next generation of voters.
Scratch a Liberal and under his thin skin is a socialist. Dig a little deeper and you will soon find the Marxist nuclear fuel rod that drives everything he does and lies about.
Exactly. What "rights" are they referring to here?
“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.”
D’Souza, you are the ignorant one.
The Bible is true and Darwinism is a lie.
Don't have to accept either of them as representative to argue against the points they try to make.
Ragnar’s right. Being an Atheist doesn’t automatically make you a statist.
They are far worse, in that Atheists are POSITIVE there is no God. The unwritten part is that humans, being the highest form of the species, functions in that capacity.
It’s an arm-pit sniffing arrogance that makes Atheists so cuddly and fascist about the rest of us ‘not-sure’ folks going around and having a country, a club, or a society that was founded and believes otherwise.
There are plenty of other societies Atheists can go and try their hand at running. I’d appreciate if they left this one alone.
It is, however, not a crime for these secular humanists to go about their work, since they are free to practice their religion here the same as everyone else.
Who knows, at this rate with so many prominent Atheists finally admitting that perhaps they have some doubts (making them agnostic), they may have a tough time finding a keynote speaker if Mr. Dawson is all booked up.
Pseudo-intellectual prigs, the grand majority of them.
‘How could you possibly offend a homosexual man?’
Easy.
‘He’s so dumb he wears white after labor day....’
Won't work. What you're saying is literally "happy believer in the deity." Atheists don't believe and at least in my experience, atheists are generally unhappy people.
You really can't put enough lipstick on this pig to make it appear pleasant. As with the word "gay," once the atheists hijack a word, the word will become synonymous with something negative. When I hear the word "gay" it immediately brings to mind the words death, disease and unhappiness.
~rotflmao!!~
That’s right! And never, EVER navy before Easter!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.