The Best of the Brightest
June 30, 2003 | 57 Comments
Wicken.ca is the brightest of the lot in his commentary on Dawkins’ “Brights’ crusade:
What is behind all of this outrage at Richard Dawkins’ “Brights” article? I mean, I can see someone finding the whole idea a bit silly, and perhaps the implied antonyms make it a bit ill-mannered, but those evaluations would hardly warrant the scorn-fest we’re seeing.
* * *The memo that Dawkins didn’t get is the one that said religious beliefs are off limits for criticism, or at least off limits for the kind of bluntly negative characterizations of opposing views that one is allowed to throw around liberally in the rough-and-tumble fray of any other domain. If a tacit proscription of this kind were being enforced in a different ideological camp, it might be called political correctness.
Whatever it is, I’m not playing along. Belief in religion may have been excusable thousands of years ago as mankind first tried to make sense of the world. In the 21st century, it just betrays a lack of clear thinking. And no one has explained to me why this particular brand of irrationality should get a free pass.
To which I can add little, except that Allah is a syphilitic whoremonger who fucks goats in an outhouse, the Virgin Mary gives blowjobs to Jesus for ten cents a pop, and Ganesh rapes the corpses of stillborn babies.
Note: Smug dismissals of Dawkins’ smugness are all I’ve seen thusfar in my informal survey of Blogospheric reaction to his Brights proposal. Intellectual dishonesty, apparently, has prevented anyone from even attempting a critical refutation of his observation that:
A phrase like “Catholic child” or “Muslim child” should clang furious bells of protest in the mind, just as we flinch when we hear “one man one vote”. Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can’t vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society’s impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit your parents’. We’d be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn’t it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child? Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighbourhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?
Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder.
Instead, we’re assured that everyone’s most deeply held beliefs are based upon some rigorous philosophical investigation. Conducted at age two.
June 30th, 2003 @ 10:35 am
“…the Virgin Mary gives blowjobs to Jesus for ten cents a pop…” – Ha! You’re so bad! And brave!
Take care,
xit
June 30th, 2003 @ 12:25 pm
I had already read most of Dawkins article, but i stoped after thinking to myself ” what does the x-host of family fued know about atheism”. Then i re-read it and relized it was Dawkins, not Dawson. On the bright web site they say “The Brights
June 30th, 2003 @ 1:17 pm
Atheists don’t need some colorful political/life-style identity, the trend was shallow to begin with. This whole zeitgeist where everything must be understood on the terms of group identity is pretty appalling to the Libertarian side of me.
June 30th, 2003 @ 2:09 pm
XIT: Why do you single out the imaginary conduct of Mary over that of Allah and Ganesh?
RUMBLEFISH: Richard Dawson was also a militant atheist, known for badgering contestants about their religious beliefs during the commercial breaks.
JASON: The Libertarian side of you should join the group of all persons who do not share a group identity, and debate whether you share a group identity.
June 30th, 2003 @ 2:59 pm
The libertarian side of me told me to tell you that when the anti-revolution revolution comes you will not be spared.
June 30th, 2003 @ 5:10 pm
I don’t think you get why one shouldn’t be smug about Dawkins. Here’s why.
Dawkins in his books on evolution came up with a metaphor called the ‘green beard’, which is a visible biological feature that is correlated with another biological feature that an organism might be interested in. The ‘green beard’ might develop though it is pointless in and of itself, it is useful for identifying something that is useful for an organism in finding a mate with good genes or genes like yours.
Look at this statement of Dawkins:
Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighbourhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?
Dawkins somehow thinks that the troubles in Northern Ireland have something to do with religion, something to do with the slightly differing religious beliefs of the two sides. Hah. It is painfully obvious that the conflict is ethnic, i.e. Darwinian, and what church you go to is a marker for ethnicity. A more perfect example of a ‘green beard’ one couldn’t possibly come up with. Dawkins being the nitwit he is cannot even apply his own metaphor to a state of affairs one would think it was invented for.
Any perusing of Dawkins’ writings that have anything to do with religion will reveal howler after howler like this. He’s just as bad anytime he writes about religion and science or what the two claim to explain or have to do with each other. Dawkins being a professor of ‘the public understanding of science’ is thoroughly ridiculous.
The reason why one shouldn’t be smug about ridiculing Dawkins is after reading him on the topic of religion and/or science in the abstract, one is possessed of the urge to say ‘Here is a lollipop for trying so hard, Dickie. By the way straighten your beanie and be quiet while the grownups are talking’. Beating up on him is no great achievement, and if this is a smart atheist, atheism can’t be smart.
June 30th, 2003 @ 5:50 pm
J MCT: Your theory that religions are merely evolutionary markers hardly helps the cause of religion, although it may explain it. A dog instinctly snaps at a rock that has hit him, erroneously thinking it to be alive; that too, may be a useful evolutionary trait, but it doesn’t prove that the rock is conscious. In man that trait has survives, as Simon Blackburne put it, as the “primitive preference for explaining the unknown in terms of agency rather than in terms of nature.” Whether religiosity is an involuntary biological trait I’ve discussed here.
I agree that “Catholic” and “Protestant” in Northern Ireland are largely ethnic labels, quite meaningless in any religious sense to the participants. They aren’t particularly meaningful to most people elsewhere, the labels having being applied at birth. Perhaps they’re all atheists.
I admit Dawkins “Brights” campaign is smug, but at least he’s right. Those who are smug about his smugness are wrong, and therefore merely arrogant.
June 30th, 2003 @ 10:34 pm
EVERYBODY is an atheist. Many just don’t know what belief is !
P.S. RA Rocks !
July 1st, 2003 @ 12:44 am
EVERYBODY lets call ourselves NATURISTS !!! I mean LETS REALLY DO IT !! Who’s up for this ? Please everyone worldwide start calling themselves naturists ! It would be hilarious ! Its a name I could really go for. The best. And it would be such fun! Come on everyone, its not like a great word hasn’t been stolen before!! We could really do it !! And hey, I’m guessing that most of us don’t have a problem with going around the house naked anyway!
July 1st, 2003 @ 12:54 am
We could wear tee-shirts saying “I’m a NATURIST”, and when people ask us about it we could say :- its because we think that everything has come about through natural forces. And when they tell us about the naked thing, ACT LIKE WE’VE NEVER HEARD ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO GO AROUND NAKED, and be really amazed.
July 1st, 2003 @ 1:01 am
Think i’ll pass.
July 1st, 2003 @ 1:39 am
RumbleCHICKEN
July 1st, 2003 @ 1:44 am
RUMBLEDchicken
July 1st, 2003 @ 2:27 am
NATURISTS? Many atheists already identify themselves as “naturalists“, not too far from “naturists” Since naturalism is basically essential to a scientific outlook.
July 1st, 2003 @ 10:40 am
RE: groups + russell paradox
To clarify that, I wasn’t being a deconstructionist; I have nothing against classification and grouping, it is a necessary part of thinking to be sure. If things can be defined they can be ordered on that basis (hence, by defintion I have brown-eyes, am an atheist, libertarian-esque, etc, and there is no point in disputing that). My objection is to indentity based politics, where a tribal identity is manufactured around some meaningless contrast.
Sure I don’t believe in a “god”, but is there really a compelling interest to organize some phony peoplehood around that elementary confession? Issues that affect non-religious people such as support for science and the separation of church and state can be approached in ways other than in the context of group rights. Dawkins wants atheists to form a more robust identity both for political and personal reasons (that mirror religious reasons I suspect- “fellowship” and all). Similarly, it could be said that I want atheists to have a less robust identity for political and personal reasons.
July 1st, 2003 @ 11:23 am
Sure I don’t believe in a “god”, but is there really a compelling interest to organize some phony peoplehood around that elementary confession?
::SOB:: My website is a ::CRYING:: peoplehood ::WIPING EYES:: organized around that elementary confession ::BLOWING NOSE:: . . . but now I guess it’s just ::WAHHH:: phony ::COLLAPSING::
July 1st, 2003 @ 11:34 am
I n t e r e s t i n g . . . .
BUT EVERYONE IS AN ATHEIST
and the whole identity word thing is a moot discussion.
Today, so-called “theists” are either (a) DISHONEST or (b) MISTAKEN about what belief is.
Am I the only person in the world who gets this ?
July 1st, 2003 @ 11:44 am
…if you care to explain, stephen……..
July 1st, 2003 @ 12:07 pm
Thanks Eva. This idea comes from my experience of Christianity, in which I was raised, and, if I may, I’ll talk about it from the Christian perspective, because it allows me to lift my words from a discussion of Christianity which I wrote recently ( because that’s nice and easy for me to do !!). Never-the-less this observation is naturally applicable to all religions.
From this experience I know that the “possibility-of-Christianity-being-true” cannot be entertained without dismissing significant sense and reason from the mind.
Apply common logic to the Bible and one cannot avoid the conclusion that anyone who has read it and entertains even “the-possibility-that-Christianity-might-be-true-in-any-way” is pro-actively dismissing sense and reason from their minds. Anyone can validate this claim, thanks to the “heretics” who dared to step out of the box and put the Bible in the public domain.
When you receive a report of something, you will have one of three responses ( belief, disbelief, and uncertainty ). Whichever response comes to you, it will form naturally and spontaneously, without any decision, or dismissal of evidence and reason. This is a common and natural use of the word “belief”, and it is its proper use.
I know that what Christianity calls “belief” and “faith” is in reality a decision which happens to banish those sense-based and reason-based thoughts ( which naturally happen to contradict with the tenets of Christianity ) from the mind, and which places “faith” in that-which-remains. This, I contend, is what really happens in someone’s mind when a person “becomes a Christian”. It is therefore truly an act of insanity. ( Obviously, I don’t see what happens in other people’s minds. I know this from deduction. )
And this is applicable even to a “Christian” who hasn’t read the Bible, because the basic notions of Christianity are not straight themselves, and can never be made so.
About kids :- It is immoral to put kids in a situation which teaches them to initiate insanity. Immoral. People who teach kids, or allow kids to be taught, to banish inconvenient sense and reason from their minds are putting out a welcome mat for every insanity under the sun.
I have an antipathy towards religion which is everything to do with the fact that religion initiates and promotes ANTI-SANITY, especially in children.
This ANTI-SANITY is much more ancient than Christianity, and I know that I can leave it to your active imaginations as to what the practice of the mental banishment of sense and reason has led to in the history of humanity.
How’s this for a slogan “Christianity is ANTI-SANITY” ??
What do you think ?
July 1st, 2003 @ 12:45 pm
well, stephen, i must admit that i used your comment to bait whatever godidiots were reading this blog (special hobby of mine here), but fortunately, what you wrote (thanks for taking the time, but it seems you were dying to have someone ask you to elaborate, hehe) seems very reasonable and fair….and makes for a very sound look on the faith idiocy…
thanks.
BUT what is this anty-sanity thing? like the Brights movement? start calling atheists pro-sanity (sane?) vs. xtians anti-sanity (crazy fucking loonies?)
brights versus dulls?
haha, just kidding…
July 1st, 2003 @ 1:09 pm
I love this :-
“I’m not playing along. Belief in religion may have been excusable thousands of years ago as mankind first tried to make sense of the world. In the 21st century, it just betrays a lack of clear thinking. And no one has explained to me why this particular brand of irrationality should get a free pass.”
I would add that a lack of clear thinking does not come about my chance, its not a lack but a positive muddle. One gets muddled by one’s own dishonesty – those tangled webs we weave when we first learn to deceive.
And I’d add that the phenomena of religion is always accompanied by an associated dishonesty, ney, it is initiated by a specific personal private historical decision that gambled on insanity and flew in the face of honesty, and that such events always begin religion in people and are an essential and defining aspect of religion.
He He He. I think this is called argument by E M P H A S I S. Its also an assertion. A challenge to theists. Not to argue, but to examine your own precious “hearts”. He He He. Get real. Be honest. You lying fuckers.
Just remember “theists” – you may think you can fool yourselves (thought you can’t) and you don’t fool us.
You’ve been scared “little children” in your own minds. Never-the-less we love you, and we’ll take you just as you are. Relax, no hellfire here. Just beloved, belov-ed, death. And L I F E in all its brain-shattering unfillableness. And awesome wowsome fucking excellent god-blowing exploding truth, reality, and sanity, and world-uniting possibility. You are in the peoplehood already, you’ve just forgotten, so just let it go, ‘fess up, and enjoy everything! Go Rave !! Honesty rocks !! You are fabulous !!
July 1st, 2003 @ 1:20 pm
Eva – crossed in the post.
I got a bit carried away there !
Thanks for the positive comments. I am dying to shout this from the R O O F T O P S !!
“start calling atheists pro-sanity (sane?) vs. xtians anti-sanity (crazy fucking loonies?)”
Y E S !! Y E S !! Y E S !! Y E S !!
At least its this thinking that’s ANTI-SANITY. No need to really piss people off !
Come Godidiots ! Come !
July 1st, 2003 @ 1:49 pm
Where does a child of atheists get its moral training?
July 1st, 2003 @ 2:28 pm
Not biting. NOT biting. Not biting!
July 1st, 2003 @ 2:38 pm
At an early age, it is a lot like Kant’s categorical imperative:
What if everyone did that?
Usually imposed around the time that children become aware of their impact on other people.
Training is the key word. Like learning to use the toilet, you just get so used to it that doing otherwise doesn’t seem natural. Have you ever thought about how hard it is to intentionally pee your pants? Give it a try sometime.
July 1st, 2003 @ 3:01 pm
That wasn’t so hard.
July 1st, 2003 @ 3:28 pm
I’d like to clarify something insensitive that I said above.
“Relax, no hellfire here. Just beloved, belov-ed, death.”
Death is in no way beloved. People are beloved.
I was referring to the fact that people, and indeed everykind of living thing, would never have existed if it wasn’t for evolution, and this would never have happened without mortality.
Mortality, as an essential part of the creation of life, is indeed beloved.
But premature death is always a tragedy.
July 1st, 2003 @ 3:36 pm
I see. When other kids get their Xmas presents, your atheist kid gets a nice book on “Kant’s categorical imperative”? While other kids join in a prayer circle around the flag, your kid stands on the sidewalk like a sore thumb?
July 1st, 2003 @ 3:39 pm
well, if june’s bait doesn’t attact any godidiots, what will?
stephen, you say that there is no need to piss people off? off xtianity, you mean? what’s the fun of it then? pissing xtians off is quite pleasurable, really….ask RA….even better if they are pissed out of their insanity…(gee, seems like the anti-sanity has stuck….but not the thing about calling myself a Bright…hmmm…..)
July 1st, 2003 @ 3:44 pm
Where does a child of Christians, realizing that he’s been lied to about the fundamental nature of life and death, get his moral guidance ?
July 1st, 2003 @ 3:51 pm
Eva >> I was thinking exploding people, aeroplanes into buildings, kind of pissed off. But sure, I really do agree with you. Such things might happen less if someone lightened these folk up a bit !
July 1st, 2003 @ 4:05 pm
“well, if june’s bait doesn’t attact any godidiots, what will?”
RA – Do you have other website names pointing to this site ? One’s that will be Godidiot-magnets ? I dunno like http://www.biblebasics.com (oh no thats in use) or here’s one that’s free http://www.religion101.com ?
How about it ? I’m sure you can come up with something funny !
July 1st, 2003 @ 4:10 pm
We’re evolution’s children. Guidance ? Who’s going to give us guidance ?
July 1st, 2003 @ 4:33 pm
Seth >> “What if everyone did that?”. Thank you Seth. I needed some moral guidance, and that’s just the ticket.
July 1st, 2003 @ 4:46 pm
But hey – I’m not everybody you know ?
July 1st, 2003 @ 4:48 pm
And what if I’m just BURSTING to be bad !!
July 1st, 2003 @ 7:14 pm
stephen, you seem strange today….like too bubbly….too eager…nothing wrong with that, but…it’s ok, really….we understand you here….really, we do…
and you can be bad all that you want….you won’t burn in hell…hehe
July 2nd, 2003 @ 2:35 pm
Allah and goats, Mary giving blow jobs. Boy did you just diffuse any respect you might of had by acting like a thirteen year old boy who can’t get his way. Anybody with even a miniscule bit of education would have presented a better thought than that. You really shouldn’t be representing athiest, you haven’t studied enough to post logical arguments. Its athiest like you who are going to turn a lot of people to Christ. Bravo. Thank You.
July 2nd, 2003 @ 3:56 pm
JR: The obviousness of your point is inescapably and undeniably obvious. Truly, all the childishness found here is nothing but, well, childish. Guess the fun had to end some time; time we all grew up.
Please let Christ know my check is in the mail.
July 2nd, 2003 @ 3:56 pm
JR: The obviousness of your point is inescapably and undeniably obvious. Truly, all the childishness found here is nothing but, well, childish. Guess the fun had to end some time; time we all grew up.
Please let Christ know my check is in the mail.
July 2nd, 2003 @ 3:56 pm
JR: The obviousness of your point is inescapably and undeniably obvious. Truly, all the childishness found here is nothing but, well, childish. Guess the fun had to end some time; time we all grew up.
Please let Christ know my check is in the mail.
July 2nd, 2003 @ 3:56 pm
JR: The obviousness of your point is inescapably and undeniably obvious. Truly, all the childishness found here is nothing but, well, childish. Guess the fun had to end some time; time we all grew up.
Please let Christ know my check is in the mail.
July 2nd, 2003 @ 3:56 pm
JR: The obviousness of your point is inescapably and undeniably obvious. Truly, all the childishness found here is nothing but, well, childish. Guess the fun had to end some time; time we all grew up.
Please let Christ know my check is in the mail.
July 2nd, 2003 @ 3:56 pm
JR: The obviousness of your point is inescapably and undeniably obvious. Truly, all the childishness found here is nothing but, well, childish. Guess the fun had to end some time; time we all grew up.
Please let Christ know my check is in the mail.
July 2nd, 2003 @ 5:00 pm
J R Laurent >>
I’m guessing that you didn’t read other people’s comments before placing yours. If you had, and had read my larger comments carefully, I think your conclusion would be rather different.
Its true, one needs a highly-tuned sense of irony and sarcasm not to get the wrong end of the stick at this website.
Rot! One needs an ordinary sense of humour that has been paralysed by taking religion seriously. And a naturally-thinking brain which isn’t diverting 99% of its energy into maintaining a pretence of “believing” in the patently unbelievable.
My parents had my foreskin cut off when I was wee-small. I feel robbed ! I mean, what sensations and experiences am I missing out on ?
“Allah and goats, Mary giving blow jobs” !!! How tame !!! The Bible and Quran are chock full of debauchery and an utterly immoral yey-lets-commit-genocide today positive-thinking.
And you seem to take offence at that which you have, and SWALLOW the “sanctity of religion”.
Oh DARN !!! I’ve fallen into my own trap ! I’m responding to you like you’re serious, and you’re nothing but a wily TROLL ! You’re a TROLL ! Get out of here ! GRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHH !!!
July 2nd, 2003 @ 5:04 pm
Eva >> Are you an American ? If so, then you’ve called a Brit “like too bubbly….too eager…” What is occuring ?
July 2nd, 2003 @ 6:07 pm
I’m certainly having problems with logic.
July 2nd, 2003 @ 6:58 pm
stephen, english is not my first language…and i’m an american, because i live in the americas….
so, i could be chilean, costa rican, canadian, cuban, brazilian, etc….
July 2nd, 2003 @ 11:20 pm
I am tantalised …. But where ARE all these PLACES ?
July 2nd, 2003 @ 11:40 pm
in the americas, stephen
North, Central or South….
america is not just the USA
July 3rd, 2003 @ 1:21 am
Oh, those Brits. They’re so eurocentric.
July 3rd, 2003 @ 1:21 am
Oh, those Brits. They’re so eurocentric.
July 3rd, 2003 @ 1:21 am
Oh, those Brits. They’re so eurocentric.
July 3rd, 2003 @ 1:21 am
Oh, those Brits. They’re so eurocentric.
July 3rd, 2003 @ 1:21 am
Oh, those Brits. They’re so eurocentric.
July 3rd, 2003 @ 1:21 am
Oh, those Brits. They’re so eurocentric.
July 3rd, 2003 @ 9:26 am
Rave-
To your question – because living in the deep south (USA) it appears to be more daring I guess. Although, nowadays maybe the reference to Allah takes more guts. A pox on all their houses!!
-regards