|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: July 13, 2003 WebWord Comment -- How you define something is critical. If I call Jakob Nielsen a liar and a fool that establishes a certain position in a debate. If I call him a hero and role model, well, that generates still another context. The best way to get people to hate something is to give it a bad name. Politicians and the military do this kind of demonizing all of the time. Name the enemy. Indeed, creating an evil name is a top priority. People rely on such names all the time. For example, if I say "Nazi" most people instantly think evil. How convenient! Now, in light of this posting on naming and definitions, why on Earth did Daniel C. Dennett and his pals decide use the term bright to define atheists? (OK, maybe they aren't the same thing, but close enough.) First of all, does Dennet think "atheist" is a bad term? What does bright add to the story that atheist does not? Does he like it because it is fresh and new? (My guess is yes.) Second, the term bright really is a folly because it slants people to think, not open and enlightened, but closed and elitist. I can't help but think that bright is just plain stupid. If someone told me they were a bright, I'd just laugh. I'd think they weren't smart enough to know about atheism. Bright = same old atheism story. If I am wrong, tell me. Otherwise, let us just walk away from the term bright. It adds no value, provides no new context, and seems to be new just for the sake of being new.
Reader Comments...
I'm an atheist, and the only thing I hate more than religious fanatics are other atheists. Posted by: mick on July 13, 2003 11:38 AM
I'm an atheist, and that's fine with me. However, John, to some religious people, the term "atheist" does evoke images or immoral, unethical evil people. Have you visited The Raving Atheist yet? ;) Posted by: MadMan on July 13, 2003 12:35 PM
I'm an atheist. I hate any god that appears to us in the form of hospital window condensation. Boy, god is dumb. Posted by: Zardoz on July 13, 2003 02:37 PM
This is elitist clap-trap that reminds me of "Wings Over The World", and makes me a bit ashamed to be an atheist. I might have to go back to being a green satanist instead. H G Wells "Things To Come" He represents an enlightened society of scientists and engineers, Wings Over the World, and is scouting the war-ravaged land to assess the savage tribal communities that have replaced civilization. Cabal promises the people a new, superior civilization "of law and sanity" that needs no Bosses or independent sovereign states, but only if the people put their faith in Science rather than in The Boss and his kind. Posted by: Mac on July 14, 2003 05:08 AM
Faulting atheists is a mighty double standard. I've never met a person of faith who didn't look down on, or "pity," atheists. Hell, half the time Christians in the U.S. look down on other U.S. Christians who come from other denominations. This is not an atheist issue. Posted by: Bacon Boy on July 14, 2003 04:35 PM
This reminds me of when the word gay became to refer to a homosexual, thereby perverting (no pun intended) the original word. The word bright means: Glorious, splendid, full of promise and hope, auspicious, happy, cheerful, animatedly clever, intelligent. I don't see the correlation. Are they claiming to be more intelligent than others because they choose not to believe in a Supreme Being or God? And despite them saying "Don't confuse the noun with the adjective", I think that that will happen. Eventually, a person will be unable to say that they are a bright person without being accused of being an atheist. (Try listening to the theme song for the Flintstones or watch some of the old movies or read an old book.) I'm (as I've stated before) a Mormon, but I have a lot of friends who are not. And Clarence Darrow is one of my "heroes" (Think the "monkey" Scopes trial). His biography is worth reading. An agnostic who defended the rights of millions of people, and spent his life true to his beliefs and convictions. I'm more interested in how a person lives his life and treats others. Posted by: Morris Cox on July 14, 2003 08:16 PM
This reminds me of when the word gay became to refer to a homosexual, thereby perverting (no pun intended) the original word. The word bright means: Glorious, splendid, full of promise and hope, auspicious, happy, cheerful, animatedly clever, intelligent. I don't see the correlation. Are they claiming to be more intelligent than others because they choose not to believe in a Supreme Being or God? And despite them saying "Don't confuse the noun with the adjective", I think that that will happen. Eventually, a person will be unable to say that they are a bright person without being accused of being an atheist. (Try listening to the theme song for the Flintstones or watch some of the old movies or read an old book.) I'm (as I've stated before) a Mormon, but I have a lot of friends who are not. And Clarence Darrow is one of my "heroes" (Think the "monkey" Scopes trial). His biography is worth reading. An agnostic who defended the rights of millions of people, and spent his life true to his beliefs and convictions. I'm more interested in how a person lives his life and treats others. Posted by: Morris Cox on July 14, 2003 08:16 PM
I can't read the article because it's locked behind a registration page, but OK, so the author is cynically calling atheists bright? It's true. The higher the IQ and education level, the more likely you are to be atheist. The guy is really just calling religious people dumb. How insulting! Posted by: Pep Streebeck on July 14, 2003 11:47 PM
From Morris: "I'm more interested in how a person lives his life and treats others." Good call! Posted by: daniel szuc on July 15, 2003 11:09 AM
Morris has the right angle with "labeling" a previously negative trait, action or people group with a currently positive one. Happens quite frequently. Regarding athiesm, I've always found it odd that one of their primary arugments is burden of proof. But why should a believer in God have to carry that burden and not the other way around? Theodore Drange said it like this: "Some methodological atheists formulate the principle by saying that the burden of proof is always on any person making an existence claim, since, from a logical point of view, existence claims are only capable of proof, not disproof. No one has ever proven the nonexistence of Santa Claus, or elves, or unicorns, or anything else, simply because the very logic of an unrestricted existential proposition prohibits its disproof. It is impossible to go all over the universe and show that, for example, there are no elves anywhere. For this reason, rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of all those things which have never been shown to exist. That is why we all regard it rational to deny the existence of Santa Claus, elves, unicorns, etc. And since God is in that same category, having never been shown to exist, it follows that rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of God." Posted by: leon on July 15, 2003 03:42 PM
Clarence Darrow (who became somewhat of a socialist and considered himself an agnostic), "felt that if every man could be acquainted with every other man's religion, visit his church, understand his view, the fear, suspicion, fear and dislike would melt away. ---------- That's from the book _Clarence Darrow for the Defense_ by Irving Stone. Posted by: Morris Cox on July 15, 2003 08:13 PM
My point was that the burden of proof should not rest on believers to prove that God exists because they can't, but neither can athiests prove that He doesn't. That is the point of Darrow's quote. Posted by: leon on July 16, 2003 10:57 AM
I'm sorry, I meant Drange's quote. Posted by: leon on July 16, 2003 10:58 AM
fyi http://www.the-brights.net/ Posted by: leon on July 16, 2003 03:34 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |