Comments on: Godless is the new queer!

By: Ebonmuse

Ebonmuse — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:52:02 +0000

Thanks for the kind mention, Vicki. I see what Sam Harris was driving at, I just think his proposed fix was off-base. In particular, the suggestion that we can simply divest ourselves of the word “atheist”, and thereby escape all the negative stereotypes that have historically been attached to that word, was surprisingly naive.

As evidence of the persistence of these stereotypes, Harris noted that he addressed the “atheism = communism” smear in his book, only to have it thrown right back at him as though he’d never mentioned it:

How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.”

And yet, Harris himself says that he explicitly never used the word “atheist” in The End of Faith for this very reason. But this does not seem to have been even a slight impediment for those who wanted to use it against him. His own point negates itself.

As long as there are people who don’t believe, we’ll be tarred with the same stereotypes by overzealous apologists, no matter what we call ourselves. We might as well pick a word that accurately describes what we are, and then stand up and defend it. The stereotypes will always come from the terminally prejudiced, but by giving ourselves a name to associate under, we can more easily organize to resist them.

By: Xiaogou

Xiaogou — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:13:41 +0000

I want you pose to you this idea. Man in the most primitive form wants to name things and put things in neat little cubbyholes. I will borrow from the Dungeons and Dragons genera, if you know evil’s name and you can control it. What does this have to do with the post? Well, for bigotry to exist there has to be a dichotomy of good and bad. Get a bunch of people and give them a name, not as a descriptive, but as a label. Then give the name a bad connotation and Voila! A new barrier to enlightenment and death to what is right. So, changing your name will not change the bigot.
Now the choice is if one is working for the good of the world is, does one work at the level of the bigot or does one do what is right by continuing prove through deeds and actions that we have the better way of life?
If someone gets in your face for being an atheist is he working for the good or a racist? That person cannot fight the truth and does not want to know who you are as a person. He has gone down to the level of the bestial nature and is in fact a bigot. And in fact a Christian, especially if calls himself a Christian, has shown that he is really “The Beast”.
In closing, if one is an atheist then that is fine. If one creates a negative label to this than they are bigots plain and simple. Just do not ruin this by doing things that confirm to the bigot that he is right. Nor, should we stoop down to their level and start labeling them either.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:45:35 +0000

Keep at it, Ben. There’s got to be a word or short phrase out there . . .

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:13:58 +0000

“Oh, so you’re chosen?”
“Oh, so you’re a dreamer?”
“Oh, you must be an ancient.”
“Oh, so you’re a one-booker.”
“Oh, another anatural.”

Sorry those sucked

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:09:43 +0000

How about a new word for “theist,” one that is a bit derogatory. I think Harris describes the word I’m after in this phrase at the end of the above-cited article: Those who “praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know.” If we could invent such a word, “X”, we could say “Oh, so you’re a X . . . ”

BTW, I think Harris’ idea of giving up the word atheist is a mild stumble on the way to some terrific ideas. I’d highly recommend reading his article all the way through, to include the discussion of meditation and the ineradicable existence of mysteries throughout the universe. I found it to be powerful and elegant writing.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:42:31 +0000

Check out the linked post at Daylight Atheism. Ebonmuse is a gifted and thoughtful writer who presents this issue with precision. He always attracts a lively crew of commenters too. I agree with his point that we need to pick a word (might as well stick with “atheist”) and stick up for it. If we scurry off to pick a new word, it will soon be targeted by the bigots in the same way they’ve smeared “atheist.”

I agree with Vicki’s criticism of Harris, though I do understand the frustration driving Harris’ suggestion because I’ve often felt it myself.