Comment by Nelson on February 1, 2009 at 4:39am

yeah, what's obvious to me about that phrase is that "to deny" is something you do to an established truth. established truths are based on evidence. nothing that is not based on evidence can ever be established truth. so it can never be accepted or denied, a person can only believe or not believe.
the opposite of this would be evolution. it is established fact based on 150 years of evidence across multiple scientific disciplines. for that reason evolution is not believed or disbelieved, only accepted or denied.

and i agree with Harris when he points out the fact that there are no names we have for people who lack belief in astrology or in Dionysus. but you're right, the practical reality is that the lexicon is established and apart from all atheists standing up en masse to refuse to be referred to as atheists in favor of another name, it's not going to change. seems like there are other more movable boulders so why waste energy on this one?

Comment by John on February 1, 2009 at 3:39pm

Impression. What do children hear when they hear this coming out of the TV? It's the same way that FOX news get away with how they talk about science and religion.

"apart from all atheists standing up en masse to refuse to be referred to as atheists in favor of another name, it's not going to change"

You are very correct, but is this not what need to happen? And why for another name? We don't want any name other then "person that comes to conclusions based on reason and evidence" In several of Harris' talks, he speaks out about "confronting bad ideas and dogma wherever we find it" but doing so "under the radar". I honestly cant think of one other great change in the moral zeitgeist that did not take a great force. We need the kind of 'pressure' that other entities entitle themselves to.

Comment by Nelson on February 2, 2009 at 1:05am

no doubt we need to put pressure on the moral zeitgeist and i think we see that pressure being applied in the rise of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens; the sales successes of each of their books, and the backlash against atheists which to me indicates that we have been kicking the bee hive and are getting a reaction.

when i say that there are more movable boulders than the name "atheist" and it'd negative connotation i mean that there are better ways to shift the zeitgeist than by simply repackaging atheists with a new name ("new look packaging! same great flavor!"). that doesn't mean that i disagree with Harris on confronting bad ideas and dogma where ever we find them. in fact i wholeheartedly do agree.

Comment by Sniz on February 3, 2009 at 2:47pm

I really hate how we are portrayed as those who deny something. Maybe I'll start referring to religious people as those who deny atheism, or logical thought, or any common sense.

In response to the Harris comment, I think we just need remove the dirtiness of the word "atheist." It has worked for other minorities. We can't just keep coming up with more names to hide behind. I have personally be trying to be less afraid to refer to myself as "atheist" in the public sphere, and it feels good (prob the topic of my next blog...).

Good post John, and I must say, I am impressed by your writing style!

Comment