This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

wolfhoundGrowl's Profile

wolfhoundGrowl's Avatar Joined over 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by wolfhoundGrowl

More Discussions by wolfhoundGrowl

Latest Comments by wolfhoundGrowl

Go to: Tired of arguing

wolfhoundGrowl's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by wolfhoundGrowl

yeah I just can't be bothered wit the arguemnts anymore

rather fill my time with something more edifying

Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:19:31 UTC | #950807

Go to: Mitt Romney's Mormon God was a lousy CEO

wolfhoundGrowl's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by wolfhoundGrowl

Comment Removed by Author

Fri, 25 May 2012 15:24:54 UTC | #943498

Go to: The Case for Naturalism

wolfhoundGrowl's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by wolfhoundGrowl

Technically, Atheism simply means 'without gods,' so technically it doesn't have enough meaning to warrant use as an identity- but that's only technically (and we don't live in technicalities.)

In the reality of everday language the term 'Atheist' has come to represent naturalism & secularism. In pop culture the term 'Atheist' actually points to so much more than 'without gods.'

In popular culture 'Atheist' is what religious believers most readily label us humanists who have no gods. They don't talk about us in their literature as humanists, they don't preach in their pulpits against our humanism, and they are not concerned about the rise of a cultural movement of Brights. Fundamentalist Believers are talking about a struggle with 'New Atheism.'

Therefore, there is strong argument to say that we should embrace it [Atheist as a label]. This is where the Brights' movement has made an unnecessary proposal. The Brights movement (a movement of which I am a registrant and who's civic equality aims I do support) claims to be re-branding naturalists in a positive manner in the same way as the homosexual community came to be known as gay. Well, actually, gay was a term given to the homosexual community by the pop culture of the time. It was not a label manufactured by the homosexual community for themselves. Furthermore, gay was actually a term used to talk about sexual promiscuity of all types- pop culture was trying to brand the homosexual community as promiscuous, but the homosexual community took the term, owned the term, and spun it positively in the end.

One may ask what can we spin as positive about the term 'Atheist.' The homosexual community was apparently lucky in that 'gay' technically means happy. Well, what is positive about 'Atheist' is it's allusion to freedom.

Tue, 08 May 2012 09:37:18 UTC | #940508

Go to: The Case for Naturalism

wolfhoundGrowl's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by wolfhoundGrowl

So no-one likes 'Bright' then?

Personally I just use whichever term best fits the context ... sometimes Atheist, sometimes Humanist, sometimes Secularist, sometimes Post-Christian (I used to be a Christian) and very very very occasionally Bright. They all relate to the same system of living but different words are better suited in different situations, to different interlocutors, for different moods.

Oh, I really like 'Infidel' as well, I tend to use that one smugly.

Mon, 07 May 2012 20:30:48 UTC | #940393

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

wolfhoundGrowl's Avatar Jump to comment 120 by wolfhoundGrowl

I have to agree with comment 119 and am completely at a loss as to why AtheistEgbert considers the removal of the cross to be the a priori correct thing to do.

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:22:43 UTC | #938349

More Comments by wolfhoundGrowl