Atheists go public

There's an article in the NY Times about atheists going public. The primary goal is to improve the public's view of atheists.

My advice to atheist activists is that, in order to win the hearts and minds of Americans, you need to get Hollywood to load movies and TV shows with cool and likeable atheist characters. That's how the gays did it.

Comments

[Richard Hoste]

Sigma,

Check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD97D6OEV80

I was actually surprised to see an emotional defense of obnoxious homosexual behavior in a prole bar.

Looks like SWPL style holier than thou compassion has filtered down the social ranks.

[Richard Hoste]

Watching that again, how about the "I think you're beautiful" comment from the fat prole? Roissy the other day talked about the internet slut with a beta fan club.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/slut-strikes-back/

I didn't know there was a homosexual equivalent.

[dana]

If atheists want to be more prominent and likeable they have to find a way to define their belief system without expressing near constant, withering contempt for the majority of people who ARE religious. This really can't happen because most atheists are really just mad at whatever god they were raised with and have filled the void religion has left in their hearts with a thousand other stupid belief systems and "spirituality". The more scientific minded NONtheists need to start vocalizing a positive, alternative system of thought that has nothing to do with religion and that gives people a reason to consider it even if they aren't mad at their parents for telling them god would send them to hell for whacking off.

[Peter]

Avowed atheists are a minority among the non-believer population. Most people who don't believe in religion don't make a big thing about it. They don't go around proclaiming their atheism, at most will say something like "I'm just not very religious" if anyone asks.

What this all means is that the people who *do* publicly identify themselves as atheists tend to be strident in their (non) beliefs, and in some cases can be as intolerant as extremely religious types. Not an easy obstacle to overcome from a public relations viewpoint.

[Big Don]

Most Americans are actually atheists. If they *really* thought they were going to burn in hell if they didn't 'do unto others, etc' they would behave a lot differently than what you see...

[SFG]

Big Don: Just because you don't believe in all the things religion says doesn't mean you don't believe in God. And even back in the Middle Ages when EVERYBODY believed in God people still drank, stole, cheated, and murdered.

[JohnM]

I agree with Big Don, I think most people are christian in name only. Also known as cheasters (they only observe Christmas and Easter).

I also aggree with HS: we need more media with atheists who are likeable and don't end up converting at the end.

[Wade Nichols]

"My advice to atheist activists is that, in order to win the hearts and minds of Americans, you need to get Hollywood to load movies and TV shows with cool and likeable atheist characters."

Or, just get more women like Ariane Sherine as the visible face of the atheist campaign. She was with Dawkins at the photo ops for the London bus atheist advertisements.

If they want to win people over, they have to lose the smug know-it-all nerdy white guys, and sex up the image. But then again, if you lose the nerdy white guys, there aren't many more atheists!

[gig]

Reading this one would suspect that Hollywood is a bastion of christian fundamentalism dedicated to make the Bible the law of the land.

If atheists want to "win the hearts and minds of Americans", they need to attract beautiful women. Beautiful women make everything cool.

[http://feministx.blogspot.com/]

"Sigma,

Check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD97D6OEV80

I was actually surprised to see an emotional defense of obnoxious homosexual behavior in a prole bar.

Looks like SWPL style holier than thou compassion has filtered down the social ranks."

This really made me think. I just posted about what SWPLs will have to do if SWPL style sanctimony is absorbed by the proles. How are they going to differentiate themselves then?

http://feministx.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-will-haute-bourgeoisie-do.html

[Peter]

Off-topic, to be sure, but I just made a brief rant on Subchat about the illogical logic of the post office:
http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=441847

[Lover of Wisdom]

BigDon:

That's silly. Atheism is an epistemological claim: a belief, or knowledge, that God doesn't exist. Theism, the negation of atheism, is simply the belief, or knowledge, that God exists. Religious practices or behaviors have no necessary connection to the strict theses of atheism and theism. One can be an atheist and behave religiously; another can be a theist and not behave religiously.

[guuy]

I met a hardcore atheist in college...strange, strange guy. That's all he ever talked about. At least some of the hardcore Christians I met were friendly. Although some were control freaks and tried to boss everybody around whenever we had to do a group project.

They didn't say anything like "God told me to lead to this project.." I think it's just the mentality they have and the kind of behavior that's expected of them. Or maybe she happened to be in a leadership position at their church. It wouldn't have been any different if she were president of a sorority or computer science students association. People who are in leadership positions at such a young age are very annoying.

I prefer the secular lifestyle and the "11th Commandment"--that being "thouh shalt keep thy religion to thyself..."

I prefer people to have faith and be raised on some sort of ethics. I find it troubling if one wasn't baptized or member of a church and/or never attended cathecism or sunday school. I think it's good for society to have traditions.

I know quite a few people who resent their parents for not baptizing them or participating in any religion. They look at themselves as misfits who aren't normal; even to this day they're very troubled people.

[Brutus]

Peter said it all

[guuy]

And I forgot to add, to use a half sigma term "prole", all of those troubled people that weren't raised on any religion all came from prole backgrounds.

Is it low class to not baptize your children? Baptizing your children seems like a good way to show that you actually want to instill values into your kid and not want them become some gangster thug or a white trash loser with tattoos who wears wife beater shirts in public.

[J1]

The activities described in the article sound a lot like how a non-denominational church gets started.

"Most Americans are actually atheists"

No, most express some belief in a higher power. True atheists are very rare, though a lot of people (reporters in particular) say atheist when they really mean agnostic, like f'rinstance:

"Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years"

It's not clear how that shows growth in atheism (which, being based on faith, qualifies as a religion itself).

[JohnM]

"It's not clear how that shows growth in atheism (which, being based on faith, qualifies as a religion itself)."
Atheism is the idea that there's not enough evidence to justify the belief in a god (or gods).

Let's say I make the claim that an invisible pink elephant lives in my freezer. You state there's no evidence that that's true. You're stance is the atheist stance. Does it require as much faith for you to say "there's no evidence" as it does for me to say "I believe the elephant is there?"

There is a big difference between atheist, agnostic, and nonreligious. But it doesn't require faith to be an atheist, especially in light of the fact that there is, indeed, no evidence that a god (or gods) exist.

[Kudzu Bob]

I'm in agreement with Voltaire, who discouraged talk of atheism in front of the servants, lest they steal the silverware.

Anyhow, so what if the great mass of people ever do jettison their religious faith? They'll just find some other stupid shit to believe in.

I remember the time I sat down to dinner with a pretty Danish-American girl who somehow managed to work into the conversation that she was an atheist.

After she told me that she seemed a little apprehensive. "Say, that doesn't bother you or anything, does it?" she said.

"Not at all," I told her. "Quite the opposite, in fact. Now I won't have to feign interest while you proceed to talk about what sign you were born under."

"Watch it, buddy!" she shot back. "I do so totally believe in astrology!"

[Jeremy]

Its interesting that people always associate atheism/agnosticism with a sense of superiority towards those of faith. It seems to me, that a by definition unsubstantiated belief in a higher power should lend itself towards a sense of arrogance. Agnostics and Atheists are saying, "there is no proof." Whereas believers are saying, "there is no proof, but I know God exists, and you are going to hell, or you will be judged, for your lack of faith."

Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Sam Harris are very vocal non-believers, and they are frequently cited as arrogant. But they're scientists, and science's don't honor dogma, they honor predictable results within a theory. As soon as the results change, the theory changes to accomodate the new results. To me, that seems to be the epitome of a lack of arrogance, by virtue of the fact that they're saying we don't know, and we'll believe what we see.

[rsi]

How do you know that the media isn't already loaded with cool and likeable atheist characters? How do you know the media isn't loaded with characters who think the moon landing is a hoax?

Having people talk about crap they don't believe in doesn't make for interesting TV.

[Michael Golden]

HS: I think Hollywood/the media is already starting to follow your advice. The TV show Family Guy recently had an episode all about how Brian (the cool, likable talking-dog character, for those who don't watch) is an atheist.

[hk]

Religion is just one of the many side effects of general human irrationality. We can't really fix irrationality at this point, but we can try to water down religion. A good way to do that is state religion. The biggest reason why Christianity is so strong in America is the separation of church and state, which has created an unfettered free market of churches and religions.

Religion is a bad. We don't want competition in the production of bads.

[WTF]

"We can't really fix irrationality at this point, but we can try to water down religion. A good way to do that is state religion."

WTF?

[Kevin K]

The reason religion is popular in the US is because of the size of our underclass and the need for moral authority. When I watched the "Jerry Springer show" I often thought "these people need to go to church!" I bet I wasn't alone. Unless atheists can develop some way of invading other peoples lives and imposing some reasonable moral guidance on people, it will always take a back seat to religion.

Putting funny sidekick atheists on TV will make atheists more accepted, but not more numerous.

[Truth(er)]

Atheism is not the result of "scientific" or "rational" thinking.

Atheism is, put simply, anti-Christian bigotry.

Evidence? Atheists are allowed to make arguments that, in other contexts, would be considered bad form. For example, the primary tool of the atheist is to shift the burden of proof. The atheist makes claims that God does not exist, or there is no evidence that God exists, and then expects other people to prove him wrong.

This would be equivalent to someone telling a dissertation committee that the committee should prove the opposite of the candidates' claims. Unacceptable in this context, but, in the context of religion, perfectly acceptable.

It is not the religious people who bear the burden of proof. Most civilizations throughout a history going back thousands of years believed in the transcendent. Religious people are in good company. It is the atheists that have to prove their point.

Dawkins is not a scientist. This supposedly rational man who thinks God is a delusion will readily tell you that human beings have rights and that people have dignity. What's the scientific basis for rights and dignity?

Tell me, does Dawkins believe that all the races are, on average, equal, or does he believe in human biodiversity? I bet the former.

Don't put too much stock in someone just because he apes your prejudices.

Oh, and pink elephants do exist. They are just very small. After all, people tell me there are subatomic particles in my fridge, yet I don't see little solar systems when I open it.

What most atheists oppose is not God. What they oppose is the God of the Bible. They oppose a God that is knowable and authoritative because that God stands in judgment of all their vices and sins. The atheist mind can't take that...so it invents an idea that God does not exist so they can free themselves from any moral constraints.

That is the black heart that beats in the atheists' breast.

[Jeremy]

Truth(er), the burden of proof does lie with you, assuming you are a believer. You're the one who believes in a being that has no evidence of existing. There are numerous different dating strategies that show the Earth is much older than 7,000 years old, but creationists believe on faith, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it is indeed 7,000 years old. Its also interesting that you state atheists are anti-Christian, and they oppose the God of the Bible. What about Mohammed, or Buddha, or Zeus, etc? To single out Christianity is unwarranted. Also, atheism is strictly speaking more rational than belief. That's why its called faith, its believing in spite of lack of evidence. That is irrational, and I am not saying bad or without merit, but it is not based on evidence.

And to say Atheists are allowed arguments that in other contexts would be considered bad form, is simply not true. Who has a bigger voice in this country, atheists or the believers? Who has the lobbyists in Washington? It is people of faith that are saying others cannot get an abortion, or hope for a cure for a debilitating disease based on stem cells, because of what they believe in. I don't care if someone believes in whatever they like, and if it helps them find meaning in life, and does indeed give them a moral compass, I'm all for it. But it shouldn't affect my ability to lead my life.

As for your dissertation analogy, I don't get it. The onus of proof is on the person to prove their point, and if the results don't match it, their null hypothesis is accepted. Science is based on results, not what a majority of people think. And Dawkins absolutely is a scientist, he is an evolutionary biologist. While he has more current fame with the God delusion, his earlier works, most notably the selfish gene, are works of science, and even the God delusion is written from a scientific standpoint.

Now you don't know anything about me, other than I am agnostic, and you say I have a black heart in my breast. Which one of us is being arrogant?

[SFG]

It's quite possible that atheism is (a) true and (b) bad for society. You're basically arguing ad hominem when you say that atheists want to be free from moral restrictions. Maybe, but does that make us wrong? Maybe there really are things man was not meant to know. Very Lovecraft.

There is no scientific basis for rights and dignity. That's the whole problem. Atheism is true and gives no basis for morality. One of the reasons I've always been skeptical about preaching it.

People seem to get a lot of pleasure too out of their God, I'm not going to take it away from them. "No, Mommy's not dead, she's with God." I'm going to argue otherwise so the kid can know the truth? What's so hot about the truth? Passion for the truth is typical of geeks, most of whom wind up in crappy little apartments with their right hand for company.

And as for slaughtering people in the name of God, Mao, Stalin, and possibly Hitler did a pretty good job without God.

Most civilizations believed in a transcendent god? Sure. Most civilizations believed that evil spirits or humoral imbalances caused disease, too. Not sure how they could have known any better, mind you. Most civilizations had all kinds of silly prescientific beliefs. Some of them kept their society together, too.

(No, I'm not being hypocritical; I expect my comments on HS to have no impact on the social fabric. I can freely debate this question here because I know it doesn't count.)

[Brian]

Truth(er)- The burden of proof belongs to the person who is making fantastic claims without any evidence (virgin births, talking snakes, eternal life in heaven,men living in whales etc). I would love to believe in eternal life, just like I would have loved to believe in Santa Claus when I was a kid. What we want to believe does not matter though. Only what we can prove.

[J1]

"Atheism is the idea that there's not enough evidence to justify the belief in a god (or gods)"

Well, no, that's actually agnosticism (OED• noun: a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God). An atheist (OED• noun: the belief that God does not exist) is not skeptical - he specifically believes no god exists. As I said, many people use the term atheist when they actually mean agnostic. It is not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Firm belief in something that can't possibly be proven is...faith.

"Anyhow, so what if the great mass of people ever do jettison their religious faith? They'll just find some other stupid shit to believe in"

Which really amounts to a change in religion, not abandonment. An example: if the self described environmentalists I know are representative, I would argue that environmentalism already meets the secondary and tertiary definitions of religion, and arguably the primary defintion.

[Flemur]

dana: "...most atheists are really just mad at whatever god they were raised with and have filled the void religion has left in their hearts with a thousand other stupid belief systems and "spirituality"."

What if one were "raised with" no god(s) at all? I guess I'm really mad at Santa Claus because he left me a void for Christmas when I really, really wanted a new bike!

Truth(er): "Atheism is, put simply, anti-Christian bigotry."

So, Japanese atheists are anti-Christian bigots. Check.

Truth(er) again: "That is the black heart that beats in the atheists' breast." [sic]

And there you see bigotry and the psychological projection of that bigotry onto others. K3WL!

SFG: "Most civilizations had all kinds of silly prescientific beliefs."

All of 'em, I'd bet.

JohnM: "There is a big difference between atheist, agnostic, and nonreligious. But it doesn't require faith to be an atheist, especially in light of the fact that there is, indeed, no evidence that a god (or gods) exist."

That's about it. Being an atheist is about the same as not believing in Santa Claus - 'God' being Santa Claus for adults.

[hk]

"It is not the religious people who bear the burden of proof. Most civilizations throughout a history going back thousands of years believed in the transcendent."

No. The burden of proof lay with the first Neanderthal who claimed that God exists and the burden has been with the religious ever since. Time does not shift the burden of proof.

"They oppose a God that is knowable and authoritative because that God stands in judgment of all their vices and sins. The atheist mind can't take that"

You are absolutely right. I don't like the idea of an unalterable celestial dictatorship from which there is no escape (it continues after death).
At best, I would forever be an obedient child of a loving and caring Father, with no chance of growing up or being let go.

The Bible is not a masterpiece of moral philosophy or science or even literature. It's really not that impressive, given its origin. I expect more.

[Truth(er)]

“Truth(er), the burden of proof does lie with you, assuming you are a believer.”

No, I am not a believer. I am simply not an enemy of religion. I also recognize bad arguments when I see them.

“You're the one who believes in a being that has no evidence of existing.”

No, I am merely pointing out that religious belief is the default position of most of mankind. Whole civilizations have been built around the transcendent. Billions over thousands of years have believed in God or gods. Who are you to tell them they are wrong? What proof do you offer that refutes their position? You offer none. You, instead, ridicule and shift the burden of proof.

“There are numerous different dating strategies that show the Earth is much older than 7,000 years old, but creationists believe on faith, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it is indeed 7,000 years old.”

And you and others take on faith that the various dating strategies used to “prove” that the Earth is older than 7.000 years are true. You simply choose to believe, based on the fallacy of an “appeal to authority”, the views of one group of authority figures over those of others. Yet, you haven’t examined why.

“Its also interesting that you state atheists are anti-Christian, and they oppose the God of the Bible. What about Mohammed, or Buddha, or Zeus, etc?”

Atheism is in its strongest and most virulent form within the countries of the West. It is, in other words, a largely Western phenomenon. Tracing its development from anti-Christianism is perfectly valid. (I don’t live in an Islamic country – yet – so I don’t care.)

“To single out Christianity is unwarranted. Also, atheism is strictly speaking more rational than belief. That's why it’s called faith, its believing in spite of lack of evidence. That is irrational, and I am not saying bad or without merit, but it is not based on evidence.”

All of the arguments that are applied against religion can be applied against atheism. Again, it is only an article of faith if you shift the burden of proof, making atheism an article of faith.. And religious belief can be perfectly rational. For example, if you and I are walking in a park and we see a sculpture of Zeus, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sculpture had a sculptor. In fact, ordinary, everyday experience teaches us this all of the time. That which is sculpted, has a sculptor; that which is built has a builder, and that which is created has a creator. Thus, creationism is perfectly rational, since it posits an intelligent being that builds the world based on the analogy of human and animal activity.

Now, consider the evolutionist. Against ordinary experience, he concocts a new theory about primordial oozes and things that happen a spontaneously over long periods of time as his explanation for why things happen. He may agree that the sculpture had a sculptor, but the grass was made by Darwinism.
What sounds more fantastic to you?

“And to say Atheists are allowed arguments that in other contexts would be considered bad form, is simply not true. Who has a bigger voice in this country, atheists or the believers? Who has the lobbyists in Washington?”

Atheists control the government, the schools, the media, entertainment, and most of the big corporations. What they don’t have is control over eradicating religious people…yet.
“It is people of faith that are saying others cannot get an abortion,”

No, it is people faith saying you don’t right murder people just because they are inconvenient. You don’t need to be religious to see that (although I do support abortion.)

“ or hope for a cure for a debilitating disease based on stem cells, because of what they believe in.”

Based on embryonic stem cells that come from murdered babies. Again, you don’t have the right to kill people to get a cure for a disease.

“I don't care if someone believes in whatever they like, and if it helps them find meaning in life, and does indeed give them a moral compass, I'm all for it. But it shouldn't affect my ability to lead my life.”

It does not. It’s just that atheists, liberals, progressives and others have decided to make war on religion. The religious are fighting back.

“As for your dissertation analogy, I don't get it. The onus of proof is on the person to prove their point, and if the results don't match it, their null hypothesis is accepted. Science is based on results, not what a majority of people think.”

Yes, the onus of proof is on the atheist to demonstrate that God does not exist…just like the onus of proof is on the Ph.D candidate to demonstrate to the committee that he is right.
We are all born into a civilization that has existed long before we did. There are existing bodies of knowledge that precede us. If you want to overturn that knowledge, then the burden of proof is on you.

“And Dawkins absolutely is a scientist, he is an evolutionary biologist. While he has more current fame with the God delusion, his earlier works, most notably the selfish gene, are works of science, and even the God delusion is written from a scientific standpoint.”

Self-appointed works of science do not count. This man is simply a bigot. Besides, how is a gene “selfish.” Selfishness is a teleological concept that does not belong in a worldview that believes in randomness.

“Now you don't know anything about me, other than I am agnostic, and you say I have a black heart in my breast. Which one of us is being arrogant?”
Then I will retract that.

It's quite possible that atheism is (a) true and (b) bad for society. You're basically arguing ad hominem when you say that atheists want to be free from moral restrictions. Maybe, but does that make us wrong? Maybe there really are things man was not meant to know. Very Lovecraft.
Atheism may be true, but the burden of proof is still on you.

"Most civilizations believed in a transcendent god? Sure. Most civilizations believed that evil spirits or humoral imbalances caused disease, too. Not sure how they could have known any better, mind you. Most civilizations had all kinds of silly prescientific beliefs. Some of them kept their society together, too."

But if those civilizations were wrong, that is because it was demonstrated that they were wrong…not just assumed."

"Truth(er)- The burden of proof belongs to the person who is making fantastic claims without any evidence (virgin births, talking snakes, eternal life in heaven,men living in whales etc). I would love to believe in eternal life, just like I would have loved to believe in Santa Claus when I was a kid. What we want to believe does not matter though. Only what we can prove."

Yes, people who make fantastic claims bout oozes and coincidence should bear the burden of proof.

[hk]

"That which is sculpted, has a sculptor; that which is built has a builder, and that which is created has a creator."

Who created the creator? If we are allowed to stop the infinite regress by postulating a first and final cause, then the material universe itself could be it just as well as God. We can assume that something has always existed. If not, then once again: who created the creator?

When we look at evolution, the formation of galaxies, molecules, etc, we see that complex things always arise from simpler things, not the other way around. Complexity is NOT explained by postulating more complexity, such as gods or creators or intelligent designers.

"Besides, how is a gene “selfish.” Selfishness is a teleological concept that does not belong in a worldview that believes in randomness."

Maybe you should read the book and learn more about the gene-centered view of evolution before you make your own assumptions about what he means by the phrase.

Evolution is not based on randomness and pure chance. It is based on variation (mutation, recombination), heritability, natural selection (non-random), and millions of years of ac####ulation.

The Darwinian theory of evolution has nothing to do with religion or atheism. It is science, it has never been disproven and the evidence just keeps piling up. If you don't believe in evolution, you are either stupid or ignorant. Religion is not an excuse anymore.

[Truth(er)]

"Who created the creator? If we are allowed to stop the infinite regress by postulating a first and final cause, then the material universe itself could be it just as well as God. We can assume that something has always existed. If not, then once again: who created the creator?"

But "who created the creator?" is not a relevant question. Therefore, there is no infinite regress. Again, if we are walking in a park and we see a sculpture of Zeus, it stands to reason that a sculptor created the sculpture, right? No one asks, "well, who created the sculptor?" with the intent of denying that an actual sculptor made the Zeus statue, right? That the statue exists and that it has a creator is clearly obvious.

The "infinite regress" confuses the distinction between knowing "that" and knowing "why."

Also, since you take the infinite regress seriously, your question can be restated: If we are allowed to stop the infinite regress by postulating a first and final cause, then God itself could be it just as well as the material universe. We are back to my original point: the matter depends on who bears the burden of proof.

"Evolution is not based on randomness and pure chance. It is based on variation (mutation, recombination), heritability, natural selection (non-random), and millions of years of accumulation."

This is exactly what evolution or Darwinism is not. Darwinism is the belief that organic life moves from the simple to the complex through the process of natural selection by random mutation, where that complexity eventually results in the creation of a new species. All that talk about heritability, variation, changes over time, etc. are ancient pre-Darwinian ideas. Anyone who raised crops or animals knows this.

Darwin's contribution was postulating that new species, new organisms, new life that has never existed before comes from this process. Everything else is just Mendelian genetics.

Yet, it is here where Darwinism fails. Darwinism does not demonstrate that new species come from natural selection, heritability, or mutation. Darwinism merely assumes and asserts it. And this assumption is never challenged because the Darwinist idea piggybacks on the success that natural selection, heritability and mutation has at explaining other things. Thus, Darwinism assumes as true that which has to be proven...much like religion.

Even the phrase "millions of years of accumulation" is nothing but verbal imagery with no content.

Darwinism is, therefore, faith concealed as truth and spread by propaganda.

[Dog of Justice]

Truth(er), Darwinism provides a framework for making more, and more accurate, predictions than any existing religion about a wide range of modern phenomena. While there is a nonzero amount of faith involved in extrapolating its past successes to the future, far greater faith is required to believe in the Christian God while being fully informed about modern science at this point. Or to believe in any other existing religion. Eliezer Yudkowsky has written about this at length at Overcoming Bias. (On a personal level, seeing him independently come up with practically all the same arguments I think about boosts my belief that we're both working with truth rather than creating a false story out of faulty axiom(s).)

This doesn't mean religion has no utility in today's world. I vehemently disagree with the commenter who asserted that religion is a bad. Maybe in his ideal world where everyone has what we'd currently consider high intelligence, as well as a restricted set of combinations of personality traits. Maybe even in East Asia today. But not in the US right now. It is ironic and sad that Dawkins can write at length about memes but doesn't appear to have a clue about what he's doing wrong when it comes to communicating his favorite one.