Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Aug 9th, 2003, 04:08 PM        The Bright Movement (Dennett)
NYTimes July 12, 2003
The Bright Stuff
By DANIEL C. DENNETT

BLUE HILL, Me.

The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.

The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.

You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.

As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.

Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power — by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."

A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one — more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.

Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.

But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.

From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter. And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and — yes — all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well.

I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.

Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.

Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.

In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.

If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."

But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.

And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?

Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."

Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Freedom Evolves.''
Reply With Quote
  #2  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Aug 9th, 2003, 04:17 PM       
Richard Dawkins' article in the Guardian:

***

The future looks bright

Language can help to shape the way we think about the world. Richard Dawkins welcomes an attempt to raise consciousness about atheism by co-opting a word with cheerful associations

Saturday June 21, 2003
The Guardian

I once read a science-fiction story in which astronauts voyaging to a distant star were waxing homesick: "Just to think that it's springtime back on Earth!" You may not immediately see what's wrong with that, so ingrained is our unconscious northern hemisphere chauvinism. "Unconscious" is exactly right. That is where consciousness-raising comes in.
I suspect it is for a deeper reason than gimmicky fun that, in Australia and New Zealand, you can buy maps of the world with the south pole on top. Now, wouldn't that be an excellent thing to pin to our class- room walls? What a splendid consciousness-raiser. Day after day, the children would be reminded that north has no monopoly on up. The map would intrigue them as well as raise their consciousness. They'd go home and tell their parents.

The feminists taught us about consciousness-raising. I used to laugh at "him or her", and at "chairperson", and I still try to avoid them on aesthetic grounds. But I recognise the power and importance of consciousness-raising. I now flinch at "one man one vote". My consciousness has been raised. Probably yours has too, and it matters.

I used to deplore what I regarded as the tokenism of my American atheist friends. They were obsessed with removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (it was inserted as late as 1954), whereas I cared more about the chauvinistic nastiness of pledging allegiance to a flag in the first place. They would cross out "In God we Trust" on every dollar bill that passed through their hands (again, it was inserted only in 1956), whereas I worried more about the tax-free dollars amassed by bouffant-haired televangelists, fleecing gullible old ladies of their life savings. My friends would risk neighbourhood ostracism to protest at the unconstitutionality of Ten Commandments posters on classroom walls. "But it's only words," I would expostulate. "Why get so worked up about mere words, when there's so much else to object to?" Now I'm having second thoughts. Words are not trivial. They matter because they raise consciousness.

My favourite consciousness-raising effort is one I have mentioned many times before (and I make no apology, for consciousness-raising is all about repetition). A phrase like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should clang furious bells of protest in the mind, just as we flinch when we hear "one man one vote". Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can't vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit your parents'. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child? Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighbourhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?

Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder. Everybody's consciousness should be raised to this level. Occasionally a euphemism is needed, and I suggest "Child of Jewish (etc) parents". When you come down to it, that's all we are really talking about anyway. Just as the upside-down (northern hemisphere chauvinism again: flinch!) map from New Zealand raises consciousness about a geographical truth, children should hear themselves described not as "Christian children" but as "children of Christian parents". This in itself would raise their consciousness, empower them to make up their own minds and choose which religion, if any, they favour, rather than just assume that religion means "same beliefs as parents". I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all.

Please go out and work at raising people's consciousness over the words they use to describe children. At a dinner party, say, if ever you hear a person speak of a school for Islamic children, or Catholic children (you can read such phrases daily in newspapers), pounce: "How dare you? You would never speak of a Tory child or a New Labour child, so how could you describe a child as Catholic (Islamic, Protestant etc)?" With luck, everybody at the dinner party, next time they hear one of those offensive phrases, will flinch, or at least notice and the meme will spread.

A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, of Sacramento, California, have set out to coin a new word, a new "gay". Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Bright? Yes, bright. Bright is the word, the new noun. I am a bright. You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time you came out as a bright? Is he a bright? I can't imagine falling for a woman who was not a bright. The website http://www.celeb-atheists.com/ suggests numerous intellectuals and other famous people are brights. Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights. Look on the bright side: though at present they can't admit it and get elected, the US Congress must be full of closet brights. As with gays, the more brights come out, the easier it will be for yet more brights to do so. People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as a bright.

Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?" And then you're away: "A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."

"You mean a bright is an atheist?"

"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."

"Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?"

"What would you suggest?"

Of course, even though we brights will scrupulously insist that our word is a noun, if it catches on it is likely to follow gay and eventually re-emerge as a new adjective. And when that happens, who knows, we may finally get a bright president.

ยท You can sign on as a bright at http://www.the-brights.net/. Richard Dawkins FRS is Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. His latest book is A Devil's Chaplain.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Aug 9th, 2003, 05:07 PM       
I've tried to rationalize to myself a disbelief in the afterlife because that would make living a great deal easier. As a schizoaffective with an utterly pessimistic outlook on life and the world, life is far too much effort to ever be conceivably close to worth living. This is so deeply ingrained into my psyche that I feel that there's something intrinsically wrong with the desire to clutch onto life so tightly as most people do in a world so bleak as ours. I mean, really, what is wrong with you people? So naturally, the only thing that has kept me alive since my early adolescence has been the fear of Hell. Obviously, this has been insufficient on more than one occasion.

Now, I wouldn't believe in an afterlife simply because that's in my religious credo. I've already poured much effort in the idea that perhaps its concept is a divine lie, like evolution, installed to make us feel better about something. I'm even willing to disavow the idea that we have a soul. The problem is that the idea of an immortal soul makes objective sense to me from a metaphysical perspective, and it follows that this soul would have to be stored in some form of existence not bound by a dimension of time. Call it Heaven, call it Hell. I assume there's both.

The principle reason for which I believe in a soul is that it's the only solution to the enigma I see in our observation of the passage of time. All of history, from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch, simply is. It is static, it doens't morph, it doesn't develop, it doesn't undergo any process. It is perfectly sensible to say that stellar debris coagulates into a planet on which complex lifeforms evolve, and the chemical processes within the higher lifeforms demonstrate intelligence. But I see no way for humans to be able to sentiently observe time itself on a moment-by-moment basis without the support of a soul. All of history is like a book that has long been written, but we humans have the illusion that we're writing it. If I could be convinced that there is a way to perceive time without arbitration from a parallel state of existence, I might abandon my belief of the soul and thenceforth the afterlife.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #4  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 09:31 AM       
Wow, a bunch of atheists don't want to admit they are a bunch of God-denying rejects.

These people need to grow the fuck up and face facts.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but you are still an atheists. It's like when people talk about "swinging" and "open-marriage", when in reality they committing adultery.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 10:47 AM       
This coming from a guy who deeply resents being lumped together with other God-believing peoples all around the world because they don't believe in Jesus.

Not that I'm prepared to take seriously people who make up faggy new age names for their crystal healing club.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 11:50 AM       
Quote:
You can sugarcoat it all you want, but you are still an atheists. It's like when people talk about "swinging" and "open-marriage", when in reality they committing adultery.
As opposed to calling yourself a Catholic and getting underwater handjob action while groping fake titties?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
The_voice_of_reason The_voice_of_reason is offline
Senior Member
The_voice_of_reason's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: yes
The_voice_of_reason is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 11:54 AM       
BOY GUYS THAT VINCE KID SURE IS DUMB
__________________
I like to masturbate
Reply With Quote
  #8  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 02:23 PM       
There are some pretty good articles on www.edge.org on the subject. The articles are by the same people you referenced so it way be somewhat redundant. There are some links provided, though.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Vibecrewangel Vibecrewangel is offline
Member
Vibecrewangel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Vibecrewangel is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 03:05 PM        Bright
Quote:
Not that I'm prepared to take seriously people who make up faggy new age names for their crystal healing club.
With ya all the way.
And as much as I hate to admit it I also agree in part with Vince. An atheist by any other name is still an atheist. Deal with it. Giving it a pretty name won't change what it is. If you are honestly happy with youself and your beliefs then you should be able to accept them for what they are. Make no appologies. And don't try to make what you believe easier to swallow for anyone else. They are YOUR beliefs. If you truly, honestly, deeply believe them then you would not need to hide it or disguise it. And (un-like most Catholics) you would not get angry when someone questions them. Getting defensive when someone questions you about your "faith" only shows that you doubt your own convicions. If you are completely secure in your faith (or lack thereof) then even when questioned.....even when badgered, you would only feel the peace and happiness that comes with clear and honeest conviction.
__________________
Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 06:31 PM       
Much as I want to be open-minded towards different ways of thought, I think if a woman came up to me at a party and said "Hi. My name's Champagne and I'm a Bright.", I don't think I could stop my fist from entering her face in several rapid, punch-like movements.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 07:14 PM       
Quote:
And as much as I hate to admit it I also agree in part with Vince. An atheist by any other name is still an atheist. Deal with it. Giving it a pretty name won't change what it is. If you are honestly happy with youself and your beliefs then you should be able to accept them for what they are. Make no appologies. And don't try to make what you believe easier to swallow for anyone else. They are YOUR beliefs. If you truly, honestly, deeply believe them then you would not need to hide it or disguise it. And (un-like most Catholics) you would not get angry when someone questions them. Getting defensive when someone questions you about your "faith" only shows that you doubt your own convicions. If you are completely secure in your faith (or lack thereof) then even when questioned.....even when badgered, you would only feel the peace and happiness that comes with clear and honeest conviction.
I think you're rather missing the point. Bright, as its ultimate aim, isn't meant to make atheism nicer and more palatable for others; nor for that matter is it fudging over the obvious fact that a bright does not believe in god. It also isn't only a matter of personal faith. Religion obviously plays a huge role in American politics, civil institutions, culture, etc. and you are skirting the social dimension of religion in your rant. Being questioned on one's lack of faith is one thing; having a society that regards you as immoral is another entirely.

The 'bright' idea, what it intends to do, is increase the social awareness of the political presence of nonreligious people in the USA and elsewhere. In short, to turn it into a movement. It achieves that goal by creating a name by which nonreligious people, skeptics, etc. can identify themselves by. An identity carries with it political weight and the power to create social change. Whereas the religious right and the Catholic church have a very real political presence in the USA, there really hasn't been a strong, organized movement representing nonreligious beliefs here (they have sometimes been attached to other things, like Marxist parties). Actually, to take an idea from Marx, you can think of it as a group of people developing 'class' consciousness.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Vibecrewangel Vibecrewangel is offline
Member
Vibecrewangel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Vibecrewangel is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2003, 07:29 PM        Bright
Oh no, I get the point. It is just that this kind of thing makes little sense to me. I just find it more productive to prove your point by being a good person on your own. Show the world instead of telling them. Each of these people can be all of those things without group support. To me this just seems desparate. A big LOOK AT ME. I understand they want political clout....and yes in this country unfortunately the mob mentality is stronger.
I just think it is better to try to get people to take more responsibility for their own actions, to think for themselves, to be individuals. Notice I hate organized religion too. Hold my hand. Tell me what to do. Think for me.
For fuck sake.....grow a set.....and a brain
__________________
Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Aug 12th, 2003, 12:54 AM       
I just don't see why this has to be called the 'bright' movement, and why it just can't be called the 'atheist' movement. They'd probably get more respect anyway, since 'atheist' doesn't sound as fruity as 'bright'.
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
  #14  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Aug 12th, 2003, 10:24 AM       
Would organized non-religion be any better? Sounds like sheep of a different color to me. Just sayin' :/
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Vibecrewangel Vibecrewangel is offline
Member
Vibecrewangel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Vibecrewangel is probably a spambot
Old Aug 12th, 2003, 10:27 AM        Yup
My point exactly Kelly.

Claiming to be different but acting the same.....yeah that proves your point.
__________________
Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Aug 13th, 2003, 10:36 PM       
So these people feel intelligent for giving up religion? Woo-hoo. That still doesn't change the fact that some of the lessons taught in religious scriptures are good ones.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Aug 14th, 2003, 04:34 AM       
How is this any different than the Humanist movement, exactly?
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #18  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Aug 14th, 2003, 12:49 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
So these people feel intelligent for giving up religion? Woo-hoo. That still doesn't change the fact that some of the lessons taught in religious scriptures are good ones.
Are you talking about ALL religions? I tend to believe that too in most cases. Religions don't survive for lack of purpose and it's good to keep an open mind to what all of them have to say.

Seth,

Isn't all religion fundamentally orginated from man and therefore humanist? I do, however, realize the specific movement that you're talking about. This was just a splinter question.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Aug 14th, 2003, 09:20 PM       
There are moral lessons to Married With Children too, that is hardly a reason to begin a local chapter of NO MAAM. You can't validate religion, any religion, on the precept that it serves an instructive moral purpose. If taken in the context that God does not exist, then morality is merely a matter of perspective, and therefore religions are really just a waste of time. Why should one conform themselves to an alien belief system if there are no rewards to reap?

And the emotional comfort argument really doesn't work. Anyone is more comfortable with their lifestyle before they begin questioning which acts they are committing are sinful.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Aug 15th, 2003, 01:45 PM       
Did I say moral lessons? No. I did not. I said lessons, but not all of them are moral.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
imported_Wicked Steve imported_Wicked Steve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
imported_Wicked Steve is probably a spambot
Old Aug 15th, 2003, 03:06 PM       
First of all, lots and lots of atheists never "give up" religion. We're fortunate enough to be born to non-religious parents and not indoctrinated to anything while we're young (I can remember only one talk regarding religion with my father before about last fall, and that was a history lesson - what is Christianity, what is Judaism, etc.).

Second, I agree with everyone that thinks these people are retarded for making up a euphemism for themselves. They're just trying to put a pretty wrapping on their beliefs in hopes that people who denounce or distrust atheists will be warmer towards "brights". Folks are already wise to "secular humanism," "agnosticism" and a host of other labels, why don't we make up a new one so they'll stop picking on us until they figure it out? "Brights" can call themselves what they want, I'll call them whiners.
__________________
Better to jump into the fire and get burned than run away from it and freeze.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
The_voice_of_reason The_voice_of_reason is offline
Senior Member
The_voice_of_reason's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: yes
The_voice_of_reason is probably a spambot
Old Aug 16th, 2003, 02:20 AM       
Why is it allright for christians to have fifty five thosand different denomonations who all say the exact same fucking thing but if one group of atheists wants to give themselves a fruity name they get knocked for it?
__________________
I like to masturbate
Reply With Quote
  #23  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Aug 16th, 2003, 02:22 AM       
"Day after day, the children would be reminded that north has no monopoly on up"

Except that it holds the magnatism of the world and from any point on earth with a compass you can find your way and all south does is house icebergs and glaciers and a science labratory. But the north pole has santa.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Aug 16th, 2003, 02:27 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_voice_of_reason
Why is it allright for christians to have fifty five thosand different denomonations who all say the exact same fucking thing but if one group of atheists wants to give themselves a fruity name they get knocked for it?
For one, every Christian denomination has a certain tenet that sets it apart from the others (though some of them are very minor). Since atheists don't really go by doctrine anyway, all the Brights are doing is tacking, like you said, a fruity name on.

Regardless, I think the Christians deserve just as much ridicule. They just don't get as much because, well, there are more of them, and thus more Christians to pick on unbelievers than vice versa.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Aug 16th, 2003, 02:29 AM       
I don't know where you come from, around here we burn christians and eat all their food, shortly after eating them. BBQ christian is tastey.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.