Join date: 2010-05-10
|Subject: i hate the sheepish, self-declared “Brights” Wed May 19, 2010 3:45 pm|| |
A couple of years ago there was an explosion in atheist books, and consequentially television coverage of atheism. As an atheist, i enjoyed this because it gave me a chance to view other peoples arguments for and against faith and religion. of course it couldn't be left at that, instead, a group called “the Brights” formed. These cowards decided to call themselves “Brights” instead of atheist in an attempt to avoid the negative connotations that the word holds with the religious. They actually think it is clever, as if Christians would listen to any argument of how their god doesn’t exist, so long as it doesn’t come from an “atheist”. They will either have an open and honest conversation or they won’t, simply renaming your position isn’t going to impress them.
What annoys me about this is that it is the same kind of deception that atheists like me tend to criticize religious people for. Intellectual dishonesty is a bad method of argument, even if your primary conclusions prove correct. They then claim that this nonsense title is to encompass not only a lack of supernatural beliefs, but also a naturalistic worldview. They claim that words like “naturalism” and “materialism” aren’t sufficient because they have other implications. They are aware of the fact that bright has several other connotations as well, one of these connotations being ‘intelligent’ of course, yet that wasn’t a deterrent when they chose it as their self-imposed title. I am aware of their meanings, and that they are using it as a noun, and not an adjective, but when they seem to be so concerned with how their views are portrayed, it seems careless, idiotic, and perhaps a little subliminal to choose a word that can be so easily misconstrued. This is what they propose a bright to be:
- Quote :
- There are brights…
Some portion of humanity consists of brights.
• They have a naturalistic worldview
• Their worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
• Their ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview
What is their motivation for joining the “bright movement” ?
- Quote :
- The movement's three major aims are:
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
So why not just say I’m an atheist with a naturalistic worldview? It comes of like some desperate attempt to fit into a group just because you can’t call yourself Christian, or Jewish. But it gets better, because of course they don’t discriminate against the religious, that would take a backbone.
- Quote :
- The People
The constituency of Brights is hugely diverse. Besides those who self-identify as atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, rationalist, naturalist, agnostic, or skeptic, there are individuals who go by their preferred affiliations, such as Ethical Culturalist, Pantheist, Buddhist, Yogi, Wiccan, Transhumanist, or Unitarian. Also part of the gamut of constituents are Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, and others who may personally maintain their religion’s cultural or aesthetic aspects, but not its supernaturalism. There are professors of religious studies and clergy in and out of practice who are Brights (e.g., Unitarian-Universalist ministers, Protestant pastors, even one ex-Benedictine monk). Not all constituents associate themselves with familiar groupings or labels. The movement’s goals attract all sorts of people who “have a naturalistic worldview” and favor thinking of themselves broadly and in a civic sense, as Brights.
What the fuck is a cultural catholic? You don’t believe in god, but do not think that that should preclude you from a little child rape on the weekends? What is the fucking point of calling yourself Christian, catholic, or jewish if you don’t believe in god? Is there a better example of cognitive dissonance? I’m a Christian/catholic/jew except that I’m actually not. Note to retards: if you don’t believe in the supernatural being that is the foundation of a religion, you cannot be a member of that religion. I can where a do-rag, it doesn’t make me black. So to be a “bright” you cannot have supernatural beliefs and to be a true Christian/catholic/jew you must have supernatural beliefs, but yet you can be both? These people sound and act like a fucking cult:
- Quote :
- The Brights’ Net uses two conventions. It employs a lower case “b” for the generic idea (of a bright), when the description above is generally discussed. An upper case “B” refers to those individuals who have said they are brights by registering into the Internet constituency.
That’s right, you’re not a real “Bright” until you sign up! Maybe next they can implement a scientology style “donation” or make a big batch o’ kool-aid for their next “demonstration.” And in case you’re interested they do accept donations. They also have a super cool lapel for sale (because it’s a conversation starter!), that’ll show those dang cross wearing Christians.
The last thing I’ll mention for now is the way they operate like other religious institutions. They have a section on their website dedicated to advertising their more famous, and respected members like: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer, Steven Pinker, and so forth. They are panty-dropping star fuckers. They are trying to use the argument from authority to overwhelm you with their credentials, rather than convince you with an argument. They are just praying on weak-minded people who would rather settle for sharing an opinion with a highly regarded individual, rather than think through the issue for themselves.
Join date: 2010-05-10
|Subject: In addition.. Sun May 30, 2010 6:26 pm|| |
I found it entertaining that after the first few paragraphs I had the realization that it was not about atheists. The whole 'religion' is a word for word copy of atheism. But the part I enjoyed most was when they stated that they wanted to convince the world to accept their views. I wonder if that means world war three will be started by a bright crusade. Another amusing point was the religion mixing concept. Even if we ignore the massive hypocrisy of believing that a god exists while believing that there are no supernatural entities, you are still showing an obvious lack of interest in the beliefs of each religion you claim to follow. Religions have alot of differing beliefs and principles that the followers base their lives on. To claim that you follow multiple sets of conflicting principles means that you either do not feel confident in your current beliefs, do not understand them, or like several aspects of multiple religions and have your own views and principles that you live by. Either of these options are fine, just state that you do not follow a religion and have your own views. I never understood why everyone feels the need to label themselves and others by religion.