Very annoyed with the Founding Brights

Wendell	Posted Sep 27, 2006 at 2:35 PM
isaone Nashville, TN 15th Post	Arrgh! I just read this article by the 'founders' http://www.stnews.org... and at the risk of being disloyal I completely disagree with the manner in which they attempt to avoid the fact that by definition a Bright must be an Atheist unless you somehow manage to define the term God being nothing Supernatural. They state A common misconception is that brights are atheists. Then later the network has Buddhists, Druids, pantheists, transhumanists, Unitarians, Wiccans and Yogis. A gamut of folks ? Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, Muslims ? uphold some of a religion?s cultural aspects but not its supernaturalism. There are plenty of ?nones? ? the individuals who, when confronted by a questionnaire that asks, ?Religion?? will state, ?None.? The naturalistic worldview embraces a broad civic arena. This is just the kind of linguistic gymnastics that annoys me when often used by Theists. They list various belief labels and religions to imply that a person who is one of those must not be an Atheist but this is by no means true yet they ignore the actual definitions of the terms Bright and Atheist themselves. I hope that they are doing this in order to try to avoid the equating of Bright with Atheist and not because they are self deluded enough to actually believe what they are saying. They do mention in the article the correct approach which is to emphasis that Brights are actually a subset of Atheists brights may be atheists, atheists who have supernatural beliefs in astrology or who wear magnets to ward off disease are not brights. If this level of Intelletual Dishonesty is what is required to get the movement off the ground I may have to resign my commission. I have wrtitten them on this. I await their reply. Edited by Wendell on Sep 28, 2006 at 2:37 AM
Kristine	Posted Oct 8, 2006 at 11:29 PM

Wendell	Posted Oct 16, 2006 at 5:07 PM Link to this reply
isaone Nashville, TN 20th Post	I was amazed to find that the people on the thread where I posted this question for the most part simply either do not think it is important or disagree with me. The discussion on the thread went back and forth and around and around. if you are interested it is here. In short they do not agree with my position that it is important that we actually define who we are. They seem to want to avoid the entire questions of defining "Naturalistic" (which I admit is a minefield). They also are very very very sensitive about the idea that the Brights are just another name for atheists (which is not my position at all, I merely believe that by definition a Bright must be an atheist). I understand the need to create a new term not contaminated with the connotations of 'atheist' but I am not willing to do it at the risk of not even understanding who we are. I also still feel that it is much like the ID believers who refuse to take a stance on the age of the earth (8,000 years vs 4.5 billion) because they do not want to lose either of the main groups of believers who otherwise support them. If we are not willing to define who we are I think we water down our message to the extent that we will fail in acheiving anything.
Akkdio	Posted Oct 22, 2006 at 2:44 AM
user 2585827 Baltimore, MD 1st Post	Hmmm. I don't like the word atheist either but agree that it is time the people "come out" about their beliefs. How many can say "I don't believe in God" out loud. Ok. Now try it in front of your Mom/patriarchal figure that grips their heart in silent prayer. Its personal and it is hard but we must encourage ourselves and others to do it. I am looking for an organization that puts reason first and take the Sam Harris view that you must have good reasons... to believe what you do. My definition of good is evolving but it should be based on our well honed scientific process for theory. That would be a start. As to linguistic gymnastics... Is there such a group call The Reasonists? If there is I apologize but I think that would be a good name for a group that can develop or join others in the pursuit of reason. With Reason, Andrew
Brent Gulanowski	Posted Nov 9, 2006 at 11:03 AM
user 2834703 Toronto, ON 1st Post	You should think about this more and stop being so partisan. There's no necessity to think that a belief in God is a belief in the supernatural, because it is not necessary for God to be supernatural, depending on your definition of God. And, unfortunately for your argument, there is no strict definition for God. Thus, belief in god, disbelief in god, or disinterest in god has no bearing on whether an individual believes in the supernatural. Personally, I think the anti-religious focus on God is totally off-base. The problem with supernaturalism is not God, but spirit, including the soul, angels, devils, or any other kind of invisible, conscious being (unseen agency) which has the power to influence the material world and human affairs. Granted, by far the majority of believers see God in this way, but not all. Anti-religion efforts should be on the rejection of belief in the soul and life-after-death. God is irrelevant. No soul, no heaven or hell or otherwise, and religion falls apart. You can still have religion and supernaturalism without God. So you are wasting your time on this crusade.
Brent Gulanowski	Posted Nov 9, 2006 at 11:09 AM
user 2834703 Toronto, ON 2nd Post	They do mention in the article the correct approach which is to emphasis that Brights are actually a subset of Atheists brights may be atheists, atheists who have supernatural beliefs in astrology or who wear magnets to ward off disease are not brights. I think you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about basic set theory. They are not describing a sub-set, according to your excerpt, but an intersection of two sets (atheists and brights). Some brights are atheists, some atheists are brights. Their point, which you've utterly missed, is that some atheists may still be supernaturalists, too, in which case, they aren't brights.
Leo	Posted Jan 29, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Leo123 Chicago, IL 40th Post	To the last poster: Sorry dont see it your way at all, if one is an Atheist, they dont believe in astrology, nor god or anything supernatural. Every act or thing that happens has a reason and a scientific explaination, just because mankind is too stupid to know how it works, dont make it supernatural, their is an explaination. I AM AN ATHEIST, go ahead and say it, say it again and again. Atheism is FREEDOM, true freedom from religion, freedom from the shackels that bind faithers together. All faithers are blind to the truth, through fear or ignorance, or greed. Theist is a person with belief in a god, Atheist is a person without belief in a god. An Atheist knows there is no god, and can actually prove it. The term god has been changing over the years, some now define it as a binding force of all living things. Thank you Steven Speilberg for Star Wars and the Farse, I mean Force. Whether there is energy that binds all living things together in some way does not create a god, it would be some sort of physics. A god is an entity that has absolute control of its enviroment, and command of all that exists. In more ancient times, gods were prioritized, having powers over different elements of existance. If in fact some creature created man, they are not gods, they are but creatures like man that believe in science and work it for either pleasure, entertainment, or for fact finding. If we were created, our creators left long ago, or are just sitting back and laughing at us struggle with the pety concepts we let rule our logical brains ... I AM AN ATHEIST, I KNOW there is no god, and can prove it, I will not go away ...