Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/ ^ | September 29, 2003 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[chimera]

Ohhheww, you can call them "bright", or you can call them "light", but don't call them "right".

Geez, why the word games, people? Why spend so much effort to deny who you are? Atheist is a perfectly acceptable and common English word. What's the big deal with being so concerned about appearances? Just dump the emotional baggage if you're so smart and go with the accepted term.

[Pete'sWife]

But there is no Hell, right? So why the screen name?

[Teacher317]

How exactly is "bright" an adequate adjective descriptor of the group?
A-theist means, quite clearly, "person without religious belief".
Or do they not have any belief in names describing the things they represent?

[OWK]

I'll stick with atheist.. thanks just the same.

[AppyPappy]

Hell-bound Godless Heathen?

[OWK]

That works OK too.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Words matter. It is critical that conservatives not fall into the trap of letting the left define the language of the debate. I admit that it initially takes a great deal of effort to retrain one's self back to the actual words, but we need to deliberately not use their redefined words in our speech or writing:

"gay" - always better to use "homosexual".

"choice" - its actually "abortion".

"bright" - use Atheist with a capital "A" or my personal favorite, "heathen".

Orwell was a profit!

[PaulJ]

God believers who get downright angry at atheists do so, I believe, because they harbor hidden doubts themselves. And they are only able to constrain these doubts with a display of anger.
Though true believers may feel sadness for an atheist (and even try to "convert" him), they will never get angry.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

This stunt is quite humours on a number of levels.

For one thing: the notion of calling oneself a "bright" is sheer arrogance. It also presumptuously implies that those who do acknowledge the obvious existence of God are by the counter terminology of their usupred term: " not bright". IE: "stupid". Seems rather petulant.

This will likely backfire since some of the most learned & "bright" people do indeed acknowledge the existence of God & or a higher power.

The biggest folly these secularist / athiests make is their uniformed presumption that God is not natural or is "supernatueral" as they put it. What they do not seem to realize is that God is natural & operates within the bounds of nature since the very laws of nature that these dullard athiests worship (which is a faith in itself) were created by God (or The Source / the Creator) in the first place. Furthermore: much of the universe has not yet been adequately understood within the realm of our limited understanding or perception.

For athiests to make to audacious claim that God "does not exist" based simply on their limited perspective & dearth of knowledge is certainly the hight of hubris.

Also by praising nature: they are worshipping the work instead of the Creator.

No one with any sense & ability to apply logical reasoning could come to the sweeping conclusion that " God does not exit" when considering the mathematical complexities of the universe & even nature itself as well as the obvious order which exists & is manifest in so much of nature. Nature is simply the consequence & product of an intelligent design. Nature did not manifest all by itself -as athiests seem to pathetically & ludicrously claim. The universe did not come about as the result of a random event. The maticulous & pervasive order of things within the universe & nature point to an inescapable conclusion of intellegent design.

[DittoJed2]

And where did you get this idea from Sigmund?

[Big Mack]

I think the word they are looking for is "Dims".

[OWK]

I have noticed similar things.

Particularly among those who actually follow (as opposed to paying lip-service to) the teachings of the Nazarene.

Those who truly comprehend and follow the teachings tend to be at peace with themselves and with the world. I call many of them friends, and count myself lucky to know them.

The lip-service folk by contrast tend to be angry, hostile, caustic, and downright evil at times.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

But there is no Hell, right? So why the screen name?

It's a metaphor. There is no Hitler (any more), but people still say 'Hitlery'. Nice try, though. I hope you're not trying to convince me that I secretly (or subconsciously) do believe in God. I assure you, I do not. I wish I could. True believers seem so much happier than I am. But I'd just be bandwagon-jumping if I pretended to believe, and I would know I was lying to myself. I'd be a CINO (Christian in name only). No religion wants a phony in their ranks (unless it's a money-making cult that only cares about your allegiance and your cash, like Scientology).

I knew I was inviting scorn by posting, but every now and then I post something that I know is at odds with the majority of the forum. I should know better, but it does take a certain courage to speak out when you know you'll be outshouted and outnumbered. I don't expect to change any minds, I merely state my position on the whole matter of religion.

[DrC]

I concur that agnosticism, not atheism (which is as dogmatic as theism), is the most intellectually defensible position. I didn't know the first thing about the author of the "brights" editorial in NYT and now that I do, it does not detract from some of the very legitimate points made in the editorial. It may well be that he personally is hypocritical in his advocacy of a neutral, mutually respectful position of believers vis-a-vis non-believers. That doesn't mean one should tar all "brights" with the same brush. I think it's revealing that the authors rant against the bright position implies that it is held only by atheists even though the original author made very clear he included both atheists AND agnostics among those who should claim this moniker.

[NutCrackerBoy]

in their determination to be irreligious, these atheists have just established a new anti-religious religion

In a certain sense, it is a new development. Up to now, to my knowledge, an anti-religious religion has not sought the legal protections accorded to religions.

From the age of eight, I called myself an atheist. I haven't changed - still a materialist - but I have gained some insight into the spiritual nature of man. An atheist being someone who denies the existence of G*d, I find that that denial has nothing to do with what I am about.

I observe that some scientists are believers, especially those early bright lights, and it does not seem to correlate with their effectiveness or ineffectiveness as scientists. I am thoroughly unconvinced that there is a special value to mankind of atheism per se. In fact, I am quite convinced of the value of religion, and not just for the individual. Institutions of religious authority are a good influence for civilization as a whole.

Yes, I believe in the value even of Islam. But in my opinion, Christianity has evolved in the modern age (you might say it has evolved the modern age) whereas Islam as it is practiced is stuck in a premodern rut.

[OWK]

I concur that agnosticism, not atheism (which is as dogmatic as theism), is the most intellectually defensible position.

Many atheists are dogmatic.

Many are not.

I (as an atheist) simply do not find any reason to believe in a god. I look around the world and see dozens of cultures claiming everything from blue-elephant-headed creatures, to invisible cloud-walking bearded guys, as the ultimate authors of the universe. Each claims their own as undeniable truth, while rejecting all others.

I see no reason to accept any of these explanations, and since the default condition in the absence of evidence is disbelief, I have no belief in a god. This does not mean that I would not modify my disbelief, given sufficient evidence to the contrary.

[whereasandsoforth]

You can choose NOT to believe whatever you want. My knowledge of the existence of God is not based on belief. It is based on a personal relationship. I talk to Him through Jesus Christ and He talks back to me loud and clear. I don't look down on you. I wish great things for you. They are there. There is a great misconception that "non-believers" have about we Christians. Our relationship with God is based on much more than blind faith.

[exmarine]

A more positive approach would be helpful to advance the atheist anti-supernatural agenda.

That's what they've been doing for 100 years! An atheist has not God, therefore, no moral compass, therefore, no value of truth (some don't even believe in truth), and thus, feel no obligation to tell the truth or be honest. They are liars, obfuscators, revisionists, anti-Christian bigots, and they are the ENEMY of freedom. Atheism fosters dictatorships. Atheism is un-American. They are moral relativists, accountable to no one but their own twisted machiavellian consciences.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Correction: usurped term. Seems that these athiests are not trying to articulate their position as much as they are trying to redifine themselves by usurping a term that in reality has nothing to do with a disbelief in the existence of a creator.