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.

[BMCDA]

That is not how classical Greek works ("A" for effort, though).

Au contraire. The prefix "a-" denotes a negation just like the English "non-". So atheism means simply NOT(theism) just like asymmetric means NOT(symmetric). The "a-" prefix has in both cases the same function.
And just like symmetric/asymmetric¹, theism/atheism form a complete dichotomy. If you don't believe me, draw a Venn diagram.

¹ or do you have a counterexample of something that is neither symmetric nor asymmetric?

[BMCDA]

Dang it! Missed all the fun ;)

[exmarine]

Quite obviously, the act of arguing against theism is prima facie evidence that such a person holds a belief - an anti-theistic one! If you did not have a belief, you would have no motive to argue anti-theistically. Busted.

[BMCDA]

Huh?? What in my post is anti-theistic?

[exmarine]

Actually, I cannot find in this thread where you did make any anti-theistic comment, so I will have to withdraw my statement as untrue and apologize. :)

[balrog666]

Aw, the poor little child wasted his last bullet on you. BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!

[BMCDA]

Apology accepted ;)

[Heartlander]

This whole thing would be funny if it wasn’t true… ‘brights’?

In related news: Anarchists have organized and elected a leader. They have decided to call themselves “guides”. Are you a ‘guide’ or are you ‘unguided’?

[DittoJed2]

Guess a liberal's dream person would be a gay moderate bright guide choicer.

[OWK]

I made my point of distinction very clear.

You may worship as you please.

Do not coerce me into paying for it (or for the advancement of secular ideas either).

Do not coerce me into participating in it.

Do not coerce me into abiding by it.

You do as you please and do it peacefully.

I'll do as I please and do it peacefully.

We'll have no problems.

[DittoJed2]

What's coercion?

[jennyp]

I was thinking of posting the following as a thread when I got it a couple weeks back, but I just knew the topic would come up again, so I'll just throw it out here. I found it rather funny. Plus it pretty much sums up my reaction to "Bright" too...

E-SKEPTIC FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2003
Copyright 2003 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic
magazine (www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to print,
distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We encourage
you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can
subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to:
join-skeptics@lyris.net
------------------------
BRIGHT FEEDBACK

When I posted my brief commentary on the new meme "Brights" to represent
atheists, nontheists, nonbelievers, agnostics, infidels, heretics, skeptics,
free thinkers, humanists and secular humanists, etc., I had not intended to 
solicit feedback from e-Skeptic readers; nevertheless, feedback I received! 
In droves. I have not done a formal count, but I estimate roughly 50 people 
wrote me.
Two were positive about the word "Bright," the rest were unequivocally
negative, and all for the same reason (as stated in one letter reproduced 
below). I had originally suggested to Paul and Mynga that we solicit feedback 
from various sources, but they convinced me that sometimes social movements 
are best driven not by committee and excessive discussion (free thinkers, 
humanists, skeptics, et al. have been talking about the labeling problem for 
decades) but by simply moving forward with an idea to see if it sticks. In 
general I dislike labels altogether, but our language and culture depends on 
them to an extent that I can't see a way around it.

Our world view is naturalism. Thus, I like the word "naturalist," but I fear
that this conjures up the image of someone like Alfred Russel Wallace
traipsing around the rain forest with a butterfly net. Our magazine is simply 
called "Skeptic," and so I also like the label "skeptics," but this is also 
frought with pejorative connotations, the most common synonym being "cynic." 
Since no one has come up with a better name than "brights" I figured we might 
as well go for it and see what happens. Maybe the meme name will catch on in 
the lexicon, or maybe it will simply fall into disuse. We'll see.

In the mean time, if any of you would like to suggest some alternatives I
would be happy to collect them all and print them in another e-Skeptic. Just
e-mail me at skepticmag@aol.com

Here is a typical letter I received, which was also posted to the Bright web 
page.

Michael Shermer
-----
Bright is a good word ?????????

I am a longtime reader of Michael Shermer's materials (from which I got your
email address) and subscriber to SKEPTICAL INQUIRER nearly from its 
inception, etc. (that is to say, I'm a 55-year-old scientist/humanist/atheist 
since my early twenties and I've thought about these things for many years) 
and I am pained to tell you that your choice of the term "Bright" as the one 
to promote is a horrible one.

I agree entirely and enthusiastically with your enterprise and the reasoning
that goes into it, but I am dumbfounded that you would choose a term that 
will do nothing more than expose us to ridicule and engender hostility in 
those who do not agree with our worldview.

"Those people think they're so damn smart . . . smarter than the rest of us.
. . they're the bright ones . . . what does that make us?? F*** THEM!!"

Never mind all that stuff about "bright" meaning "cheerful and lively" . . .
"the light of science and reason" . . . "tolerance for all" . . . and so 
forth. Consider two facts: (1) In the popular lexicon, "bright" as applies to
people means "smart." (2) Believers in God (and etc.) REALLY REALLY RESENT
US ALREADY because we have the gall to reject their most cherished beliefs and 
to imply that people like them must be morons if they believe as they do. Put 
1 and
2 together, please!!

I can't believe you folks are this out of touch. You are, despite your worthy
intentions, doing all of us a great disservice and can only wind up setting
our cause back, which we do not need.

I find the fact that a number of you have decided to label People Like Me
"The Brights" to be EMBARRASSING. I haven't thought of a better term to use,
but there have got to be many. Can't you instigate some kind of retraction 
and make an effort to get some kind of input from a large number of us? 
Perhaps go through the subscriber lists to Shermer's and CSICOP's magazines, 
and other relevant lists that must be available? Get a larger sampling of 
opinion on this???! It's too good an idea to screw up with that horrendous 
choice of a label.

Okay, Bright Boys??? (Ugh)

Sincerely, and Regretfully,
Joseph Giandalone, Conway, MA

[OWK]

What's coercion?

And you wonder why people ignore you.

[DittoJed2]

And you wonder why people ignore you.
He says, as he posts to me.

No, OWK, I don't wonder about such a thing because very few do so and the few that do either have nothing of substance to say or frankly, due to their own actions, aren't people I have that much respect for. I figure, it's their loss and go on and talk to people who actually want to discuss things rather than insult.

I asked what coercion was to you because earlier (not on this thread) you were talking use of physical force. Would you consider "witnessing" to you coercion? If you choose to ignore this question, it's your right to do so. I'll just stick you in one of the above two categories and move on.

[Heartlander]

I just find it ironic that someone who believes their intelligence came from mindlessness and uses academia as their lamppost chooses the word bright. It appears one can become drunk from the old ‘cup of knowledge’. But a drunk uses a lamppost more for support than actual guidance.

I don’t know… If someone positively believes that his or her consciousness came from mindlessness, why not use the label ‘mindless believer’ instead of ‘bright’? I say this in humor because I find the whole thing ironic.

I’m curious though; will atheists find this ‘bright’ label as annoying as some Christians find the ‘creationist’ label? Reading a few posts here… it appears that the atheist can define who they are and what they believe. Can the Christian in regard to science?

One claims life is the result of intelligent design and the other claims that it is the result of mindlessness. Both have a burden of proof…

[js1138]

I prefer skeptic. I really don't care if it has negative connotations. That's someone else's problem. Skepticism is a way of approaching inquiry. It does not attach itself to any ism or ideology.

[jennyp]

hahaha. Bitterness? In the atheist world, bitterness is nothing more than a mindless, random, chemical reaction in the brain, and has nothing to do with the heart...if you are going to argue from the atheist side, at least stick to the materialist philosophy.

69 posted on 09/29/2003 8:37 AM PDT by exmarine
===============================================================

Please tell me, OWK, what is "bitterness" - where does it come from? Isn't it just a random chemical process in my brain? If not, what is it?

113 posted on 09/29/2003 9:11 AM PDT by exmarine
===============================================================

I just find it ironic that someone who believes their intelligence came from mindlessness and uses academia as their lamppost chooses the word bright. ...

I don’t know… If someone positively believes that his or her consciousness came from mindlessness, why not use the label ‘mindless believer’ instead of ‘bright’? I say this in humor because I find the whole thing ironic. ...

235 posted on 09/29/2003 4:22 PM PDT by Heartlander

<sigh> Apparently, exmarine, we'll have to review the whole notion of "Fallacy of Composition" for you. And Heartlander, you may want to listen in on this.

You do remember the "Fallacy of Composition", don't you? You know: The mass of oxygen & hydrogen exactly equals their mass when they come together to form water, while many other properties of oxygen & hydrogen are quite different than what happens when they combine to form water?

[Heartlander]

I responded here…

[NutCrackerBoy]

You may worship as you please. Do not coerce me into paying for it (or for the advancement of secular ideas either).

Then religious ideas or worship are to be treated no different than any other incidental thing the government might stick its nose into. Sir, you are a radical libertarian, indeed.

[jennyp]

Hey, thanks for pointing that out - I still like my post to which you were responding. :-) So good I'll reproduce it here (with a little tweaking), just to be more precise:

Take 2 M of hydrogen gas & 1 M of oxygen gas. They weigh 2g + 8g = 10 grams in all. (If I got that correct!) They're both gases at room temperature. They're both very reactive - explosive & flammable, respectively.

Now combine them to produce water. You now have 1 M of H₂O. 1 mole of water weighs 10 grams - exactly the same as the sum of the weights of its parts. However, water is not a gas at room temperature. It's not twice as gaseous at room temperature. It's not twice as explosive, nor twice as flammable as its parts. Water is, however, much more than twice as wet as H₂ and O₂ combined.

By some metrics, the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. In other metrics, it's much less than the sum. And in still other metrics, it's exactly the same as the sum of its parts.

Specifically, the whole can be different than the simple sum of its parts when you're measuring some quality of the whole that depends on the relationship of its parts to each other. In our example, that would be the interactions of the atoms' electron shells, which cause their chemical reactivities. Other qualities - mass for example - don't come from the atoms' interactions at all. That's why the mass of the whole is a simple sum of the mass of its parts.

Ignoring this is called the "fallacy of composition".

We are conscious beings. Consciousness comes from a properly working brain. A working brain consists of gazillions of neurons interacting with each other. You would expect the amount of consciousness produced by the brain as a whole to be different than the simple sum of its parts.

Unfortunately I didn't understand your response to it, either then or on re-reading it again. Could you explain again?