Nonbelievers' Newfangled Nom de Guerre Dimwitted

The Rocky Mountain News ^ | February 7, 2004 | Linda Seebach

[quidnunc]

What do people call themselves if they aren't religious? Many things, in fact, with slight distinctions of meaning; atheists, agnostics, nonbelievers, skeptics, freethinkers, secular humanists. Not a really positive term among them (except when said people are talking to each other).

And then there are words that other people use about them, which are even less positive: heretics, infidels, irreligious, unbelievers, godless.

Certain persons of this description, having decided they won't get proper respect until they get a better name, and taking as their model the adoption of the term "gay" for homosexual, have decided to call themselves "brights."

That's dim.

If asked "What's a bright?" a bright would reply, according to Richard Dawkins, "A person whose worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview." Dawkins' essay is available at www.edge.org, along with one by Daniel Dennett; scroll down to July 23, 2003. Or go to www.the-brights.com if you want to sign up.

I'm fine with the definition, which fits me. I want nothing to do with the effort to establish the term, which could hardly be better calibrated to make people think even less well of the people who choose to use it.

"I'm a bright" and (unspoken), "You're a dim."

A colleague who is more of a historian than I points out that this technique has been known to work. When we talk about "the Enlightenment" we are in effect accepting the judgment of those who named it that their foes were "the unenlightened." But it still seems to me there is a considerable downside risk to pushing the "bright" meme.

-snip-

[rustbucket]

[Leatherneck_MT]

But I'm not trying to convert you :)

You either believe God or you don't.

You either believe there is a God or you don't.

Outside of that once a person has been warned, it's up to that person whether they accept the Gospel of Christ or not.

I'm not screaming, nor quoting verses, nor self aggrandizing. I'm saying very simply

I am a sinner before God

Forgiven by the blood of his Son.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Thanks

[Chris Talk]

In matters of faith, I never try to "convince" anybody of anything.

At most, all I do is state the facts as they are in the Bible, the truth as it is in Jesus.

In the unlikely event that the Spirit of God is moving upon their soul at the moment, perhaps God might convert them at that time (say 1% chance). If not, perhaps at some future time the Spirit might move upon their soul, and they might remember what they had read or heard from various Christians, myself or others (say a 9% chance).

The other 90% of the time, they remain unconverted for life and go on where they were going anyway, but no harm done, they are no WORSE off...

And that is what Jesus said to do, just scatter the seed of truth around, and if most of it falls on stony ground, etc... why, what else could you exPECT, most ground IS "stony," worthless at least to all appearances. Still, Jesus says, if just one grain every once in a long while grows up and comes to fruition, that is enough to have made the whole thing a plus not a minus...

[orionblamblam]

> all I do is state the facts as they are in the Bible

Ahem. All you do is state the *stories* as they are in the Bible. Whether many of them are "facts" is the crux of the matter. If you can't quantify it, it's opinion, not fact.