Are you a bright?

[alexander]

I like it, and am proud to be a bright.

Thought it was fitting, and no, not just a bright, resident bright, that adds a whole new level of complexity to the term :) take it from a Nix Ninja :)

[DougF]

C1ay

coldcreation

But what would he or she say at the end of the State of the Union speach' date=' in place of "God bless you and God bless America"? [/quote']

 

"Live long and prosper" comes to mind or simply "Have a nice day". [/Quote]

 

 

I allways like the signoff

"Good night' date=' Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are"[/b']

Jimmy Durante

[coldcreation]

I allways like the signoff: "Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are"

Jimmy Durante

 

Of all the sign-offs I've ever hear, I think Paul Harvey's was the best: "...Good day"

 

Short and simple, with his nasal intonation of course.

 

 

But that wouldn't fly for the Sate of the Union, because they are usually an evening event. "Good Evening," or "Good Night" don't work without "Mrs. Calabash" or "wherever you are." So I guess Durante new what he was doing. (¿:

 

 

 

 

CC

[Southtown]

Stereotypes are divisive. Shrug them off, shrug them all off quickly, and embrace your uniqueness.

[Moontanman]

Stereotypes are divisive. Shrug them off, shrug them all off quickly, and embrace your uniqueness.

 

If only it were that easy, a great many organizations use stereo types to minimize large numbers of people they disagree with. the religious right is probably one of the worst when it comes to people who don't believe the way they do. It's sad but to get around that you need a group to belong to that will give you strength in numbers. Any single person who is alone in his idea of life is at a disadvantage when confronted by a group who disagrees with him enough to want to affect him in some way.

[Southtown]

Exactly my point. It's like taking up suicide-bombing to combat terrorism.

[Moontanman]

Exactly my point. It's like taking up suicide-bombing to combat terrorism.

 

I'm not sure safety in numbers would qualify for that much of an extreme metaphore:naughty:

[Southtown]

I'm not sure safety in numbers would qualify for that much of an extreme metaphore:naughty:

"Safety?" What exactly are you talking about? I'm talking about defending the right to be an individual in the face of tyrannical conformatism.

[modest]

The power of organizing in groups of like-minded individuals is not bad or wrong in any way. There are groups who do organize behind morally corrupt principles such as Southtown points out about terrorists. However, this does not make organizing itself a bad act. Merely that some organizations are bad.

 

A group formed behind a good cause is then clearly not equivalent to “taking up suicide-bombing to combat terrorism” nor any less drastic metaphor that conveys the same idea. Such a metaphor makes the assumption that organizing (like suicide bombing) is wrong no matter who does it. I don’t believe that and it certainly hasn’t been shown.

 

In other words, examples of bad organizations don't discredit the act of organizing.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

"Safety?" What exactly are you talking about? I'm talking about defending the right to be an individual in the face of tyrannical conformatism.

 

Me too, but trying to do this by yourself is not practical, i used to think I could take on the world by myself but it really doesn't work that way.

[Southtown]

Me too, but trying to do this by yourself is not practical, i used to think I could take on the world by myself but it really doesn't work that way.

Think about it. Trying to defend the right to be an individual by yourself is not practical? Besides that, what exactly is meant by taking on the world? That you remain an individual or that the world recognizes and treats you as such?

[Southtown]

The power of organizing in groups of like-minded individuals is not bad or wrong in any way. There are groups who do organize behind morally corrupt principles such as Southtown points out about terrorists. However, this does not make organizing itself a bad act. Merely that some organizations are bad.

 

A group formed behind a good cause is then clearly not equivalent to “taking up suicide-bombing to combat terrorism” nor any less drastic metaphor that conveys the same idea. Such a metaphor makes the assumption that organizing (like suicide bombing) is wrong no matter who does it. I don’t believe that and it certainly hasn’t been shown.

 

In other words, examples of bad organizations don't discredit the act of organizing.

 

~modest

Thank you, sir, for hitting the nail on the head! In my mind, organization is the culprit. But then, I am of the opinion that each person has a unique set of beliefs. Organization then becomes an act of compromise on every part, in the interest of strength, of course.

[Moontanman]

Think about it. Trying to defend the right to be an individual by yourself is not practical? Besides that, what exactly is meant by taking on the world? That you remain an individual or that the world recognizes and treats you as such?

 

I just want to be allowed to be who I am with out being judged or ostracized in some way, especially in ways that cause me problems for no reason other than my individualism.

[Southtown]

Ya wish in one hand... Like I tell my kids, you worry about you, regardless of how you're treated. This translates to 'doodoo happens' but there is never an excuse to act like "they" do. Best that can happen in life is that either you'll grow old enough that others have to wipe your ***, or you'll be martyred for a cause.

[coldcreation]

The beauty of the brights organization is that people who identify themselves as atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, rationalist, naturalist, agnostic, or skeptic; in sum, persons who have a naturalistic worldview, don't have to remain "in-the-closet" (to paraphrase the most famous out-of-the-closet living atheist, Richard Dawkins), in the face of other organizations, such as the Church.

 

Brights are proud to be brights. Whereas atheists were not always proud to be against certain beliefs (especially whilst in the company of believers).

 

I've experienced "the closet" on many occasions here in Spain (especially in deep Spain), where to be seen as an atheist is equal as being seen as gay.

 

With regard to the former, I've generally made it a point (though not always) to express by belief in nature, or in natural processes, e.g., evolution (so I am really out-of-the-closet), rather than in the supernatural. One of the most common response is: "Well, who created Nature?"

 

 

:naughty:

 

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

Brights are proud to be brights. Whereas atheists were not always proud to be against certain beliefs (especially whilst in the company of believers).

 

I've experienced "the closet" on many occasions here in Spain (especially in deep Spain), where to be seen as an atheist is equal as being seen as gay.

 

I know the feeling well. I live in a part of the U.S. that is referred to as the Bible Belt with a large population of Christians, mostly southern baptists. To them being atheist is seen like a satanist, like some kind of monster

 

At the same time I am proud to be free of supernatural beliefs and proud to be atheist and I will publicly engage theists on their beliefs regardless of their condemnation of me.

 

OTOH, if someone specifically asks me what religion I am I usually reply that I am humanist even though it is not technically a religion. Some will instantly reply that I am atheist and I agree but inform them that atheism is not a belief system like humanism is and no more a religion than humanism is. When asked why I am humanist I explain that it does not practice or advocate the hatred, intolerance and discrimination of others that religion does :naughty:

[coldcreation]

A few years ago I was writing a few tidbits about natural processes, and others not so natural.

 

It went something like: Historically, uncertainty related to natural birth can be traced back to primitive cultural anthropology: When a bipedal female gave birth there was no question that she was the mother of that child. However, there would always linger a doubt or uncertainty as to who fathered the infant. Thus the creation of chastity belts (several thousand years later) to relieve the anxiety of men whilst hunting, which in turn guaranteed subjugation of the female gender and eliminated the vacillation with respect to the origin of their offspring. Immaculate Conception, on the other hand...

 

Coincidentally, the doorbell rang as I was about halfway through the preceding sentence. Two young English-speaking women from Bacelona’s Jehovah’s Witnesses presented themselves and a pamphlet entitled “Awake!” destined to answer the question “Where Did Life Come From?”

 

Under normal circumstances I would have kindly refused any form of contact with god’s children, however, this magazine designed to “build confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things” struck my attention.

 

In view of the fact that we were mutually interested in the same thing—though our methodological approach and complexes for analyses diverges hyperbolically—I invited them in for a chat. :naughty:

 

Their attempt was to answer the important questions regarding the origin of the universe and life on earth. Here is another quote from the colorfully printed handout: “The Bible credits God with the design and creation of the awesome variety of plants and animals on earth. But can we trust the Bible record? Does it hold up under the scrutiny of modern science?”

 

Answers to these questions were nowhere to be found in the text. “Awake! is for the enlightenment of the entire family” but it falls short, much like modern science (in fact), of illuminating the mechanism of creation—though progress has been made with respect to biological diversity of the world’s species, ranging from “the smallest bacteria to the giant sequoias; from earthworms to eagles,” so it reads.

 

Here is one of the more humorous lines: “Moral relativism may sound sophisticated, but in reality its followers are like the ancient Ninevites who did not know ‘their right hand from their left.’ ‘Practicers’ of moral relativism resemble the apostate Israelites who said that “good is bad and bad is good.”—Jonah 4:11; Isaiah 5:20.

 

Furthermore, “Because the Bible’s moral standards were established by the very highest authority, our Creator, they are relevant for all humans. Hence, we have no reason to live a life of moral uncertainty.”

 

 

 

 

 

CC