I have not signed up as a bright. I don’t know if I intend to. I can see the point of forming the group, both as a PR move and as an exercise in mimetics to see how fast the meme of the word “bright” spreads. But I regard my religious views as intensely personal. I have come to my atheism through rigorous questioning of my own worldview. Unlike sexual orientation, this is not something that changes my interaction with other people. I threw away organized religion once, and I am not ready to replace it with another group. While the Brights most emphatically state that they do not do this, I think it can only lead to gatherings in which Brights get together to discuss their wordview. Which probably will only lead to codification and all that follows.
Don’t forget about the Raelians and their bizarre claims to cloning the first human being.
If we are going to clone someone, why would it be people like them. When clearly it needs to be like …well…us
Hey, by this way, this is my thead and there will be no religious wars or hijacking allowed. Or else.
The word “Bright” has precious little to do with the religious or the nutjobs. If you would be so kind, please continue all Bright discussions over there.
Not because they are religious, that would be silly. But because of their silly religious beliefs. I personally don’t count atheism as a religion.
This is not to say all religion deserves to be bashed, as you seem to so desperately want to believe of me. But it is a sphere of the world in which bashing can be done. Do you see the difference?
I wasn’t offended by your addition to the thread, although you seem to want to be making a point. But do you see how I think religion is the topic of this thread? If we wanted to bash any crazies, I’m sure we could come up with longer lists.
Assuming we’re past Lib’s latest “poor little persecuted moi” hijack, I’d like to nominate Susanann for her contribution to this thread.
Daniel
who figures that Libertarian would equally come into a thread called “Leftist Nutjob Nomination Thread” and nominate Ayn Rand, Fred Phelps, and Jesse Ventura.
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. I think the fact that he expects the rest of the world to swallow that rationalization proves Dawkins really does think theists are non-bright.
Fair enough. I do indeed see the difference you’re explaining, and I’ll leave you alone now. I thought it was important to make the point that people don’t need religion to be nutjobs and — more importantly — not every religious person is a nutjob.
It’s not “poor little persecuted moi”, as Daniel suggests. On the contrary, it’s “hey, some of us are pretty smart.” I wasn’t whining with my tail between my legs; I was beating my chest and bellowing with pride.
Do keep in mind, though, that this thread treads a thin line. It has been established, if I understand correctly, that bashing on account of religious beliefs is “hate speech”. But bashing on account of stupid religious beliefs is not.
Bellowing, perhaps. Not sure why you’d be proud of doing it.
You distorted what the thread is about, hijacked it for an ongoing complaint of yours. You looked like you were getting all offended about how people on these boards bash religion. You do that way, way too often, and look to me like you really go out of your way to find offense in that regard. (At the same time, you play fast and loose with insulting atheists, calling them handstabbing and credulous – but I’m thickskinned, so that doesn’t bother me as much).
What the hell makes this an important point? Do you also want to make the point that, even though Pastor Smith is concluding his journey in DC, not everyone who travels to DC is a nutjob, and that people can be nutjobs without traveling to DC?
The fact that the title had a noun (nutjob) modified by an adjective (religious) shows that the OP didn’t consider the terms to be redundant. By making this point, you’re hijacking a harmless post to hammer away at your own personal pet peeve.
Please stop doing this. When people are genuinely being jerks toward religious people BASED ON THEIR BEING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, by all means, go at it. But stop looking everywhere for an opportunity to take offense or to preach your message of “religious people can be nice, too.” It’s annoying.
Lucky I checked back one more time. Thanks for your criticism. Of course, I could advise you to take your own advice with respect to looking everywhere in my posts for offense. But then, that would likely annoy you as well.
Not to mention Lib’s nasty little jab at Eve when she was commenting on a hideously tacky crucifix.
As for the thread-what about the $cientologists? Surely they merit at least an honorable mention?
Do they see themselves as a ‘religion’? I thought Scientology was (in theory) based on SCIENCE!, not theology. Also, will I/we be sued for mentioning them?
Too negative?! But… but… but that’s why I wanted to be an atheist in the first place! I wanted to wear black and glower at people and cynically point out how everything was so pointless! If I wanted atheism to be all sunshine and rainbows, I’d believe in an afterlife, dammit!
I am also a Christian, Libertarian, and I have never had any doubt that most, if not all, of the Dopers who have participated in this thread are well aware there is a difference.
