Kirk, thank you for explaining your reason for not liking the word
Brights. I didn't understand everything you wrote, but that is Ok. It
just was new to me and I just feel, as I'm sure other's do also that is
is time for all of us ...Atheists, Humanist's etc have more clout
politically. The umbrella idea appealed to me. As to the word
Humanist, Can you explain why we can't use that word as opposed to
religious. I actually love the word and it's meaning. I recently read
the Humanist Manifesto over again.
I really didn't understand or care for some of the reaction I got from
from some of you. I'm talking to you, Ron H. Jessie.

From:	Ferdinand B
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:21:30 -0600

The term "bright" is not good in my opinion. Not only is there a
political party "the bright party" which is religious in nature, but
also calling yourself "bright" sounds egotistical in nature.

I favor the old names

Jessiegamache@webtv.net (Jessie Gamache) wrote in message news:<15582-4168E6A1-2@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net>...
> Kirk, thank you for explaining your reason for not liking the word
> Brights. I didn't understand everything you wrote, but that is Ok. It
> just was new to me and I just feel, as I'm sure other's do also that is
> is time for all of us ...Atheists, Humanist's etc have more clout
> politically. The umbrella idea appealed to me. As to the word
> Humanist, Can you explain why we can't use that word as opposed to
> religious. I actually love the word and it's meaning. I recently read
> the Humanist Manifesto over again.
> I really didn't understand or care for some of the reaction I got from
> from some of you. I'm talking to you, Ron H. Jessie.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Ferdinand said:

}Hey, I found a site that tells you how to start your own cult. Man, i
}thought I had seen everything, but the ebook was pretty good. I'm not
}looking to start a cult, (though it might be fun) but it is good to
}know the techniques they use so that I don't fall prey to their
}techniques. The adress to the site is; www.cultsecrets.com
}
}-Ferdinand
}

I started my own cult years ago.

You already belong to it,

whether you like it or not.

Now about those back dues...

From:	David V.
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:36:26 -0600

Ferdinand B wrote:
> The term "bright" is not good in my opinion. Not only is there
> a political party "the bright party" which is religious in
> nature, but also calling yourself "bright" sounds egotistical
> in nature.

But if we don't start calling ourselves "brights" then those
trying to repackage Secular Humanism won't have their own
hierarchy to rule over.

From:	Jessie Gamache
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:06:58 -0600

I agree with you about Brights sounding egotistical. My daughter said
the same thing after I sent her some information.
She voted for Bush and calls herself an atheist. I also thought it
sounded egotisical until I read and thought more about it. I'm
wondering if anyone read all the material there is about Brights and
actually, wouldn't one have to be bright to be able to discard religion
in our live's.?
(I just thought of that now.)
I would like to know more about the religious party that use the word
bright.

What about the idea of using the word as an umbrella for all the
non-religious people that call themselve's humanist, freethinkers etc.
When I first started to question religion and decided I no longer wanted
to be a religious person, I called myself a "freethinker" I increased
my knowledge about freethinkers and read discussions about Atheism and
decided I was that too and Humanism. But politically, shouldn't we all
have one title??
By the way, I do believe in freedom of speech but what do people get out
of using words like idiot to one another.
J. G.

From:	Ron Hammon
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:29:28 -0600

Jessie Gamache wrote:
>
> I agree with you about Brights sounding egotistical. My daughter said
> the same thing after I sent her some information.
> She voted for Bush and calls herself an atheist.

I don't get your point here. If she calls herself an atheist, that's a
pretty clear indication. Or, since you mentioned Bush, is your point
that only theists would vote for Bush?

I also thought it
> sounded egotisical until I read and thought more about it.

That's beside the point. If someone has a stack of reference material
clarifying the word "chair" to mean "rock", that hardly changes the
common (real) meaning.

I'm
> wondering if anyone read all the material there is about Brights

Not a trace, in my case. I am TOTALLY unmotivated to label myself
"bright" when "atheist" says exactly what I intend to say.

and
> actually, wouldn't one have to be bright to be able to discard religion
> in our live's.?
> (I just thought of that now.)

No. In fact, a severly retarded person would probably be atheist.

Besides, aren't you undermining your claim that "bright" means something
else?

> I would like to know more about the religious party that use the word
> bright.
>
> What about the idea of using the word as an umbrella for all the
> non-religious people that call themselve's humanist, freethinkers etc.

Although there may be different "flavors" between the various terms,
IMHO, they are all substitute terms used by chicken-shit atheists.
Agnostic (common usage) is also one of the substitute terms.

> When I first started to question religion and decided I no longer wanted
> to be a religious person, I called myself a "freethinker" I increased
> my knowledge about freethinkers and read discussions about Atheism and
> decided I was that too and Humanism.

That is my point. The terms, other than atheist, are, at the best,
redundant, and, at the worst, misleading. Take "Humanism". Only the
most extreme of theists (and sociopaths) are NOT Humanists, in the most
basic defintion. Then, when Humanism is redefined to mean civic
altruism (we believe in helping the handicaped), it gets more
restrictive, but leaves the original defintion behind. It's basically a
"club" game. The new "club" is "brights". "Are you Bright?" "Are you
a turtle?"

But politically, shouldn't we all
> have one title??

"Politically"?! How the hell did politics get involved?

> By the way, I do believe in freedom of speech but what do people get out
> of using words like idiot to one another.
> J. G.

Who cares what people "get out of using words like idiot to one
another"? It seems that, if you find this is an issue, then you do NOT
"believe in freedom of speech". You can't have it both ways.

--
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

From:	Apostate
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:14:39 -0600

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:29:28 -0600, Ron Hammon wrote:

>Jessie Gamache wrote:
>>
>> I agree with you about Brights sounding egotistical. My daughter said
>> the same thing after I sent her some information.
>> She voted for Bush and calls herself an atheist.
>
>I don't get your point here. If she calls herself an atheist, that's a
>pretty clear indication. Or, since you mentioned Bush, is your point
>that only theists would vote for Bush?
>
> I also thought it
>> sounded egotisical until I read and thought more about it.
>
>That's beside the point. If someone has a stack of reference material
>clarifying the word "chair" to mean "rock", that hardly changes the
>common (real) meaning.
>
>
> I'm
>> wondering if anyone read all the material there is about Brights
>
>Not a trace, in my case. I am TOTALLY unmotivated to label myself
>"bright" when "atheist" says exactly what I intend to say.
>
> and
>> actually, wouldn't one have to be bright to be able to discard religion
>> in our live's.?
>> (I just thought of that now.)
>
>No. In fact, a severly retarded person would probably be atheist.

Nah, president is more likely.

--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!

I doubt, therefore I might be.

NOTICE : Due to budgetary constraints and terrorism by religious
nutball extremists, the light at the end of the tunnel will be
shut down until further notice.

From:	Jessie Gamache
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:20:52 -0600

Ron said, How did Politics get involved?
That is the purpose of finding a word like Brights, for
politics-!!!----but I think you said you didn't read anything about
Brights. J.G.

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:36:16 -0600

Jessie Gamache wrote:
>
> Ron said, How did Politics get involved?
> That is the purpose of finding a word like Brights, for
> politics-!!!----but I think you said you didn't read anything about
> Brights. J.G.

I, for one, do not WANT to mix religion and politics! That is our
problem now.

--
Ronn_Hammonn
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

From:	Jessie Gamache
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:17:49 -0600

It is really no use for me to try and explain what Brights stand for if
no one reads the articles------You are either interested or not. Sure
wish a few people would read the information on it. It only takes a few
minutes. Oh Well, thats the end of my input. I'll try and ask some
organizations why one doesn't hear anything about them. At least I
haven't, but I've always wanted to have a few friends that didn't have
mostly Christian answers to all problems.-------

From:	David V.
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:51:18 -0600

Jessie Gamache wrote:
> It is really no use for me to try and explain what Brights
> stand for if no one reads the articles------You are either
> interested or not.

I've read the articles, and I am not the slightest bit interested.

> Sure wish a few people would read the information on it. It
> only takes a few minutes.

I read it and I'm still not interested.

> Oh Well, thats the end of my input.

It was the same kind of input as when a christian tells me to
read the bible and then I'll understand it.

> I'll try and ask some organizations why one doesn't hear
> anything about them. At least I haven't, but I've always
> wanted to have a few friends that didn't have mostly
> Christian answers to all problems.-------

Huh?

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:12:48 -0600

David V. wrote:
>
> Jessie Gamache wrote:

snip

> > I've always
> > wanted to have a few friends that didn't have mostly
> > Christian answers to all problems.-------
>
> Huh?

I think he means that it would be nice to hang with reasonable people
who don't have a knee-jerk reaction of "God did it" or "Satan did it" to
everything.

--
Ronn_Hammonn
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

From:	Apostate
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:52:05 -0600

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:12:48 -0600, Ronn_Hammonn wrote:

>David V. wrote:
>>
>> Jessie Gamache wrote:
>
>snip
>
>
>> > I've always
>> > wanted to have a few friends that didn't have mostly
>> > Christian answers to all problems.-------
>>
>> Huh?
>
>I think he means that it would be nice to hang with reasonable people
>who don't have a knee-jerk reaction of "God did it" or "Satan did it" to
>everything.

Some of us have a principled objection to hanging, company aside.

--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!

I doubt, therefore I might be.

NOTICE : Due to budgetary constraints and terrorism by religious
nutball extremists, the light at the end of the tunnel will be
shut down until further notice.

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:37:34 -0600

Apostate wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:12:48 -0600, Ronn_Hammonn wrote:
>
> >David V. wrote:
> >>
> >> Jessie Gamache wrote:
> >
> >snip
> >
> >
> >> > I've always
> >> > wanted to have a few friends that didn't have mostly
> >> > Christian answers to all problems.-------
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >
> >I think he means that it would be nice to hang with reasonable people
> >who don't have a knee-jerk reaction of "God did it" or "Satan did it" to
> >everything.
>
> Some of us have a principled objection to hanging, company aside.
>

Nevertheless, given a choice, I'd rather hang with reasonable people.
;-)

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	David V.
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:31:11 -0600

Ronn_Hammonn wrote:
> David V. wrote:
>
>> Jessie Gamache wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> I've always wanted to have a few friends that didn't have
>>> mostly Christian answers to all problems.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> I think he means that it would be nice to hang with reasonable
> people who don't have a knee-jerk reaction of "God did it" or
> "Satan did it" to everything.

Oh, ok. The first few times I read that sentence it didn't make
any sense. It may have been that I just got off a long day at
work and needed some sleep. :-)

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:41:39 -0600

David V. wrote:
>
> Ronn_Hammonn wrote:
> > David V. wrote:
> >
> >> Jessie Gamache wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> >>> I've always wanted to have a few friends that didn't have
> >>> mostly Christian answers to all problems.
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >
> > I think he means that it would be nice to hang with reasonable
> > people who don't have a knee-jerk reaction of "God did it" or
> > "Satan did it" to everything.
>
> Oh, ok. The first few times I read that sentence it didn't make
> any sense. It may have been that I just got off a long day at
> work and needed some sleep. :-)

I had to read it several times as well. I think it was the double space
followed by "that" instead of "who".

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	Ron Peterson
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:28:30 -0600

Jessie Gamache wrote:

> What about the idea of using the word as an umbrella for all the
> non-religious people that call themselve's humanist, freethinkers etc.

Webster's online dictionary gives the following synonyms: Atheist,
skeptic, unbeliever, deist, infidel, pyrrhonist; giaour, heathen, alien,
gentile, Nazarene; espri fort, freethinker, rationalist; materialist,
positivist, nihilist, agnostic, somatist, theophobist.

I like the terms skeptic, freethinker, and materialist the best. The
term secularist comes to mind but it doesn't imply atheism.

--
Ron

From:	Earle Jones
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:13:59 -0600

In article <70783250.0411081800.4c0be15@posting.google.com>,
usenet69@hotmail.com (Ferdinand B) wrote:

> The term "bright" is not good in my opinion. Not only is there a
> political party "the bright party" which is religious in nature, but
> also calling yourself "bright" sounds egotistical in nature.

*
Does calling oneself '' sound like one is happy?

earle
*

From:	Ron Hammon
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:27:43 -0600

Earle Jones wrote:
>
> In article <70783250.0411081800.4c0be15@posting.google.com>,
> usenet69@hotmail.com (Ferdinand B) wrote:
>
> > The term "bright" is not good in my opinion. Not only is there a
> > political party "the bright party" which is religious in nature, but
> > also calling yourself "bright" sounds egotistical in nature.
>
> *
> Does calling oneself '' sound like one is happy?
>
> earle
> *

Yes. Or, at least, it is meant to be so.

--
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

From:	Christopher A. Lee
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:38:57 -0500

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:30:59 -0500, Kirk Job-Sluder
wrote:

>On 2004-10-10, Ronn_Hammonn wrote:
>> Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>>>
>> snip
>>
>>> I'm not actually certain what you mean here. I don't see a problem
>>> using "humanist" has an umbrella term because it was originally intended
>>> to describe people who believe that we should look to someplace other
>>> than god to define our ethics and morality.
>>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>> The problem is that "humanism" does not, specifically, exclude theism.
>
>For that matter, it does not appear that the Brights do either from
>their FAQ.
>
>> In fact, I love to accuse theists of being, in fact, humanists. If they
>> wake up and find themselves in the middle of a railroad track, with a
>> train bearing down on them, and they step away, they are acting as
>> humanists. A pure theist would try to pray themselves out of trouble,
>> relying on devine intervention, not a human solution.
>
>It is really frustrating to engage in discussion about theism/atheism
>when so many atheists engage in stupid straw-dog arguments against
>theism.

Oh, the irony.

One theist's strawman is what another theist has insisted on.

You forget that in the US most atheists are ex-theists who know
precisely what they are arguing about.

But very few theists understand what an atheist is, so they invent all
sorts of positions for us based on premises that don't even apply
outside their religion.

>> So, I don't se
>> humanism as an exclusive group at all, and CERTAINLY not one exclusive
>> enough to define who I am.
>
>I think the key question is why does it have to be an exclusive group?
>The basic problem as I see it, is that "theism vs. atheism" is one of
>the most amazingly trivial questions on the table. More critical
>questions center on what is the basis for good government and ethics,
>and heck, even "what is beauty" is non-trivial. Defining one's self as
>an atheist is meaningless because while one knows what you stand
>against, one does not know what you stand for.

There is no "theism vs atheism" debate any more than there is debate
over the existence of Santa Claus. The problem is the large number of
theists who try to impose their religion on everybody else, who talk
at people outside their religion as though its beliefs were real, and
neither put up nor shut up.

From:	Kirk Job-Sluder
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:05:54 -0500

On 2004-10-11, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:30:59 -0500, Kirk Job-Sluder
> wrote:
>>It is really frustrating to engage in discussion about theism/atheism
>>when so many atheists engage in stupid straw-dog arguments against
>>theism.
>
> Oh, the irony.
>
> One theist's strawman is what another theist has insisted on.

It which case, it is a logical error to talk about "theism" as a general
category. This is another mistake that atheists make all the time.

> You forget that in the US most atheists are ex-theists who know
> precisely what they are arguing about.

Which somehow very rarely appears in the discourse from atheists about
theism. In this particular example, having studied more than my share
of religious traditions, I know of none that would advocate that a
follower pray for deliverance rather than step out of the way. Most
religions actually have folk parables with the moral, "god helps those
who help themselves." Both theists and atheists agree that
self-preservation is a good thing, the fundamental difference is how
that act is rationalized after the fact.

> But very few theists understand what an atheist is, so they invent all
> sorts of positions for us based on premises that don't even apply
> outside their religion.

Certainly they do. On the other hand, I make absolutely no apologies
about holding my fellow atheists to a higher standard when it comes to
talking about theism. We can't make appeals to being based on
rationality and truth while building our arguments on basic logical
fallacies.

> There is no "theism vs atheism" debate any more than there is debate
> over the existence of Santa Claus. The problem is the large number of
> theists who try to impose their religion on everybody else, who talk
> at people outside their religion as though its beliefs were real, and
> neither put up nor shut up.

Certainly. An in this debate I find that I frequently have more in
common with religious humanists than anti-religious atheists. This is
one of the things I was getting at in regards to atheism being a trivial
position. One does not have to be an atheist to be skeptical of the
role of religion in dictating public and political life.

--
Kirk Job-Sluder
"The square-jawed homunculi of Tommy Hilfinger ads make every day an
existential holocaust." --Scary Go Round

From:	Ron Hammon
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:08:19 -0500

Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>
> On 2004-10-11, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

snip

> > You forget that in the US most atheists are ex-theists who know
> > precisely what they are arguing about.
>
> Which somehow very rarely appears in the discourse from atheists about
> theism. In this particular example, having studied more than my share
> of religious traditions, I know of none that would advocate that a
> follower pray for deliverance rather than step out of the way. Most
> religions actually have folk parables with the moral, "god helps those
> who help themselves." Both theists and atheists agree that
> self-preservation is a good thing, the fundamental difference is how
> that act is rationalized after the fact.

snip

What?! NOW, you sound like an apologist for theists, that they are
sensible people. You obviously haven't spent a lot of time around
Fundamentalist Christians (or Fundamentalist Muslim, for that matteer).

'Round THESE parts (The Bible Belt), one is taught what the Bible says,
not what actually works in the real world. For example, Matthew 6:26
says, "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they
reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are
ye not much better than they?" This passage is VERY commonly used to
demonstrate that one should NOT give attention to one's needs, that "God
will provide". This COMPLETELY contradicts your view that religion
teaches that "god helps those who help themselves."

This is the whole crux of theism, that a diety will intervene on the
behalf of believers. One "pays the dues", whether that is sacrifices,
prayer, evangelism, tithing, flagelation, or whatever, and, in response,
the favored diety blesses the faithful with "what they need". Of
course, if "what they need" turns out to be a hurricaine, then there
must be some incomprehensible plan working that negated their petty
wants. No amount of failure of a supposedly benevolent diety will
dissuade the faithful. They have the "patience of Job", after all.

After all, what would be the purpose of worshiping a diety which
promised nothing? The very purpose of religion is to get ahead by magic
means. This is precisely why atheism is such a threat to the faithful.
Athesim is the Pandora's Box that reveals all of the wasted effort,
study, money, time, holy days, and even generations, wasted in a
fruitless gamble for magic. Atheism can't help but to paint "FOOL", in
big letters, on the breasts of the faithful. They don't take that
kindly.

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	Kirk Job-Sluder
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:31:08 -0500

On 2004-10-11, Ron Hammon wrote:
> What?! NOW, you sound like an apologist for theists, that they are
> sensible people. You obviously haven't spent a lot of time around
> Fundamentalist Christians (or Fundamentalist Muslim, for that matteer).

No, apologetics would argue that Christianity is true because there must
be some fundamental value on which we derive all other values, because
there is solid historical evidence for the truth of Biblical events, or
because the existence of god is self evident.

Pointing out that theism cannot be dismissed using straw men, is not
apologetics, it is cleaning your own house of unnecessary bullshit.

> 'Round THESE parts (The Bible Belt), one is taught what the Bible says,
> not what actually works in the real world. For example, Matthew 6:26
> says, "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they
> reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are
> ye not much better than they?" This passage is VERY commonly used to
> demonstrate that one should NOT give attention to one's needs, that "God
> will provide". This COMPLETELY contradicts your view that religion
> teaches that "god helps those who help themselves."

This only goes to show that the Bible is inconsistent. There are lots
of other passages however that glorify hard work and are the basis for
the so-called "protestant work ethic."

2nd Corinthians 9:6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also
reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. "

Proverbs 10:4 Poverty brings a man low: but the hands of the vigorous
makes rich.

And Proverbs 6:6 (6) Go to the ant, O sluggard; and see and emulate his
ways, and become wiser than he. (7) For whereas he has no husbandry, nor
any one to compel him, and is under no master (8) he prepares food for
himself in the summer, and lays by abundant store in harvest. Or go the
bee, and learn how diligent she is, and how earnestly she is engaged in
her work; whose labours kings and private men use for health, and she is
desired and respected by all: though weak in body, she is advanced by
honouring wisdom. (9) how long wilt thou lie, O sluggard? and when wilt
thou awake out of sleep?

Of course, religion is a multi-headed hydra and we should look at how
the religion is actually practiced in addition to what the dogma says.
I find it hard to argue that the protestant work ethic is not a central
aspect of contemporary conservative Chistian thought.

And then, you still have the problem that "theism" is considerably
broader than American Fundamentalist Christianity. Even within
Christianity there are a wide varieties of views regarding the issues
you raise.

--
Kirk Job-Sluder
"The square-jawed homunculi of Tommy Hilfinger ads make every day an
existential holocaust." --Scary Go Round

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:25:28 -0500

Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>

snip

> Even within
> Christianity there are a wide varieties of views regarding the issues
> you raise.

Which is EXACTLY why your earlier statement, "having studied more than
my share of religious traditions, I know of none that would advocate
that a follower pray for deliverance rather than step out of the way."
carried no weight. You were saying, basically, that ALL theists (that
you know of) are humanists. You managed to bolster my original point,
that humanism is nearly universal (in practice) and, as such, is
absolutely worthless as a descriptive term for a subset of people
remotely resembling atheists.

Earlier, you argued against even the existence of non-humanist theists,
as some sort of a backward counter to my claim that even theists are
humanists. Your claim, that theists are almost definitely humanists,
ruined your own claim of the value of "humanist" as a descriptive term
that "we" should embrace.

Now, you acknowledge the existence of non-humanist theists, if only in
their dogma. This explains and excuses the sport that I find in teasing
theists over the issue, that they SHOULD be non-humanists, according to
their dogma, but aren't in practice.

So, you seem to be circling while tripping over your suggestion that
"humanist" is a viable term for the non-religious. How do you plan to
defend your selection of "humanist" now that you have thrown (most)
theists into the pot?

--
Ronn_Hammonn
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

From:	Kirk Job-Sluder
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:22:27 -0500

On 2004-10-11, Ronn_Hammonn wrote:
> Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>>
>
> snip
>
>> Even within
>> Christianity there are a wide varieties of views regarding the issues
>> you raise.
>
> Which is EXACTLY why your earlier statement, "having studied more than
> my share of religious traditions, I know of none that would advocate
> that a follower pray for deliverance rather than step out of the way."
> carried no weight. You were saying, basically, that ALL theists (that
> you know of) are humanists.

No, I'm saying the question of whether a person would step out of the
path of a train is irrelevant to the question of humanism. In using
this example, you are either making a straw man out of humanism (someone
is a humanist whenever they act for self-preservation) or a strawman out
of theism (theists would pray for deliverance rather that act for their
own self-preservation) or both.

A Catholic who acts for self-preservation because his or her religion
has strict prohibitions against self-destruction cannot be called a
humanist by any stretch of the imagination. And likewise, it is not
obvious that a humanist would step out of the way in all cases because
humanism does not have absolute prohibitions against avoiding death.

> Earlier, you argued against even the existence of non-humanist theists,
> as some sort of a backward counter to my claim that even theists are
> humanists. Your claim, that theists are almost definitely humanists,
> ruined your own claim of the value of "humanist" as a descriptive term
> that "we" should embrace.

I'm not certain where you got that impression. What I said was:

I'm not actually certain what you mean here. I don't see a problem
using "humanist" has an umbrella term because it was originally
intended to describe people who believe that we should look to
someplace other than god to define our ethics and morality.

There is a great book about the creation of the original humanist
manifesto that reveals that many of the contributors an signers were
theists (Mostly Unitarian with a couple of Jewish scholars as well).
The notion that ethics and morality should be developed in human terms
is a separate issue from the question of whether God exists. I suspect
this is one of the reasons why Einstein draws such a rich debate as
someone with one foot in Deism and one foot in ethical Humanism.

> So, you seem to be circling while tripping over your suggestion that
> "humanist" is a viable term for the non-religious. How do you plan to
> defend your selection of "humanist" now that you have thrown (most)
> theists into the pot?

So of course, I have agreed all along that there are religious humanists
(although these can't be described by the person who steps out of the
path of a train.) The existence of religious humanists does not dismiss
the value of humanism as a descriptive term because religious humanists
and secular humanists agree on every issue that matters. Both want the
government out of religion. Both believe that issues like just war, the
death penalty, social welfare, marriage and education should be
decided based on the concerns of contemporary humans rather than
unreliable religious texts. The only point of disagreement is on an
issue I find to be completely trivial, "does god exist?"

Simply by pointing out that you are arguing with a straw man definition
of humanism. Here is a hint for you, not all atheists are humanists
either. Some forms of Marxism are incompatible with humanism.

--
Kirk Job-Sluder
"The square-jawed homunculi of Tommy Hilfinger ads make every day an
existential holocaust." --Scary Go Round

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:44:30 -0500

Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>
snip

> I find to be completely trivial, "does god exist?"

snip

not all atheists are humanists
> either.

snip

Going all the way back to Jessie's post, "The umbrella idea appealed to
me. As to the word Humanist, Can you explain why we can't use that
word as opposed to religious."

It appears that I am the one explaining why "we can't use that word as
opposed to religious". You answered Jessie, "I don't see a problem
using "humanist" [as] an umbrella term [for those opposed to religion].
You now concede that the word is NOT "opposed to religious". You have
managed to completely spoil your prior call for "humanism" as an
"umbrella term" "opposed to religious". Care to try for more?

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	Kirk Job-Sluder
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:13:06 -0500

On 2004-10-11, Ronn_Hammonn wrote:
> Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>
> Going all the way back to Jessie's post, "The umbrella idea appealed to
> me. As to the word Humanist, Can you explain why we can't use that
> word as opposed to religious."
>
> It appears that I am the one explaining why "we can't use that word as
> opposed to religious". You answered Jessie, "I don't see a problem
> using "humanist" [as] an umbrella term [for those opposed to religion].

Bait and switch here, "as opposed to religious" does not mean, "those
opposed to religion" in this context.

> You now concede that the word is NOT "opposed to religious". You have
> managed to completely spoil your prior call for "humanism" as an
> "umbrella term" "opposed to religious". Care to try for more?

My primary argument is that "bright" says nothing that is not already
covered by "humanist". In fact, if you want an umbrella term for people
who are opposed to religion, the brights disqualify their own term in
their FAQ:

The networks umbrella covers a startling spectrum of beliefs.
Besides those who self-identify as atheists, humanists, secular
humanists, freethinkers, rationalists, naturalists, skeptics, etc.,
the network includes Ethical Culturalists, Pantheists, Scientific
Methodists, Buddhists, Yogis, Unitarians, and a gamut of folks
(Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians) who maintain their
religions cultural aspects but not its supernaturalism.

Which is very similar to what the authors of the original humanist
manifesto claimed to do, and includes many of the same groups as the
authors of the original humanist manifesto. From what I can tell,
"bright" is largely synonymous with humanist.

I suspect the "fitness" of humanism has an umbrella term depends on what
your concerns are. If your concerns are opposition to religion, then I
suspect that humanism is probably not a good fit. On the other hand, if
your concerns involve forming political action networks around key
secular issues, then I would argue that humanism is a better fit than
bright because it provides some clues as to what you stand for, in
addition to what you stand against.

Humanism in this post of course means humanism as described by the
humanist manifestos. Not all people who would step out of the path of a
runaway train. That is rather like saying all people are Marxist if
they donate something to charity.

--
Kirk Job-Sluder
"The square-jawed homunculi of Tommy Hilfinger ads make every day an
existential holocaust." --Scary Go Round

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:55:07 -0500

Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>
> On 2004-10-11, Ronn_Hammonn wrote:
> > Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
> >
> > Going all the way back to Jessie's post, "The umbrella idea appealed to
> > me. As to the word Humanist, Can you explain why we can't use that
> > word as opposed to religious."
> >
> > It appears that I am the one explaining why "we can't use that word as
> > opposed to religious". You answered Jessie, "I don't see a problem
> > using "humanist" [as] an umbrella term [for those opposed to religion].
>
> Bait and switch here, "as opposed to religious" does not mean, "those
> opposed to religion" in this context.

You are reading something into "opposed to religion" that isn't there.
I used the phrase in exactly the same sense as "opposed to religious",
which I took to mean the polar opposite, non-religious, if not (but
permitting) anti-religious.

>
> > You now concede that the word is NOT "opposed to religious". You have
> > managed to completely spoil your prior call for "humanism" as an
> > "umbrella term" "opposed to religious". Care to try for more?
>
> My primary argument is that "bright" says nothing that is not already
> covered by "humanist". In fact, if you want an umbrella term for people
> who are opposed to religion, the brights disqualify their own term in
> their FAQ:
>
> The networks umbrella covers a startling spectrum of beliefs.

snip

Meaning that the term can be so broad that it is worthless, my claim all
along.

> Which is very similar to what the authors of the original humanist
> manifesto claimed to do

snip

Meaning that the term can be so broad that it is worthless, my claim all
along.

> I suspect the "fitness" of humanism has an umbrella term depends on what
> your concerns are. If your concerns are opposition to religion, then I
> suspect that humanism is probably not a good fit.

My "concern" is TRUTH, above all else. Religion is FALSE. Therefore,
I'm agin it. I can't pussy-foot around it. I can't "invite diversity".
I can't say, "That's YOUR reality". I can't say, "Whatever works for
you." I can't say, "Why can't we all just... get along?" Religion is
false, wrong, misguided, misleading, counter-productive, embarassing,
shamefull, woefully out-of-date, and worse, largely a scam. I AM
"opposed to religion", just as I am "opposed to murder", on ethical
grounds.

On the other hand, if
> your concerns involve forming political action networks around key
> secular issues, then I would argue that humanism is a better fit than
> bright because it provides some clues as to what you stand for, in
> addition to what you stand against.
>
> Humanism in this post of course means humanism as described by the
> humanist manifestos. Not all people who would step out of the path of a
> runaway train. That is rather like saying all people are Marxist if
> they donate something to charity.
>

Talk about bait-and-switch! This is nowhere NEAR "like" it.

My example contrasted cherished principles versus real life action.
Just as "Christians" should never, by their own definition, gain
moderate wealth while there are needy people around, they, in fact,
mostly form the Middle Class in America. THAT is the twist, to be the
mirror to show the inconsistency to the oh-so-smug "devout followers".
Also, demonstrate that the sort of extreme altrusim preached by "Christ"
is unworkable and "false", particularly outside the Middle East of two
THOUSAND years ago.

Religion has more problems than the nonexistence of a deity. Religion,
tending to be very old, is riddled with internal inconsistency and
outright falsehood and even it's cherished dogma is unworkable and
self-defeating. So, I am even more areligionist than atheist. If
"Brights" and "Humanism" open their doors to such deceivers, as a
political ploy, I want no part of them. They are contaminated.

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	Christopher A. Lee
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:09:46 -0500

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:22:27 -0500, Kirk Job-Sluder
wrote:

[snip]
>unreliable religious texts. The only point of disagreement is on an
>issue I find to be completely trivial, "does god exist?"

What's "God"?

Most atheists don't have it in their worldview in a form that your
trivial question could be asked of it.

From:	Kirk Job-Sluder
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:55:03 -0500

On 2004-10-10, Jessie Gamache wrote:
> Kirk, thank you for explaining your reason for not liking the word
> Brights. I didn't understand everything you wrote, but that is Ok. It
> just was new to me and I just feel, as I'm sure other's do also that is
> is time for all of us ...Atheists, Humanist's etc have more clout
> politically. The umbrella idea appealed to me. As to the word
> Humanist, Can you explain why we can't use that word as opposed to
> religious. I actually love the word and it's meaning. I recently read
> the Humanist Manifesto over again.

I'm not actually certain what you mean here. I don't see a problem
using "humanist" has an umbrella term because it was originally intended
to describe people who believe that we should look to someplace other
than god to define our ethics and morality.

> I really didn't understand or care for some of the reaction I got from
> from some of you. I'm talking to you, Ron H. Jessie.
>

--
Kirk Job-Sluder
"The square-jawed homunculi of Tommy Hilfinger ads make every day an
existential holocaust." --Scary Go Round

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:58:27 -0500

Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>
snip

> I'm not actually certain what you mean here. I don't see a problem
> using "humanist" has an umbrella term because it was originally intended
> to describe people who believe that we should look to someplace other
> than god to define our ethics and morality.
>

snip

The problem is that "humanism" does not, specifically, exclude theism.
In fact, I love to accuse theists of being, in fact, humanists. If they
wake up and find themselves in the middle of a railroad track, with a
train bearing down on them, and they step away, they are acting as
humanists. A pure theist would try to pray themselves out of trouble,
relying on devine intervention, not a human solution. So, I don't see
humanism as an exclusive group at all, and CERTAINLY not one exclusive
enough to define who I am.

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	Kirk Job-Sluder
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:30:59 -0500

On 2004-10-10, Ronn_Hammonn wrote:
> Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>>
> snip
>
>> I'm not actually certain what you mean here. I don't see a problem
>> using "humanist" has an umbrella term because it was originally intended
>> to describe people who believe that we should look to someplace other
>> than god to define our ethics and morality.
>>
>
> snip
>
> The problem is that "humanism" does not, specifically, exclude theism.

For that matter, it does not appear that the Brights do either from
their FAQ.

> In fact, I love to accuse theists of being, in fact, humanists. If they
> wake up and find themselves in the middle of a railroad track, with a
> train bearing down on them, and they step away, they are acting as
> humanists. A pure theist would try to pray themselves out of trouble,
> relying on devine intervention, not a human solution.

It is really frustrating to engage in discussion about theism/atheism
when so many atheists engage in stupid straw-dog arguments against
theism.

> So, I don't se
> humanism as an exclusive group at all, and CERTAINLY not one exclusive
> enough to define who I am.

I think the key question is why does it have to be an exclusive group?
The basic problem as I see it, is that "theism vs. atheism" is one of
the most amazingly trivial questions on the table. More critical
questions center on what is the basis for good government and ethics,
and heck, even "what is beauty" is non-trivial. Defining one's self as
an atheist is meaningless because while one knows what you stand
against, one does not know what you stand for.

--
Kirk Job-Sluder
"The square-jawed homunculi of Tommy Hilfinger ads make every day an
existential holocaust." --Scary Go Round

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:02:01 -0500

Jessie Gamache wrote:
>

snip

> I really didn't understand or care for some of the reaction I got from
> from some of you. I'm talking to you, Ron H.

Lol! You have GOT to get over that thin skin thing if you plan to play
on Usenet. I'm blunt. I'm frank. I don't mince words. I don't spare
feelings. All of this is borne of my dedication to truth above all
else. "You can't HANDLE the truth." ;-)

If you want polite, you may as well killfile me.

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	David V.
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:22:32 -0500

Jessie Gamache wrote:
>
> I really didn't understand or care for some of the
> reaction I got from from some of you. I'm talking to
> you, Ron H. Jessie.

That reaction may have been caused by your own actions. You
came in here, out of nowhere, and told us that we were all
wrong and that you were right. That doesn't set well with
most people. You basically called us all ignorant.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV

From:	Dorene Braun
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:06:04 -0500

I've been looking at the Brights' website and find the idea very appealing.
I had earlier sent a post asking for clarification of the terms freethinker,
humanist, deist, agnostics, etc. It's nice to know I can call myself a
Bright knowing that it has a rather loose definition.

Dorene Braun
Yorktown, VA

From:	Jessie Gamache
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:30:51 -0500

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one interested in the Bright
Movement, but I got some of the same type response you
did, Dorene. Fortunately, it didn't curb my interest and I still think
it is a good idea. Jessie..G.

From:	Signpoet
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:32:55 -0500

> It's nice to know I can call myself a
>Bright

Yes, indeed. You can also call yourself a "Nice" and a "Sweet" and put a bumper
sticker on your car that says you brake for animals.
I say, "Bright is as bright does."

From:	marx
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:01:12 -0600

"Dorene Braun" wrote in message news:...
> I've been looking at the Brights' website and find the idea very appealing.
> I had earlier sent a post asking for clarification of the terms freethinker,
> humanist, deist, agnostics, etc. It's nice to know I can call myself a
> Bright knowing that it has a rather loose definition.
>
> Dorene Braun
> Yorktown, VA

I am partial to the term anti-theist, i am diametrically opposed to
the existance of all gods.

Bhuddists i can accept, they have no 'god'... you are enlightened or
you should be :)

From:	Signpoet
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:58:56 -0600

It all seems silly to me. Atheist is descriptive and etymologically sound. If
the connotations are negative, it's up to us to change that.
And what's with the apostrophe in "Bright's"? We never write "atheist's" or
"christian's," or for that matter "dog's" or
"cat's." Plurals of regular common nouns don't have apostrophes.

From:	Ron Peterson
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:46:07 -0600

Signpoet wrote:
> It all seems silly to me. Atheist is descriptive and etymologically sound. If
> the connotations are negative, it's up to us to change that.

I don't think the negative connotations can be changed even if atheists
are known by another name. Theists are always going to assume that if
you're not for them, you're against them.

--
Ron

From:	Ron Peterson
Subject:	Re: Bright's
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:36:50 -0600

marx wrote:

> I am partial to the term anti-theist, i am diametrically opposed to
> the existance of all gods.

I would think that anti-theist would mean opposition to the
establishment of theist religions.

What does it mean to be opposed to the existence of all gods?

> Bhuddists i can accept, they have no 'god'... you are enlightened or
> you should be :)

Would you want to live under the control of a Buddhist priesthood?

--
Ron