1. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45847 by Mr. Mark on May 29, 2007 at 11:43 am

Martin has point, of course, people don't want to give up their fantasy world.

However, he understates the importance of Dawkins to the future of faith. Too many commentators have taken the idiotic position of, "Dawkins' book has been out for months, and yet people still believe in god."

Don't they understand that change will be gradual, not instantaneous?

The move away from religion will evolve. It will take decades for the majority of people to leave their fantasy worlds, but if modern-day Europe is any example, it can and will happen.

I'm convinced that the books by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others will eventually be seen as the line that was drawn in the sand, even if takes decaeds for most people to cross that line into enlightenment.

2. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45655 by Mr. Mark on May 28, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Telling people that if they don't accept Jesus and spend their lives grovelling at his feet in their original-sin unworthiness, they are condemned to spend an eternity burning in hellfire - peachy keen!

Telling people that god is a delusion - offensive!

Everybody clear on that?

3. Teachers rebel over atheism promotion

Comment #45103 by Mr. Mark on May 26, 2007 at 11:49 am

So, the school welcomes brochures from "pretty tame" organizations "like scouting."

The Boy Scouts of America OPENLY discriminate against gays and atheists,. They got a court ruling that allows them to openly discriminate against their fellow Americans based on religious non-belief and sexual orinetation. Yet, the BSA are considered "pretty tame."

The atheist organization - which discriminates against no one - is considered to be "disgusting" by some members of the school's college-trained faculty.

Is there any hope for America?

4. Angry atheists are hot authors

Comment #44834 by Mr. Mark on May 25, 2007 at 11:21 am

I've seen a big change in the way Xians converse with non-believers.

They used to hit us with the pseudo-benign, "my telling you that you're going to burn in eternal hellfire is born of the love that I have for you, and that love that Jesus has for us all," to something along the lines of, "you're an evil person who's responsible for crimes on the level of Stalin and Hitler. All of the problems in the USA stem from the 2% of you evil atheists who don't believe in Jesus like the rest of us do."

So, who's testy these days?

5. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #44015 by Mr. Mark on May 23, 2007 at 7:25 am

Ms Kohn writes: "...what Dawkins failed to acknowledge in his encounter with Haggard is that the Nazi program of eugenics and extermination was not dictated by an unseen god."


???? Ms Kohn believes that an unseen god exists. She chastizes Richard for blaming god for dictating the Nazi's eugenics program, saying that he should be blaming the men who thought up and executed the program.

The only problem with that is that Richard doesn't believe that there is a god, so he can't possibly blame god for dictating what the Nazis did. God doesn't enter into the equation for Richard. He's putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the men responsible for the atrocities.

So, what's her point?

6. Prayer can improve physical health

Comment #43693 by Mr. Mark on May 22, 2007 at 10:04 am

"They quoted a chronically-ill elderly woman who believed God took her pain away every time she prayed."


One wonders why god didn't just take away her chronic illness and have done with it.

I guess god just can't get past the servitude crap. He'll take your pain away, but you've got to grovel to him about it a couple of times a day.

Mindless pap.

7. For the God Question, a Biological Perspective

Comment #43670 by Mr. Mark on May 22, 2007 at 8:52 am

Frazier effectively captures the thrill that one experiences when reading TGD.

It's nice to see a positive review of the book for a change.

8. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43372 by Mr. Mark on May 21, 2007 at 7:47 am

Re: Comment #43235 by Robert Maynard on May 21, 2007 at 2:06 am

Bob - Hitchens is quoting Harris, and he gives the attribution for the quote right there with the quote. The fact that the reviewer doesn't realize this - and believes that this quote originated with Hitch, not Harris - shows a surface knowledge of Hitchens' book. Extremely sloppy reporting.

9. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42974 by Mr. Mark on May 20, 2007 at 7:41 am

Mr Limbaugh takes on Hitchens, and in the process, the indicts the RW and the Republic Party.

"[Hitchens'] anti-Christian and anti-theistic worldview is, for now at least, an insuperable barrier to any ideological transformation."

There you have it! Evil people are Dems, righteous people are Republics. Who has the idiotic worldview, Mr Limbaugh? Methinks thou dost protest too much.

10. God grief

Comment #42023 by Mr. Mark on May 17, 2007 at 1:13 pm

GH writes:

"Hitchens seems to think that, for any sensible modern person, reason must inevitably usurp the place religion once held at the center of life. Such a position assumes that simply because we understand what is going on during an earthquake or when a person is dying of cancer, these events cease to be terrifying."

Pure BS. "These events cease to be terrifying?" What book did the reviewer read? Whoever said that removing god removes terror? It may well remove an excuse for being the cause of terror, but terror is what it is. An earthquake under your feet is just as terrifying without god as it is with god.

Sheesh.

11. Unbelievable: That's what religion is, says Christopher Hitchens in his profoundly skeptical manifesto

Comment #40996 by Mr. Mark on May 15, 2007 at 9:59 am

The world would be a much better place if the first paragraph of Prof. Dennett's review was emblazoned across the entrance of every religious building and school on the planet.

12. Among the Disbelievers

Comment #40507 by Mr. Mark on May 14, 2007 at 11:30 am

The article in a nutshell:

*If the atheists don't come up with any Bronze-Aged myths to replace the ones they wish to destroy, then we're better off leaving the current Bronze-Aged myths right where they are.*


Mr Lazare makes the erroneous asumption that atheism is just like any other movement that is pushing an agenda. Atheism is not pushing an agenda. It is asking that reason replace myth as a worldview. Democracy may seek to replace totalitarianism, for example, but that's not what atheism is about.

Indeed, it may be pre-mature to even suggest a "replacement" for religion at this point, because any replacement would most likely conform itself into a religious stance if for no other reason than to gain a foothold in the minds of people who have been pre-conditioned by their religious upbringing (see Hitler transforming existing Xian beliefs to embarce a sort of German paganism, or Stalin transforming the "system" of Christian belief into a new god of communism).

The replacement for religion - if, indeed, a replacement is even needed - may take decades or even centuries to congeal and establish itself within society. Ready-made, one-size-fits-all remedies are seldom such. Should it be any different for the "replacement" of religion?

13. The Greatest Act of Human Hubris

Comment #40498 by Mr. Mark on May 14, 2007 at 11:16 am

There's a glaring typo in the third paragraph:

700,000 Protestants s/b 700-million.

14. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #39944 by Mr. Mark on May 12, 2007 at 11:17 am

Ha!

The lady on the panel said that it's hard to find god on your own, and that without organized religion, there's no one to guide you and to keep you from self-delusion. Self delusion! As if corporate, institutionalized delusion is a better option!

15. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39928 by Mr. Mark on May 12, 2007 at 10:15 am

So, after all the build up to the debate, Cameron's "proof" is a recycling of the "from design" argument. Incredible.

Let's call a spade a spade here: Kirk and Ray are ignorant people. In a just world, there would have been a 30-minute segment after the debate wherein Kirk & Ray were taken to the NY Public Library where the books were opened they were shown the entire history of the argument from design. The cameras would faithfully capture the embarrassed looks on their faces as they realized that their "unique proof" for the existence of god pre-dated their scoop by more than a few weeks.

I also agree that the editing for the TV segment was horribly slanted toward the religionists. The bias was no more on display than when Kelly asserted that their was no historic proof for Jesus' existence and the MODERATOR jumped in to stop her with the, "with all due respect" putdown that is universally bandided about as a slap of knowing scorn. A FAIRMINDED moderator would have asked her to support that statement (which I'm sure she could have quite easily). But he was having none of that. It reminded me of the "fair-minded" moderators who - in the run-up to bush's oil war in Iraq - felt it was their duty to shout down the "naive fantasies" being told by any and all who questioned whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMD.

16. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark

Comment #39629 by Mr. Mark on May 11, 2007 at 11:20 am

I guess I'm missing what all the uproar is about.

I listened to this debate before the uproar started. To my ears - and in the context of what was being discussed - I got the impression that Sharpton was saying that people who really believe in god - AS OPPOSED TO ATHEISTS - will keep Romney from the Republic nomination. I didn't hear it as a slight against Mormons.

That said, Hitchens won the debate hands down. I was very surprised at Sharpton's take on what god is. He seemed to refute any definition of god that was based on any of the standard holy books. Isn't he a Rev in the Southern Baptist tradition?

17. A conversation with journalist Christopher Hitchens

Comment #38899 by Mr. Mark on May 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Charlie Rose is the most-annoying interviewer out there. I wish he'd just shut up and let his guests speak!

18. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38191 by Mr. Mark on May 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

"If religion declines, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups?"


Hmm? What gaps are created when wars end?

19. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36489 by Mr. Mark on May 1, 2007 at 10:18 am

Interesting Hitchens factoid:

Hitchens shares his birthday with Thomas Jefferson - April 13, and Hitchens chose his most-recent birthday to become an American citizen. Yep. he's been one of us Yanks for about 2 weeks.

Hitchens now joins the elite group of Americans who may utter the phrase, "sod off!" without sounding pretentious. ;)

20. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36475 by Mr. Mark on May 1, 2007 at 9:34 am

Hitchens looked drunk? Spare me.

Hitchens was just as lucid here as he was over the weekend at the LA Book Fest. He didn't look at all inotxicated or off his game. He did have to deal with Stewart's style of interviewing which is hardly straight forward, but he got his message across, and he didn't yell at the audience.

I swear, hopping on the "Hitchens was drunk" bandwagon is a cheap shot. Most people know that Hitchens is a big drinker, yet people on this blog rush to throw out the "he's drinking again" meme as if they're in possession of some hot gossip of which no one else has even an inkling. It amounts to the lowest common denomonator of discourse on "Subject: Hitchens."

Let's stop with the knee-jerk reactions.

21. 'god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36208 by Mr. Mark on April 30, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Another example of a review that wasn't crying out to be written, so predictable is it in its analysis.

This type of review will encourage the very "problem" the author imagines: atheists will read Hitchens no matter what, but most religionists will take this review as just another reason to NOT read Hitchens, just as they have NOT read Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and the rest. Self-serving prose like this review is nothing more than literary masturbation.

22. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35915 by Mr. Mark on April 29, 2007 at 10:02 am

Yes, Hitchens' book will "change no minds" in the same way that the earliest books that were critical of the Bush administration and the Iraq War "changed no minds" when they were first published. In fact, their authors were portrayed as liars, malcontents, anti-American and worse.

But, strangely, as more and more books came out that were written from an anti-Bush perspective, the public's perception began to change.

It always amazes me that people - not just book reviewers/critics - assume that everyone has already read Dawkins or Harris or Dennett or whoever, and, therefore, a book by Hitchens is superfluous. The truth is that many people who would never read Dawkins or Harris will read Hitchens. All roads lead to Rome, but not everybody approaches Rome from the same direction.

In the final analysis, one must wonder what these naysayers are really afraid of.

I look forward to reading Hitchens latest effort.

23. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #34896 by Mr. Mark on April 25, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Pretty lame.

Unless the study compared "religious parents" to atheistic parents, the result says nothing.

It's entirely possible that children with parents who say they are religious "AND EXHIBIT THEIR RELIGIOUSITY* by attending church services have kids who are better behaved than are children whose parents say they are religious BUT SHOW NO OUTWARD SIGNS OF THEIR RELIGIOSITY.

The results cited could be a simple matter of "my parents don't practice what they preach."

24. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34524 by Mr. Mark on April 24, 2007 at 10:52 am

I wonder if the RC church was in the practice of selling indulgences to parents to get their kids out of limbo...and if so, are they ready to offer refunds with interest to those who paid for such indulgences?

25. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34124 by Mr. Mark on April 23, 2007 at 9:58 am

The AP story toes the line on an all-too-common refrain we hear in the USA, at least when progressive ideas/causes begin to gain traction: "the New Atheists/Democrats/Liberals/et al BETTER BE CAREFUL or their strategy COULD BACKFIRE!!!"

This from the people who have effectively enacted policies that hold tragic consequences for many people on this planet. Following their logic, it's easier to sell people a disease than a clean bill of health.

Why am I not impressed with this tired old canard?

26. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32793 by Mr. Mark on April 18, 2007 at 9:02 am

Prediction time: any atheist who reads Wilson's book will have already read Sam's book, while 99.999% of Xians who read Wilson's book will not have read Sam's book in advance and will make no effort to read Sam's book after reading Wilson's book.

27. Mozart doesn't make you clever

Comment #32540 by Mr. Mark on April 17, 2007 at 10:31 am

Those of us who were in the music biz when the Mozart-makes-you-smarter BS came out saw it for what it was: a marketing ploy.

Was it any wonder that the study was released when the world was celebrating the 200th anniversary of Mozart's death in 1992? I don't think so. The timing was everything.

Music - any music - that is listened to casually soon devloves into background filler. To imagine that a casual exposure to Mozart's music (and a specific piece of music at that!) could make anyone and everyone instantly smarter didn't pass the smell test back then. It's good to see it confirmed 15 years down the road.

28. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #31896 by Mr. Mark on April 14, 2007 at 10:12 pm

It's really simple: either the religous gods are strong enough to stand up to any assault made upon them, or their not. It's quite obvious that they're not at all strong.

Scientists need not change their approach. The very fact the the theists are all up in arms proves that the scientists are getting through to the general public.

29. The God Debate

Comment #29707 by Mr. Mark on April 4, 2007 at 8:56 am

"When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing."

No, you've just wasted your life.

30. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25801 by Mr. Mark on March 15, 2007 at 7:35 am

FEAR! - the great enabler and motivator of the religious!

A lone member of Congress declares he doesn't believe in fairies and suddenly the very concept of religion is under attack in the USA. Whoopdidddydo!

What a WEAK god these Xians worship. At the first sign of an opposing view, they come crying for Congress to aver that they all believe in god...or else, well, just...or else! Imagine clinging to a faith that is so weak that a single member of the US Congress could smash the whole thing to bits.

One wonders if these idiots ever listen to themselves. Such children they are.

31. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25637 by Mr. Mark on March 14, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"Like someone obsessed by the melody of a piece of music, but ignoring its harmony and rhythm, they often read a text without paying too much attention to its social and historical context."

Apparently, the author doesn't understand music, either. Every melody has a "rhythm" within its note pattern, and the underlying harmony of almost any melody is implied by the melody itself.

I won't try to imagine what he's trying to say about music or what parallel he's trying to draw bewtween music and philosophy, but as stated above, it makes no sense.

32. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #23893 by Mr. Mark on March 3, 2007 at 12:40 pm

"There has never been any proof offered that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct," he said.

Of course, Darwin's is A theory of evolution, not THE theory.

As far as proof - how many weeks of discovery evidence does the guy want?

33. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23385 by Mr. Mark on February 28, 2007 at 9:42 am

Richard is correct in saying that the problem comes in labeling children as this or that, not in teaching them about things.

That said, most parents who instruct their children in things religious do NOT take the position that, "this is what I believe, I hope you find it interesting, tomorrow we shall give you another choice when we discuss Islam...atheism will be covered over the weekend...eventually, you will make your own decision." In practice, the labeling is in the teaching as the teaching is exclusive to the label being applied.

34. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23382 by Mr. Mark on February 28, 2007 at 9:06 am

As another poster pointed out, Jesus didn't exist, so this is all a sideshow.

I wish someone would do a History/Discovery Channel show that revealed all of the similarities between the Jesus Myth and those of other ancient gods. I'd even settle for a show that "proved" that Jesus is a creation that sprang from Jewish mythology (see here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm ).

Is it a coincidence that this particular BS is being released during the Lent/Easter season when Xians are busy contemplating the resurrection of Jesus? I notice they didn't bother scheduling this for the summer or fall.

Pure showmanship.

35. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23119 by Mr. Mark on February 26, 2007 at 12:49 pm

"I'm dying to hear about the "DNA analysis"! To what does one compare Jesus's DNA?"

I'd think any communion wafer would do...

36. Faith

Comment #23010 by Mr. Mark on February 25, 2007 at 9:45 pm

"Most of them would regard each other as destined to fry in hell."

Except for the atheists, who don't believe there's a hell in which to fry.

37. Atheists come in last

Comment #22912 by Mr. Mark on February 24, 2007 at 8:52 am

BW wrote:

"The New Testament does not make commands involving governments."

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Who is it with the shallow understanding of the Bible?

38. Atheists come in last

Comment #22911 by Mr. Mark on February 24, 2007 at 8:50 am

BD wrote:

"You are all demonstrating a very shallow knowledge of the Bible. In the New Testament (which is the covenant we are now under)"

1. I don't know a single theist who has as deep an understanding of the Bible as the typical atheist...and your posts prove it in your case.

2. If god is perfect, why did he have to come up with a "second covenant?" How do we know the second covenant isn't as flawed as the first one? Shouldn't we be waiting for versions .03 or .04 to get it right? Is god just a supernatural version of Microsoft's bug-ridden garbage?

39. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22103 by Mr. Mark on February 12, 2007 at 11:08 pm

As is typical of the MSM, Richard got shortchanged on the time he was allotted.

Richard, I have two words for you if you want to get proper time on CNN: "WEAR DIAPERS!"

It worked for the crazy astronut story and it would work for you.

40. The God Delusion

Comment #21750 by Mr. Mark on February 11, 2007 at 12:10 am

Orr really obfusticates the 747 argument. For those who haven't read TGD, here it is:

Theists say that the chances of Darwinian evolution happening are about as good as the chance of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving a fully and randomly assembled 747 in it's wake.

Dawkins response is: well, if THAT's true about evolution, then god is the ultimate 747.

Dawkins basically takes the strawman of the theists and turns it against them. I thought he did a very good job in this. From Orr's review, I can't tell if he understands what Dawkins was doing and thinks Dawkins did a poor job turning the argument against the theists, or if he thinks that the Ultimate 747 argument originated with Dawkins.

So much for clarity in one's writing.

41. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21362 by Mr. Mark on February 8, 2007 at 11:08 pm

This last round between Andrew and Sam has ended up at just about the place I expected it to end up. Indeed, for all of Sullivan's erudition, he follows the usual theist playbook, and ends up losing the argument big time.

What do I mean by that? Well, it's simple if you think about it. In fact, you've probably been through it before. The discussion starts out on a level playing field with the two sides clearly deliniated. The theist writes a sensible first go as does the atheist. But from there on, the theist presents less and less of an argument based on fact and more and more of an argument based on their feelings. Contrarily, the atheist (or, let's say the "fact enabled" debator) provides increasingly pointed analogies and drills deeper into the logic of the atheist view to support their argument, while at the same time exposing the illogic of the theist's beliefs.

By the final round, the atheist is throwing the encyclopedia of logical argument into the mix while the best the theist can say is "because I said so!"

Not unexpected...and not particularly satisfying either.

42. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20431 by Mr. Mark on February 2, 2007 at 11:20 am

I think the Blasphemy Challenge is a fine thing indeed. We have 24/7 Xian TV networks spreading lies and people are up in arms about THIS? It is not stupid. What's stupid is to hear the childish babblings of that Episcopal priest in defense of her imagnation.

Nice to see Penn Gillette making an appearance.

43. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20422 by Mr. Mark on February 2, 2007 at 10:10 am

It's on TV, so naturally the biggest idiot got the most air time.

Why the show decided to have a discussion on Dawkins' film and to have him beamed in from an overseas location to participate in the discussion, only to give him less than 10% or the air time is typical of these lopsided "honest" debates. Maybe the presenters felt that Dawkins had been given enough air time through the showing of "Root of All Evil," who knows? Or maybe they simply allowed the theists to bury themselves with the own words.

Oh well. At least Canadian TV has SOMETHING like this available.

44. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20420 by Mr. Mark on February 2, 2007 at 10:05 am

I thought Dr. Pigiliucci did a fine job in this debate. He tried his best to keep the debate on the subject, but Hovind's stream-of-consciousness approach to debate is infuriating.

It's like the two were brought on to debate whether one stopped for a red light or a green light at an intersection...and one debator wants to argue whether traffic signals even exist.

45. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #20272 by Mr. Mark on February 1, 2007 at 11:57 am

Have you ever noticed that one never sees Benny Hinn and American Idol winner Taylor Hicks in the same place at the same time? Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

46. Richard Dawkins interview about 'Unweaving the Rainbow'

Comment #20084 by Mr. Mark on January 31, 2007 at 9:32 am

I'm not a Charlie Rose fan. The reasons cited above are all valid, IMO.

You can always tell Charlie's beliefs on guests and their issues by the way he interviews. If he agrees with the guest, the questions tend to be short and directed to allow the guest to make their point. He also gives them ample time to make and remake their point. If Charlie disagrees or feels uncomfortable with the guest's views, he asks meandering questions, interrupts the the guest's train of thought, and tries to get the guest off into a sidebar. The more-accomplished guests who suffer through this will often say, "but let me answer your earlier question first," which calls Charlie on his BS.

I remember when Stephen Brill had that short-lived magazine. He had a Charlie Rose counter that kept track of how many minutes Charlie spent asking questions/stalling, and how much time his guests had to reply. Compared to other interviewers, it wasn't pretty.

47. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19174 by Mr. Mark on January 25, 2007 at 11:23 am

"TAM5 drew a crowd of more than 800 to the Riviera Hotel & Casino, which the event's organizers announced made it the largest gathering of skeptics in history."

Sorry, I just don't believe that. :)

48. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19102 by Mr. Mark on January 24, 2007 at 11:27 pm

In Comment #19049, antialiasis wrote:

"However, we shouldn't forget that 'bright' and 'atheist' do not mean the same thing. A bright is a person with a naturalistic worldview. Of course most them are also atheists, and most atheists are also brights, but it is a different concept so I don't see why the Brights Movement should be seen as 'relabelling' atheists."

The OP makes clear that the term "brights" came about through the work of two academics who were specifically looking for a word to replace "atheist."

49. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19035 by Mr. Mark on January 24, 2007 at 12:55 pm

To Greywizard -

Other posters have offered reasons why they believe the term "brights" sucks and I agree with those stated reasons. More than the others, it just sounds forced to me.

If we could broaden the discussion, one might ask who the target market is for the term "brights." I would opine that it's the atheist who is being targeted, not the general public. It's a term that may make some atheists feel good about themselves, but I believe that the general public will find it presumptuous and arrogant.

The example given above as to how the words "queer" and "gay" grew out of the homosexual community are instructive. The meanings of these words have an organic connection to the community, whereas "brights" does not grow from the atheistic community. It is a total construct. Worse, it is a construct developed by two academics, and academics are the LAST people I would consult when looking for a word that, in essence, creates a "brand name" for atheists (I guess a minion of academics wasn't available to vote on the term).

If we want to go down this road, we atheists would be better off hiring a marketing and branding firm to come up with something that works. At least they would have the good sense to test market such terms out in the boonies before rolling them out in the general marketplace of ideas as was done with the term "brights." The result of that exercise has been a disaster, with many atheists appaled by the term, and with the few people in the general population who have heard the term finding it arrogant and stupid.

50. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19012 by Mr. Mark on January 24, 2007 at 11:17 am

As an atheist, I despise the term "Brights." It absolutely sucks on every level.

Our energy is better spent working to make atheist a term of respect than to go with a lame description that a couple of academics came up with over their afternoon lattes.

Brights are here to stay? I hope not.