[Cerek the Barbaric]

The article touches on several interesting points and the subject matter raises a few more that should make for good discussion. It's no secret that we Americans can get very hung up on labels with groups on opposing sides of an issue seeking to "tag" themselves with the description that makes their side seem the most impressive.

I agree in the first paragraph that "godless" and "unbelief" can have negative connotations, but I never really considered "nonbeliever" or "atheist" to carry that same negativity. After all, as you pointed out, atheist is the appropriate antonym(?) to theist - just as nonbeliever is the natural opposite to "believer". Since atheists want to make a distinction between themselves and "believer" in religion, I don't really see why those terms would be considered negative.

I do disagree, on a surface level, with the term "freethinker" since the inherent implication is that believers are not "freethinkers". That is one of the common criticisms leveled at Christians by atheists..that we don't think for ourselves or that we are just mindless sheep that let the preacher or the Bible tell us what to think. I find the accusation that we let the Bible tell us what to think especially humorous and ironic, since many atheists on this forum have recommended books for others to read that help support the viewpoints and ideals they hold. In other words, they rely on different books to support their opinions and "beliefs" just as Christians do. Of course, most Christians will tell you that they use the Bible as a guide or reference book, not as a tome whose texts are to be taken and applied unilaterally to everyday life.

But that is just a minor gripe of mine. If it makes them feel better about their choice to use the term "freethinker", then so be it.

As for the "bright" movement, it seems to be nothing more than an attempt by some to make themselves appear inherently superior to those of opposing beliefs. As pointed out near the end of the article, there are some who will use the term to imply that they are "bright" and those who believe differently are "not bright". Just a subtle attempt to make themselves appear more intelligent than their counterparts. Personally, I feel anybody that needs to raise themselves up by putting others down has a lot of self-doubt and insecurity regarding their position...so they have to "build themselves up" by choosing a superior-sounding label. This is true in many situations and many subjects - not just the issue of religion. Abortion produces "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" and other emotionally-charged issues will produce similar labels created by each side to make their viewpoint sound better than the other.

In my opinion, if an atheist is truly comfortable with their choice or viewpoint, they shouldn't need to create a new label to make themselves feel better about it. The same goes for Christians. If you're comfortable with the path you've chosen, you shouldn't need a "feel good" label to make yourself feel better about it.

Another very interesting point in the article was the amazing similarities between the actions of Christians and atheists. For every religious belief or practice, there is a similar "belief" or practice exercised by atheists. That is because we all have the same basic human nature and instincts, so we follow our chosen paths in surprisingly similar fashion, despite the opposing ideals our paths are based on.

All in all, it was a very interesting article that - for once - gave equal and fair representation to both sides of the issue. And it should lead to an equally interesting and informative discussion here too.

Thanks for posting it, Lord Kathan. I enjoyed reading it. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]