An interesting, if somewhat, uh, dumb, opinion on a new euphamism for "athiest". I prefer "godless" myself. It seems that some athiests are attempting to brute force the use of the word "bright" as a noun for athiest. It's pretty dumb besides being grossly narcisistic. The piece begins by comparing the use of the word "gay" to describe homosexuals and homosexuality. Now, I don't offhand know the etymology of the gay and its relationship vis-a-vis homosexuality, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't started by a cabal of, well, gays (or heteros, for that matter). Actually, given some thought, it seems rather likely that the term "gay" was used to describe certain personality characteristics of "gay" men. It origin and growth into the official English lexicon was organic, not forced, not manufactured. This is generally the case with euphamisms and foreign words and phrases.I am a bright.Well, that's your God-given right. You are (quite probably) a bright.Well, not in the way you mean.Most of the people I know are brights.Birds of a feather. You know, it's not very bright to assume that since you believe (or don't believe) a particular thing and most of your friends and associates think the same way you do, that your group opinion is automatically true. Actually, that's kind of dumb. Of course most of the people you know are godless. Human tend to be around people who share their values (or lack thereof).The majority of scientists are brights.And I find that to be damned shame. You might think that the people most trained to see
God's majesty (that, his creation of life) not only ignore it but deny it. Presumably there are lots of closet brights in Congress, but they dare not come out.It's not very bright to make assertions and not back it up. It's intellectually dishonest.Notice from these examples that the word is a noun, not an adjective. We brights are not claiming to be bright (meaning clever, intelligent), any more than gays claim to be gay (meaning joyful, carefree).Bullshit. Pure and simple. Of course these athiests are claiming to be intelligent. That's why they're using a term traditionally associated with intelligent people. Furthermore, atheists define themselves in opposition to religion (more on this in a moment). By using "bright" to describe themselves they are in effect claiming to be more intelligent than all religious people.Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights (noun) to be bright (adjective) is a matter for research. I would dearly like to see such research undertaken, and I know the result I am betting on, but it is no part of the definition of the noun.This statement directly contradicts his previous claim, despite the last segment. Doublespeak that would have impressed George Orwell.