Ahh, the people in India that don't eat....; the Amazing Randi has had a couple of those talk to JREF and they were found out to be eating. But I'm geussing you trusted that they weren't eating 'cause you had faith in that statement?

And once again, we're back to the 'Prove me wrong' argument. We've been through this way too many times, Joe. When you bring a belief to me and I question it, it is your duty to prove it right, and not mine to prove you right or wrong. Using that stance leads to detrimental thinking.

Of course I know of faith, but trying to prove somethiung others have faith in is what skeptics do. Simply because I work torwards that doesn't mean I ave faith in those things. It is the opposite. In order to prove you right, I must have no faith in what you are saying.

You sure do 'show me what I choose to see' a hell of a lot. Could you stop now? If I'm so damn ignorant, quit tryin to win me over.

You say 'people like me are everywhere'. What's your point, Joe? I'm not trying to be original. But apparently you are truly obsessed with not being the norm, as shown by the inane number of times you have used this argument.

The only way to truly know things is to not believe in them and question beliefs and ideas. Only then can you prove them. If someone were to walk on water, I would not insist it was a trick, but I would ask how they were able to do it, and if they could do it again, using a scientific stance, in order to prove them right. Just as I'm doi g with you. Unfortunately, you derive cynic from skeptic, and ignore the fact that ideas must be questioned in order to be proven.

I completely oppose the 'bright' movement.  Anyone not already predisposed to it's core values is not only excluded but, by implication, stigmatized as a result of that exclusion.  I do not think the comparison to 'gay' is valid either.  Gay is inclusing and positive and provides a political label to organize under.  Bright is exclusive and condescending and from what I've seen promotes dissention and unrest among the ranks.

I mean can you seriously be considering using the term 'bright' to refer to yourself in real conversations?  I would laugh at anyone who tried to pull it off and I'm a skeptic's skeptic.

 The comparison to 'gay' is that gay was a word that changed meanings due to homosexual tensions and acceptances, to become an overused pop-culture-ish word, and with 'bright' they're tryin' to do the same thing. Aside fromt hat simple fact, I have no idea what the hell yer talking about. It was quite a playful, joking idea to call themselves 'brights', not as in "bright-smart" but as in "bright-happy". What's condescending about being happy? You're looking at it your way instead of the way it's presented and explained through the articles. Start seeing what's there and not what you think should be there.

You weren't paying attention when I explained this in the mere third post, after someone had the same concerns!

QUOTE

You weren't paying attention when I explained this in the mere third post, after someone had the same concerns!

When accusing someone of inattentiveness, it is good policy not to be in such a position that you are yourself awkwardly subject to your own criticism.  Your purportive 'explanation' occurs not in the third post, but in the sixth, but who's counting?

If you are incapable of understanding simple arguments, as you admitted to in the last post, then there is little more I can do for you.  Maybe your band has a song that would help you understand, no?  The fact of the matter is, bright connotes, not happy-gleeful-cheerful as its proponents argue, but smart, sharp and intelligent.  It is not an erroneous interpretation on my part, it is the hard fact of a collective perception.  Those who do not identify with what bright signifies, will resent it, misconstrue it, and stigmatize it.  We all know what is supposed to imply.  It is just an extremely poor term for that purpose--the not-so-subtle double entrendre cannot be white-washed away.

Except in the minds of by fanboi's like you.

Apparently, you're counting.... or maybe you weren't?  

Ahhh, the simple premise used by the masses of what they think they know.

A snap judgement made by the general public is a simple stereotype, and as I have said time and time again, stereotypes used by you put you at fault for being ignorant enough not to look into what you're judging, and place no fault upon me. They are, after all, your misconceptions, and not mine.

Since when is collective perception hard fact? If you truly think this, you are a sadly conformed slave to the masses and their easily misinformed judgements. Don't tell me you actually think that just because it is widely thought, it is true? Pure drivel.

The true reason people abuse it is the same reason people abused "gay" once homosexuality was unaccepted. It is a double entendre simply if you see it that way, and thus you show me that you misjudge me. You've done a very good job, by the way...

 Would you like to explain what my band has to do with any of this? After all, I was originally just providing an example of how I try not to bring subjects that belong in other threads into this one. You must have brought some other meaning out of it, as you always do....

QUOTE

The fact of the matter is, bright connotes, not happy-gleeful-cheerful as its proponents argue, but smart, sharp and intelligent. Â

then I guess Agnostic4Now isn't bright after all!  

 Ahh, the sweet flattery of imitation.

 The fact of the matter is, there is more than one definition of bright. Duh.

By the way, I see you'd rather make pointless personal attacks than explain where I was wrong in my last statement. Or is that just too hard, and you had to insult me to "win" the argument?

Well?

I must say, I don't altogether like the sound of these Brights. I'm generally an admirer of Dawkins for his clear vision, lucid writing style and his uncompromising stance against all the rubbish associated with religious dogma. I'm sure the movement began in good faith (sic!), but I fear, as others here have touched on, that its future will be the exclusion and ridicule of anything slightly outside the realms of mainstream science. For instance, so-called 'paranormal' phenomena are very fringe science and probably require some totally new theories to begin to explain, yet I fear that the Bright movement would reject outright any investigation therein, much as Randi does in the original referenced article. I hope I'm wrong.

As do I.

Just like with other philosphies and religions, this one can be abused by people who don't take it for what it truly is. That, however, is no reason to discount the philosophy as a whole.

Water?

People can swim in water.
people can swim on water.
People reputedly can walk on water.
Has anyone ever claimed to walk above water?

They could dive without a platform!

I'm not seeing your point. ???

In case anyone might be confuse, for the record, I did not post under the moniker Obnoxious4Now, although I do find the pun highly amusing.  Because anonymity is so easily abused, as Joe has well shown us, I as a rule, try to avoid it.  I think that few of you will disbelieve me when I say that I always take credit for my own ad hominem and rhetorical barbs.  I have a penchant for good rebarbative commentary and am personally disinclined to such unrecognized activity.

The reason a response to your bright apologetic has not been forthcoming is because I simply could not convince myself that anything you might say would be worth reading.  Feel free to take solace in the fact that this is a burden I alone must bear, but do not be decieved--I do not even need to be right to best you in debate.