Comments on: Interview with Co-Directors of The Brights’ Net http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/ by Hemant Mehta Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:12:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Roberto Hollnagel http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8380 Roberto Hollnagel Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:55:45 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8380 Thank you, Paul and Hemant! Of course you can believe in the Tooth-fairy without being religious! And, as you agreed, these beliefs are not our concern. The question remains: can you have any kind of religious belief without a belief in the SUPERNATURAL? Well, as Paul says, the "panoply of brights will certainly amaze, and confuse!" It certainly confuses me! But never mind, although I would favour that atheists are not confused with "agnostics", and that Brights wouldn't use "supers" to identify believers! With the best regards and wishes of continuing success, Roberto Hollnagel Thank you, Paul and Hemant! Of course you can believe in the Tooth-fairy without being religious! And, as you agreed, these beliefs are not our concern. The question remains: can you have any kind of religious belief
without a belief in the SUPERNATURAL? Well, as Paul says, the “panoply of brights will certainly amaze, and confuse!” It certainly confuses me! But never mind, although I would favour that atheists are not confused with “agnostics”, and that Brights wouldn’t use “supers” to identify believers!
With the best regards and wishes of continuing success, Roberto Hollnagel

]]> By: Hemant http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8358 Hemant Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:33:35 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8358 Roberto-- Paul says this: <blockquote>A naturalistic worldview allows one to honestly and forthrightly characterize individuals (brights and supers) by two major social attributes (having naturalistic or supernaturalistic worldviews) and do so without reference to religion.</blockquote> I think it's entirely possible to believe in UFOs or horoscopes without necessarily being religious. It doesn't mean there's any truth to any of that, of course. Am I concerned with those beliefs? Sure, though religious beliefs have caused and will cause more harm than belief in card readings ever will. Roberto– Paul says this:

A naturalistic worldview allows one to honestly and forthrightly characterize individuals (brights and supers) by two major social attributes (having naturalistic or supernaturalistic worldviews) and do so without reference to religion.

I think it’s entirely possible to believe in UFOs or horoscopes without necessarily being religious. It doesn’t mean there’s any truth to any of that, of course. Am I concerned with those beliefs? Sure, though religious beliefs have caused and will cause more harm than belief in card readings ever will.

]]> By: Roberto Hollnagel http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8353 Roberto Hollnagel Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:52:45 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8353 Hi Hemant! I'm sorry, you are right. The statements I commented came right after your note on "supers" and I thought they were yours. I'll be looking forward to Paul's response, but as I have already exchanged some opinions with him I can imagine what he will say! Still, I would very much like to know YOUR opinion, mainly on how you can "have a supernaturalistic worldview without reference to RELIGION", because the only other possibilities are those of traditional superstitions, astrology, ufos, card reading, etc. Are these of any concern? I wonder! Looking forward to your opinion too! Thanks, Roberto Hi Hemant! I’m sorry, you are right. The statements I commented came right after your note on “supers” and I thought they were yours. I’ll be looking forward to Paul’s response, but as I have already exchanged some opinions with him I can imagine what he will say! Still, I would very much like to know YOUR opinion, mainly on how you can “have a supernaturalistic worldview without reference to RELIGION”, because the only other possibilities are those of traditional superstitions, astrology, ufos, card reading, etc. Are these of any concern? I wonder! Looking forward to your opinion too! Thanks, Roberto

]]> By: FriendlyAtheist http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8280 FriendlyAtheist Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:13:48 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8280 Hi Roberto-- I passed your question along to the Brights (since they're the ones who made the comments, not me). I'm still awaiting an answer. I'll put it up as soon as I get it! -- Hemant Hi Roberto– I passed your question along to the Brights (since they’re the ones who made the comments, not me). I’m still awaiting an answer. I’ll put it up as soon as I get it!

– Hemant

]]> By: Roberto Hollnagel http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8271 Roberto Hollnagel Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:55:14 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-8271 Sorry I missed the H in Hemant, but I'm still waiting for your comment! Do you comment at all? Thanks, Roberto Sorry I missed the H in Hemant, but I’m still waiting for your comment!
Do you comment at all? Thanks, Roberto

]]> By: Roberto Hollnagel http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-7479 Roberto Hollnagel Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:30:34 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-7479 Thank you, Serge, but I certainly also would like to have Emant's comment! Thank you, Serge, but I certainly also would like to have Emant’s comment!

]]> By: Serge Ledan http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-7350 Serge Ledan Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:25:50 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-7350 Roberto Hollnagel's comments on March 1st are so relevant and approppriate and I just wonder what the responses were, if any, after the posting of the above comment on The-brights.net. It would be interesting to know what were the reactions from Brights Central. Roberto Hollnagel’s comments on March 1st are so relevant and approppriate and I just wonder what the responses were, if any, after the posting of the above comment on The-brights.net. It would be interesting to know what were the reactions from Brights Central.

]]> By: Roberto Hollnagel http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-7115 Roberto Hollnagel Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:34:02 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-7115 I'd like to correct two typing errors in my comment: where "You speak of... it's "atheists and agnostics"! And further down, of course "evis" are "evils"! Please forgive me, and, by the way, I want to congratulate your efforts in spreading the "secular gospel" among students, who need it more than anybody else! Thanks, Roberto Hollnagel I’d like to correct two typing errors in my comment: where “You speak of…
it’s “atheists and agnostics”! And further down, of course “evis” are “evils”!
Please forgive me, and, by the way, I want to congratulate your efforts
in spreading the “secular gospel” among students, who need it more than anybody else! Thanks, Roberto Hollnagel

]]> By: Roberto Hollnagel http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-7096 Roberto Hollnagel Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:23:45 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-7096 Dear Emant! What do you mean by a "new concept of naturalistic worldview"? Wasn't this already the worldview of Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, and so many other greek thinkers? That a religious worldview, imposed by an organized catholic church, took over in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, was the political disaster that immersed the continent in the dark "middle ages" and sustained and "justified" feudalism until the Renaissance. Spinoza reinstated the naturalistic worldview in the 17th century, Darwin proved that a god was unnecessary for evolution to explain the emergence of mankind, and illuminism and positivism followed in the 18th. That's not "new", is it? By the way, do the Buddhists have a god? They've been around as long as we are! After all, mankind evolved not only in Europe! You speak of "theists and agnostics". Atheism is not a negation, except of traditionally imposed unevidenced beliefs. The only "doubtful" are the so-called "agnostics", which is a very uncomfortable condition: it means that "I would like to believe only in Nature, but...maybe there is 'something else' ...so I better leave a door open for whatever it is!" Agnostics are only weak believers! To confuse religion with superstition is a horrible mistake: religions are organized proselitizing structures, that try to impose their "beliefs" through dogma, while superstitions are just unorganized traditional beliefs in supernatural events. Religions are institutions, this is why they could cause such enormous evis along so many centuries. Superstitions don't proselitize and have no dogmas to impose! This is why the antonim "super" is so misguiding, and definitely wrong! I already commented my opinion on "Brights" as well as the tolerance of churchgoing "brights" with Paul and Minga, and, being a normal atheist, I'll never call myself a "bright", but that movement is successful this way makes me very happy, as it's a stimulation of secularism, which is so much needed in our world today, mainly in your United States! Best regards, Roberto Hollnagel Dear Emant! What do you mean by a “new concept of naturalistic worldview”?
Wasn’t this already the worldview of Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, and so many other greek thinkers? That a religious worldview, imposed by an organized catholic church, took over in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, was the political disaster that immersed the continent in the dark “middle ages” and sustained and “justified” feudalism until the
Renaissance. Spinoza reinstated the naturalistic worldview in the 17th century, Darwin proved that a god was unnecessary for evolution to explain
the emergence of mankind, and illuminism and positivism followed in the 18th. That’s not “new”, is it? By the way, do the Buddhists have a god?
They’ve been around as long as we are! After all, mankind evolved not only in Europe!
You speak of “theists and agnostics”. Atheism is not a negation, except
of traditionally imposed unevidenced beliefs. The only “doubtful” are the so-called “agnostics”, which is a very uncomfortable condition: it means that
“I would like to believe only in Nature, but…maybe there is ‘something else’
…so I better leave a door open for whatever it is!” Agnostics are only weak
believers!
To confuse religion with superstition is a horrible mistake: religions are organized proselitizing structures, that try to impose their “beliefs” through
dogma, while superstitions are just unorganized traditional beliefs in supernatural events. Religions are institutions, this is why they could cause such enormous evis along so many centuries. Superstitions don’t proselitize
and have no dogmas to impose! This is why the antonim “super” is so misguiding, and definitely wrong! I already commented my opinion on “Brights” as well as the tolerance of churchgoing “brights” with Paul and Minga, and, being a normal atheist, I’ll never call myself a “bright”, but
that movement is successful this way makes me very happy, as it’s a stimulation of secularism, which is so much needed in our world today,
mainly in your United States!
Best regards, Roberto Hollnagel

]]> By: John http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-6327 John Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:56:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/18/interview-with-co-directors-of-the-brights-net/#comment-6327 In my opinion, "wooly weird forces and supernatural gooey hooey" qualify as religions of a sort. They can claim to be non-religious, but I could also claim to be an astronaut. Maybe there <em>should</em> be a word for those who look to science "when it comes to how the world works", but Bright will never catch on in a big way. But, at least it doesn't end in -ist. In my opinion, “wooly weird forces and supernatural gooey hooey” qualify as religions of a sort. They can claim to be non-religious, but I could also claim to be an astronaut.

Maybe there should be a word for those who look to science “when it comes to how the world works”, but Bright will never catch on in a big way. But, at least it doesn’t end in -ist.

]]>