It’s mildly humorous that just as I’ve read and re-read the Wired article on “the new atheism” and the TIME cover story along the same lines and added the Dawkins (”The God Delusion”) and Harris (”Letters to a Christian Nation”) and Dennett (”Breaking the Spell”) books to my Amazon wishlist, my father is reading “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” by Francis Collins and told me he wants to read Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” - both of which are books credited with turning atheists into pillars of Christian virtue.

Now, my father has never professed to be an atheist, but he has been far from religious my entire life. If he went to church with us three times in my memory (other than a first communion ceremony, etc.) that was a lot. I hate to say it, but it seems to be something that comes hand-in-hand with a sense of your own mortality.

The idea/thought that “this is it” isn’t particularly uplifting and is even less so when you’re not 16 or 22 or 50. Thus, I can see the justification or need in people’s minds to feel that something lives on - that some element or essence of them “goes to a better place” and that death isn’t really the end.

But that’s not what I believe. I believe that death is the end. Period. End of story. I’m not superstitious and I don’t believe in a larger something. Doing all this reading lately, I’ve been reading about the Brights; it’s a cruddy elitist name for a group, but the ideas are in-line with my beliefs:

What is a bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

from the Bright’s home page

All this recent media coverage and discussion of the topics of atheism, rationalism, religion, etc. have been polarizing people and making this a more “in your face” topic, though it’s still not something people like to discuss.

It means that you’re either going to have to politely accept differences in beliefs or start arguing since people feel strongly about these issues.

Perhaps as a result of this focus on the topics, I’ve felt more than usual lately that my beliefs are discriminated against, much like devout/evangelical Christians probably felt prior to Bush 42 taking office. All of a sudden, for examples, it’s cool(er) for teens to be “Jesus Freaks” or members of the “God Squad”; I remember from high school that being religious opened you up to ridicule and torment.

While I have not been ridiculed or tormented for not believing as I do and for thinking as I do, I have felt/experienced moments of discomfort in conversations with friends/acquaintances who are otherwise open to all manner of differences. So be it.

Anyway, this Brights’ website has some helpful info - how to respond to a GBY (”God Bless You”) or other such everyday matters. I like their simple suggestion of saying, “Salud” when someone sneezes. I used to, but then got into the “bless you” (sans god) habit (when in Rome…)

Here’s some info from another site on the origin of the term which is helpful since out of context, it is elitist. That’s not a good thing when creating new nomenclature or neologism in general - if you want a word to be picked up in the general lexicon of the people, you’ve got to make it comfortable to use.

There is a distinct lack of a good, simple and positive label to give to all those people who look on life without the curse of belief in supernatural forces. The usual terms we are familiar with have become bogged down with debates over definition and have become associated with negative ideas…

The term was coined by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell.

The word is simply a borrowed word. It isn’t an acronym of anything (please don’t try to make it into one), it isn’t an allusion to some mythical or fictional character, it hasn’t got any baggage at all. That is the point… It is an adjective, but now we are using it as a noun. We are not telling the world we are bright, we are saying we call ourselves Brights.

Being a bright means you do not take a supernatural view on reality. It is very simple. It isn’t a religion or a faith position, being a bright requires no faith. It is a reasonable answer to the question, “What is your religion?”

“Being a bright means you do not take a supernatural view on reality.” That’s what I’m talking about.

I hope this doesn’t become conversation over Thanksgiving dinner; I will want to read up on my Dawkins, Dennett and Harris before we launch into that debate.

Now I am tired and want to enjoy sleeping without the friggin’ cast up my elbow. Mmmm. Glorious stretching.

P.S. I realize that having the “deity of the day” box over on the right here might seem hypocritical. I think it’s amusing to see the variety of gods and goddesses that polytheistic religions have created to credit/thank for almost everything. It’s fun trivia, like a word of the day or other random fact. Maybe I’ll decide to remove it as some point. Maybe not.