Showing posts with label Humanist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Humanist. Show all posts

November 20, 2017

Congress, Atheism, and Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Jared Huffman, a Democrat Congressman from California, recently "came out" as a Humanist. There is no appreciable difference between Humanists and atheists, though some theists call identify as Humanists because they have a low view of the Bible and elevate humans to the highest priority. Huffman does not go on record as endorsing atheism, but says he does not believe in God. He seems to be politically timid, keeping mum about his beliefs for years (atheists generally do not get elected). He felt he had to finally admit his views.

The Democrat party has a disdain for God and the Bible, and Huffman believes in homosexual "rights", he is pro-abortion, and just what you'd expect from a leftist in general. Identifying as a Humanist, or atheist (or maybe he'll change to agnostic), should fit in well with the current political climate.

I want to interject something here. Atheists are materialists, rejecting God and the supernatural (except for those who identify as atheists but still believe in such things, go figure) and most are pro-abortion. It seems to be that they are amazingly inconsistent by supporting abortion if this is the only life anyone has. Wouldn't it be consistent for atheists as a whole to be vehemently pro-life instead of denying the unborn a chance at living? Just a thought.

As we have seen here many times, professing atheists are appallingly bad at using logic, but claim to be the purveyors of reason. Some samples of Huffman's comments help illustrate what I mean. First, "...I don’t believe my religion is all that important to the people I represent..." Sounds like an off the cuff remark, not something that has been communicated to him by all those people. It is also a hasty generalization, such as used when saying that all 8,000+ of those who "Like" The Question Evolution Project are hateful bigots."

...and I think there’s too much religion in politics." Really? Politics is made up of people, it is not a monolith, such as some people make of science. People have foibles, views, biases, altruism, presuppositions — and religious beliefs. Atheists (and so-called Humanists) are on a secularist jihad to remove any semblance of Christianity from American society. Huffman's constituents, if there are any Christians left in the area he represents, should be alarmed.

Also note this remark in the leftist Washington Post“On Thursday, he will release a statement saying he is a Humanist, a loose philosophy based on the idea that humans should work to improve society and live ethically, guided by reason, not necessarily by anything supernatural.” This is not only a question-begging epithet (subtly saying that Humanists/atheists use "reason" and people who believe in God reject reason), but it is also poisoning the well and manipulating emotions: you don't want to admit that you're a theist and have people think you're stupid, unlike The Mighty Atheist™, do you?

Atheism is illogical, inconsistent, and irrational, and it lacks the necessary preconditions of human experience. Those preconditions are only found in the biblical worldview, beginning with creation. If Jared Huffman decides to say he's an agnostic, well, that worldview is also lacking in reason. This tinhorn is doing the politician thing. Such doubletalk is typical of atheists, to say something without coming out and being direct so he cannot be pinned down.

Dr. Albert Mohler has an insightful analysis of the Jared Huffman situation in The Briefing. It's free to download, listen online, or read the transcript. I hope you will do so, just click on "The Briefing 11-14-17".



November 24, 2016

Christians, Secularists, and Giving Thanks


Although this is written for Thanksgiving Day here in the United States, there are some important truths that are applicable beyond this day. Although some sidewinders commence to rewriting history and redefining facts to suit their own preferences, America was founded on Christian principles, and Thanksgiving Day is a unique part of it.


Secularists try to "give thanks" without thanking God who gave them life. Christians need to be mindful of thankfulness.

One bit of historical rewriting is that in 1621, the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Native Americans. Not hardly! They gave thanks to God, primarily. There are conflicting stories about that first "thanksgiving day". A few years later in 1676, the first Thanksgiving Proclamation was set up "...as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour..." Eventually, a national Thanksgiving Day was established.

Atheists, whether calling themselves humanists, secularists, "freethinkers", atheists, or whatever, have a bit of a dilemma: they are in rebellion against God and do not wish to thank or even acknowledge him. Instead, they are attempting to find different ways to "give thanks" while avoiding God, who created them and gave them life. Their "prayers" seem a lot like Christian prayers, tacitly admitting that giving thanks to God is something deep inside us.

Another atheist bigot who worships scientism and atheism.
This character is elevating his religion of atheism and scientism above God — and basic civility.
Christians need to have an attitude of thanksgiving that transcends one "official" day a year. Ingratitude is sinful and selfish.

This is where I turn you over to the author and speaker who inspired this post, Dr. Albert Mohler. There are two items. First, there's a podcast that runs just over 20 minutes that you can download or hear online, or read the transcript if you prefer. That one is "Thanks be to whom? Celebrating Thanksgiving in an increasingly secular age". Second, he has an article that I recommend for Christians to read, "Thanksgiving as Theological Act: What Does it Mean to Give Thanks?".

Wishing you a blessed Thanksgiving!

January 23, 2016

Establishing Evolutionary Religion in America

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many parts of the world are becoming increasingly secularized (which may have contributed to the recent terrorist attacks), and the United States has also been riding that same trail. The rights of Christians are coming under increasing attack by atheistic owlhoots, and secular humanism is steadily becoming established as the state religion. Know what God says about people who deny him? See Psalm 14:1.

Secular humanism is a religion by their own admission, philosophically, and by court rulings. While many atheists such as Clinton Richard Dawkins are calling this a "major victory", some dishonest atheists are still trying to change reality and deny that humanism is a religion. They accept the religion of evolutionism as foundational (but deny that evolutionism is a religious): "Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing."


The world is becoming increasingly secularized, as is the United States. To further establish secular humanism as the state religion, there is an effort to declare "Darwin Day".

Atheists like Michael Zimmerman have been trying to get churches to compromise on creation. Now some federal tinhorns are attempting to establish "Darwin Day". Problem is, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly forbids the government establishing a state religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Of course, they have been establishing humanistic religion for a mighty long time now. This "all hail Darwin, blessed be!" stuff takes the rag off the bush. And this will continue as they seek to deny our Creator and enthrone man.

There is resistance. We already have Question Evolution Day happening annually on February 12, which is by and for the people. There is also Creation Sunday, which I encourage churches to be a part of. But let's turn up the heat a bit more, shall we? Americans should speak out and let legislators know that Darwin Day is unacceptable, and violating the Constitution.
Two Connecticut Congressmen have introduced Darwin Day resolutions this year. House Resolution 548 is sponsored by Rep. Jim Hines (CT-4); Senate Resolution 337 is sponsored by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D- Connecticut). It comes as no surprise that the resolutions are backed by the Secular Coalition of America and the American Humanist Association.
To read the rest, click on "Stop Darwin Day!" Also, you can become involved at the new Stop Darwin Day Facebook Page.




May 30, 2015

Evolution and Other False Salvation Efforts

At first, I didn't have any ideas for something to write for the 8th anniversary of Stormbringer's Thunder. A spam comment at The Question Evolution Project, some podcasts that I heard while working, and ideas came through my mind like stampeding cattle spooked by lightning. —Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Have you ever watched the TV show Restaurant Impossible? Chef Robert Irvine revamps failing restaurants and gives the owners new hope for success. He often has to not only deal with bad management (and frequently, bad food), but attempts to fix relationships as well. Many of the restaurants succeed, but there are quite a few that still fail or get sold. When I watch the show, I get to pondering on how the agreements and plans are akin to New Year's resolutions. The root problem still remains.

People get involved in "12 Steps" recovery programs that have a pretense at Christianity, but actually give a false gospel. We have bad feelings, so a shrink gives us medication to make us feel better. Various cults form so people can have a god that they can cotton to instead of the real God of the Bible. Same with the "seeker driven", Word of Faith "prosperity" heresies, hyper-charismatic excessive emphasis on tongues and use of false prophesies, liberal "Christianity", some seek salvation in religion without the Bible, and other tap dancing on the Bible movements. People even make a religion out of politics. The root problem still remains.

Evolutionists get burrs under their saddles when you mention this, but evolution has a religious nature to it. Just consider this for a spell. Evolution is originally a pagan religion (see discussion and documentation in "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism") and a cornerstone for the religion of atheism (and Secular Humanism, which is atheism in its Sunday-go-to-meetin' clothes). But evolution can stand on its own as a religion. It has its creation mythology (usually the failed Big Bang hypothesis) and salvation (increasing order and complexity).

There are evolutionists who are evangelistic, seeking to destroy biblical creationism. (Also, many atheists want to destroy the faith of Christians while also justifying their own excuses for rebelling against God. Evolution is their primary shootin' iron.) Indeed, many are on a secularist jihad and ornerier than a burlap bag full of sidewinders. It's almost funny how some of these Darwinistas will call us "liars", "science deniers" (based on the sneaky bait-n-switch fallacy of equivocation, making "evolution" into "science"),  and even "compromisers", even though they have no grasp of the Bible that they disbelieve anyway! Worse for them, creationists often have to correct them on science and their own evolutionism beliefs. The most obstreperous atheopaths prefer to attack people with emotive language and accusations rather than intelligently discuss content, and become furious when their logical, theological, and scientific failings are pointed out.

In the area of origins, there are many compromisers. One of the first names many people think of is Hugh Ross, who uses bad theology and apologetics to deny the recent six-day creation, and he also advocates a local flood. His disciples try desperately to find excuses to avoid scientific evidence that refutes an old-earth view (see the short video, "Dr Mark H Armitage Responds To Dr Hugh Ross on Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones" for one example). Atheists are fond theistic evolutionists, and then old-earthers, since they're closer to atheism and willing to compromise on Scripture. They often work together to ridicule biblical creationists. Hugh Ross is being measured for a big millstone as we speak for denying scriptural authority and helping others do the same.

The spam link mentioned in the first paragraph really takes the rag off the bush. It takes you to a fundamentalist evolutionist site where evolutionism supposed is to stamp out all gods, lead us into an enlightened age, and usher in world peace. For those who want to see this train wreck and maybe count the logical fallacies, see "Evolutions Law". Even so, the root problem remains.

New Age religions offer buffet-style worldviews. It doesn't matter what you believe. A bit of Christianity, add some Hinduism, a heapin' helpin' of opinions (do not add reasoned epistemology, it wrecks the flavor) — and especially evolution. That's mandatory, old son. New Age is "do what you want" and "gay is okay", indulge in your pleasures and still be "spiritual". But the root problem remains.

That root problem is sin, and these things are false salvation efforts — other "gospels", if you will (Galatians 1:8). Any of them can help you feel good about who you are; you don't have to humble yourself before the real God, repent, and believe in Jesus for salvation for your sins. With these false salvation things, make all the decisions you want, have a wagon-load of good intentions, make promises, saddle up your own religion — you're still the same sinful you (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23). 

There are many man-made efforts for salvation. Evolution is one of the biggest, and is a cornerstone for many forms of rebellions against the authority of God's Word.


Back in Eden, the serpent threw aspersions on God's integrity by twisting God's words when asking, "Did God really say...?" (Genesis 3:1), calling God a liar (Genesis 3:4), and lying himself (Genesis 3:5). Man has wanted to be his own god from the beginning of creation, and even tries to pretend that God doesn't exist (Romans 1:20, Psalm 53:1). The religion of evolution helps foolish men build that faulty tower.

When atheists and evolutionists attack God's people for believing and standing on his Word, they are not exactly attacking the Christians, but God himself. Sure, they hate us, but they hate us more because God is in us (2 Timothy 1:14, 1 Corinthians 3:16). They attack us, they attack our Creator. Some call themselves "freethinkers", but they are Satan's hand puppets, under his control (John 8:44) and their eyes are blinded (2 Corinthians 4:4). Their mocking, deceived, blind selves seek to destroy the gospel (especially the message of biblical creation, which is the foundation of the gospel). They want to destroy the truth. God doesn't take kindly to people interfering with his people's understanding of the Bible (Mark 9:42, Revelation 22:18-19, 1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:6). Hear that, Dr. Ross, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Laurence Krauss, and others?

There is only one true salvation, and that is found in Jesus Christ, God the Son, the creator of the universe. To learn more about this, click on "Good news".


Take a looksee at the parody of Billy Squier's
"The Stroke" by ApologetiX, below.
By the way, the original song was about psychological "strokes", which were often used for manipulation.

November 9, 2014

Atheism, Secularism and Lack of Logic



by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the main problems that atheists have is prejudicial conjecture. That is, they get all het up, thinking they know about something and spouting off their uninformed opinions while also trying to influence the views of others. When it comes to the Bible, many atheists not only resort to prejudicial conjecture, but many other logical fallacies including the straw man. Sorry, Cupcake, but we don't have to defend something we don't hold to or didn't say. This includes quote-mined material from the Bible. 


Made at Atom Smasher
Numerous fallacies can be rounded up in regards to creation science. They will misrepresent creationists, call us liars (their "proof" is essentially based on "because I said so repeatedly", but actually makes them the liars because of no real evidence), appeal to motive, poisoning the well, unfounded accusations, loaded terminology and a whole lot more. With just a little learning about informal logical fallacies, it's easy to spot atheopaths using numerous errors in what passes for reasoning on their world.


This is "Fair Use" for educational purposes. Also, I see that someone didn't cotton to Haywire's rants.
Another trick is redefining words to suit their purposes. The established definition of atheism is someone who believes there is no God or gods. Since that fails logic and philosophy tests, they have conveniently redefined it into someone who "lacks belief", but they are still making a belief statement. (Fine, I lack belief in a universe without God.) Since atheism is such a negative religion, it has been also redefined as secularism or even secular humanism, but both terms still come down to meaning "atheism". "Secularism" is not "neutral"; secularists keep working on removal of all vestiges of Christianity in public life. That is an establishment of an atheist religion, not "neutrality"!

One of the most popular efforts of quote mining by atheists in America is the so-called "Constitutional separation of church and state". Many people believe the lie that this is in the US Constitution. I remember some of a conversation about 30 years ago, I said to a guy, "The Constitution says that the church shall be separate from the state, and the school from the church". The other guy said, "Yes!" Then I informed him that I was almost-quoting from the USSR Constitution (it's in the 1936 and 1977 USSR Constitutions). He didn't like that trick, but it showed how he had accepted a belief without truth. The fact is, despite the manipulations and trickery of secularists, there is no such thing as the separation of church and state in the US Constitution! But atheist-sympathizing judicial activist judges in this country act like it's there.

Let's get back on the original trail again.

Atheists and other anti-creationists give uninformed opinions when they attack Christians and biblical creationists. Some think they've found problems with the Bible, therefore there is no God, but their objections have been answered long, long ago and answers are posted online. Very few have the intellectual integrity to honestly investigate from the sources about what we believe and teach. They get their information from other atheopaths and anti-creationists who misrepresent us, or just base their opinions on watching or reading secular humanist-based science fiction. How about going to the source instead of fallaciously paying attention to poorly-thought second-hand opinions? There really is a Creator, and he makes the rules. We are all going to be answerable to him one day. For some of us, it will be a joy. For others, it will be Hell (Phil. 2.9-11, Rev. 20.15). By denying God, you're making your choice with your pretended "secular" neutrality.

Wild Bill Finlay is an American Conservative commentator and a Christian. He has some good observations in this short video.

March 19, 2014

Dan Barker's Fundamentally Flawed Rationale


Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation seems like a heckuva nice guy. Unlike so many of the obstreperous atheists on the Web, he is intelligent, respectful and polite. But I am only basing this on a couple of interviews on Christian radio shows that I heard. Still, he does not have a reputation for being nasty.

The first one I heard was with Matt Slick of CARM. An attempt to schedule a debate had fallen through, so Dan was a guest in the studio with Matt. There was no specific agenda or topic. To listen to that, click here, but do not click on the "listen now" button. Instead, use the link "Carm_Podcast_2-7" to get the MP3. Also, Matt had a show where he discussed a debate he had with Barker a few years earlier, that show is here.

When hearing this show, I had feelings similar to those that Matt expressed, how so much was touched upon and a week of one-hour shows could stem from it. Barker had numerous instances of bad reasoning, word games, philosophical excuses and bad theology, so several visits would have been quite interesting.

After this, Dan Barker was on "Stand Up for the Truth" prior to a debate with Dr. Jerry Bergman of the Genesis Foundation. This was more formal, and they discussed not only his justifications for atheism, but how the Freedom from Religion Foundation conducts itself. You can listen/download here. Barker was caught in some glaring inconsistencies. Mike LeMay pointed out some of those in an article. One thing that I don't think anyone caught was how he claimed to be for everyone's religious freedom, but when Obamacare violates religious freedom, there's not a peep from FFRF. Double standard much? But the SUFT team does not let Christians off the hook because bad theology and lack of commitment (and understanding) on the part of Christian teachers that helps give us people like Dar Barker.

Somewhat related is the next interview on "Stand Up for the Truth", where Dr. Bergman is interviewed about the religion of secular humanism, Barker and other related topics. You can listen/download the Dr. Bergman discussion here.


May 17, 2011

Is This What They Call “Tolerance”?


A couple of things this time around. First, the Christian fish symbol ichthus is getting out of hand. Not so much by Christians, our symbol is ancient and uncluttered:

Then someone decided to essentially raise a middle finger to it and make a Papa Darwin version, as seen in the cartoon at the top. Yes, I know they're out of order, I wanted to lead with a colorful 'toon, OK?


Anyway, someone even more clever hit back with "Truth":

I should get got one of those!

My earlier "out of hand" remark is because there are many more designs available. Several are marketed toward obstreperous atheists, and some are marketed toward sci-fi loving virgin geeks. Even more can be had. Clutter!

So anyway. This is an appropriate celebration of getting my autographed copy of The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham replaced.

 
Here is an article from "Answers in Genesis":

In today’s secularized culture, we often hear people (particularly leftist humanists) demand what they call “tolerance.” Christians are often accused by these humanists of being “intolerant.” I have heard the accusation of “intolerance” against AiG and what we teach many times over the years.  However, what I have found is that usually those who call for what they call “tolerance” are extremely intolerant of the absolutes of Christianity. What they mean by “tolerance” is often a tolerance of all views that agree with theirs, but an intolerance of views that disagree with theirs.
Two interesting news items I read this week seem to illustrate this. It is also a sign of our increasingly secularized culture, with its growing anti-Christian sentiment.
The first item comes from the United Kingdom.

Nope, now you'll have to click and read the rest of the article at its source:

March 15, 2011

Persecution

Buon giorno. Wow, look at this! Persecution of Christians may be banned! Oh, wait — April 1988, Gorbachev was in power in the Soviet Union.

"Mistakes made with regard to the church and believers in the 1930s and the years that followed are being rectified. Our newspapers and magazines write about this with candor and objectivity," he said.

In his first formal reception of Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Pimen, Gorbachev also said believers "have the full right to express their conviction with dignity" and pledged the state would not interfere, according to the official Tass press agency.

Yeah, sure. It's on the books to have freedom of religion in post-Soviet Russia, but who reads the books? Sure, it's not as intense (right now) as in atheist and Islamic countries, but persecution still exists. And I wonder with the way that atheists and "humanists" keep challenging to interfere with the free exercise of religion in America (as well as leftists practically burning the Constitution), how long will it be before the same thing happens here? I'm going to continue to fight for my freedom, capice?

November 19, 2010

Loaded Verbal Gun

Buon giorno. I was going to use today for an article on how to give me hate mail, but this tripped my trigger. I have to do a boatload of qualifiers and disclaimers here. This appeared on my Twitter account (a thing I seldom use beyond autoposts), and I cannot reply to it while working. So, I cannot discuss it with the commenter before writing this. If he wants to lay claim to it in the comments section, he is welcome. Otherwise, I am assuming that he wants his privacy. So, today his name is going to be Lincoln Sears. He is an atheist, and I do know his name.

I do not know exactly what Mr. Sears means by his comment, and I am not going to put words in his mouth or assume that I know what he is thinking. (It's only fair, don't you think, Norman? Are you going to say that I faked that comment?) What I am going to do is use it for a springboard.

Wow, enough with the disclaimers and stuff. On to the fun!

I should point out that I have never been able to leave a comment at Answers in Genesis. Sure, I leave one occasionally on their Facebook page, but not their Weblog. It's frustrating, I know. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I've been around Algore's Amazing Internet (thanks to Chris Plante for that term) for a while now.

What got my attention, however, was Mr. Sears' use of the phrase "reasoned response". What comes to mind is a kind of "poisoning the well" fallacy by using loaded language, because the way it is used brings a couple of things to mind. First, that "religious" people are not rational or reasonable. Second, that only atheists are rational or reasonable. Never mind that some of the greatest minds in history have been "believers", I think they would be offended by being automatically excluded from the Thinking Humans Club.

By the way, Mr. Lincoln Sears could have used something outright inflammatory, which I also consider an attempt to poison the well with loaded terms. In my last post on persecution, a jerk called a Christian radio show and said that Christians who died for their beliefs were stupid because they were not rational, and they believe in "fairy tales". Someone who uses a term like "fairy tales" is accomplishing several things: Provoking an emotional response, showing his ignorance of the Bible by dismissing the entire thing, and he is showing that he is unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion.

How about if people asked the American Humanist Association for a rational approach by dropping their provocative antics? Sounds reasonable to me.

Mr Sears, hope I did not rile you, I gave all the disclaimers that I could think of. Feel free to leave a comment, or contact me if you want to remain anonymous.

November 18, 2010

Yet Another Atheist Attack

As always, I'm speaking in generalities, because I know of a few exceptions. People have the right to believe or disbelieve all they want, and I have said that repeatedly. So why does another's disbelief trump my belief? Why try to take that belief away? 

I keep hearing/seeing reading that modern atheists are oh so much smarter than the billions of people in the world who know that there is someone higher up than we are. They are especially smarter than us dumb stoopid xtians; just ask them. Do you know what this is? Can you handle the truth? It's religious bigotry.

So, why all the protests and other trouble-making? There is no valid reason to spam and troll Christian sites, even though these hypocrites claim to believe in "tolerance" and "free speech". It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that they could just go on about their business, being smugly self-assured, jeering in their atheist chat rooms and not doing a blasted thing to actually benefit their fellow humans. Instead, they have to build up their tiny egos by pulling down believers. What, too harsh? Then give me a better (believable!) explanation. In the mean time, read this article about their latest shenanigans. Attack, attack, attack. What a hurtful, hateful bunch. It must be embarrassing to the level-headed atheists. This bunch will pretend that they're superior, but they're not fooling us.

August 13, 2009

This Ain't Human

Buon giorno. While poking around some online forums and communities, I happened across a nest of "Humanists". Humanists are essentially atheists; they believe there is no God, and have antipathy for organized religions, especially Christianity. They'll use derogatory terms like "Xtians" and refer to "Jeebus", and are more than happy to tell you how much smarter they are than the millions of us who believe in a higher power.

They believe in "reason" and science, and constantly slam anything religious as being ignorance and superstition. As I constantly maintain, they do not bother to seriously examine the scientific basis for belief in God and the Bible. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been Christians, or "believers" to some degree (that is, being an atheist does not make you a better scientist).

What do Humanists stand for? Oh, they say that they believe in people, or humanity or whatever similar word you want. It's a bit difficult to determine their tenents, because they have nothing to direct them other then their own consciences and opinions. And everyone has their own opinions, so it looks like it would lead to anarchy.

But these people get so smug, I want to slap them. They worship reason, but their logic is faulty because it's based on preconceptions and emotion. The main one is, essentially, "If you're a believer, then you're an idiot". (Just like with Intelligent Design or Creation Science, they will put it down as being unscientific, but will not be able to discuss it because they have not had the intellectual honesty and integrity to investigate it.) And these smug cafones in one particular forum were gathering insults to use on believers. One was, "You remind me of myself, when I was young and stupid." Yep, that really shows their intellectual and moral superiority, doesn't it?

Let me ask you two questions, Captain Humanist: If you're so much smarter, or just plain better, than I am, why am I a threat to you? Why can't you just have a quiet self-assurance in your "rightness" and clam up? I think those are fair questions.

Addendum: Since words like "atheist" have negative connotations (ya think?), Richard "Daffy" Dawkins is suggesting that the term "bright" be used in its place. Yep, still have to slam everyone else because they're so much smarter than we are.

Subscribe in a reader